Category: Gun Rights

Joe has a very well done and in-depth post about the whole philosophical divide between the pragmatists and the hard liners.  I am actually not terribly against the “line in the sand” as a political philosophy.  After all, the Second Amendment is such a philosophy.  And if it ever came to a serious destruction of our rights, the “deal with us, or you get to deal with them” might be able to help arrive at a political solution.  What I am against is the current form of the hard line philosophy.  Like Joe, I just don’t see any reason to make a public spectacle when we’re still winning more than we’re losing.   That could change, and if it changes, my attitude toward hard liners might change with it.

I’m very happy to see that Jason, EVC for Pennsylvania’s 19th Congressional District, and fellow blogger, engaging in some smart activism:

But Jason Epperson, who lives in Spring Garden Township close to the city line, said the proposal won’t do any good unless criminals are prosecuted and jailed.

Show up to the meeting, get mentioned in the press.  That’s a good day as a pro-2A activist.  It looks like the City of York is aiming to pass an resolution, calling on the legislature to act, rather than an ordinance.  This is at least not a violation of state law.

But they are still promoting something that, even based on abstract legal theory is wrong. Straw purchasing is a crime in Pennsylvania. Transferring a handgun without going through an FFL or the County Sheriff is a crime in Pennsylvania. Both serious. If the state is unable to meet its burden in proving either of these crimes, lowering the burden is not an acceptable solution.

Many people, particularly poor people, who are more likely to live in bad neighborhoods where theft is a problem, who are unlikely to keep track of current developments in state law, are going to be the ones that end up unfairly prosecuted under these laws. Middle class people will report their guns stolen. They have insurance, and presumably feel good about the relationship between their community and its police force. That’s not true for all neighborhoods and all demographic groups.  The Second Amendment is not qualified with “the right of the middle and wealthy classes to keep and bear arms.”  It’s also a right for the guy stuck in a crappy, crime ridden neighborhood, and working two jobs to keep his family’s head above water.  Who can’t afford a lawyer, can’t afford a fine, who might not be aware of the law, and might not feel that remarkably comfortable talking to the police.  He should not be punished because he was the victim of a crime.

Apparently they’ve been peppering Childers district in Mississippi and Ensigns home state of Nevada with literature in an attempt to help them both get re-elected:

The measure, sponsored by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), was thwarted earlier this year in the House when Rep. Travis Childers (D-Miss.) attached an amendment to the bill that would loosen the city’s gun laws and lessen penalties for violating local gun laws.

The DC Vote advocacy group has spent the summer pumping Childers’ district with advertisements that denounce him for the amendment. It plans to continue the ads through September, adding a Nevada focus at some point to target Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), who sponsored a similar amendment to the Senate version of the bill.

Yes, I’m sure in Mississippi and Nevada that DC style gun control will be a very popular issue!  Go ahead and bring this turd back guys.  We’re ready with some polish.

The point man in Mexico’s war against the drug cartels has resigned:

Medina-Mora was an outspoken critic of U.S. gun laws, which he argued make it easy for drug gangs to acquire weapons across the border. He called for more aggressive prosecutions of criminals who smuggle guns into Mexico, saying the U.S. constitutional right to bear arms doesn’t protect them.

“The Second Amendment was not put there to arm foreign criminal groups,” he told The Associated Press during an interview in February.

Let’s hope his replacement is more interested in destroying the power of the cartels, and getting Mexico’s house in order, rather than lecturing the United States, which has much lower rates of crime and violence, about its gun laws.   I’m not optimistic though.

NRA has the details on who the council members are.  They are asking people to contact council members today.  The actual bill in question can be found here if anyone is interested.  The part of the ordinance that is illegal is here:

No person shall possess any items in the following categories:

1. noxious substances;
2. “contraband weapon, accessories and/or ammunition” as defined in Section 607.02 of the Pittsburgh City Code;
3. filtered gas masks or similar device designed to filter all air breathed and that would protect the respiratory tract and face against irritating, noxious or poisonous gases; or
4. any projectile launcher or other device that is commonly used for the purpose of launching, hurling, or throwing any object, liquid, or material or other substance

with the intent to use any of the said aforementioned items for the purpose of defeating removal upon receipt of official crowd dispersal orders. For the purpose of this Section, “noxious substance” includes but is not limited to animal or human waste, animal or human blood, rotten eggs, acid, gasoline, manufactured gases or sprays, and alcohol.

The problem is that Section 602.7 of the Pittsburgh Municipal Code was thrown off the books by the State Supreme Court as being a violation of state law and the state constitution.  It is, in effect unenforceable, and is so badly written as to cover pretty much any semi-automatic firearm as a contraband weapon.

There is no purpose in the City of Pittsburgh passing this legislation other than as another attempt to weaken and scoff at Pennsylvania’s preemption law.   The penalty for doing the prohibited acts is the same whether you’re in possession of a “contraband weapon” or not. Adding the highlighted section literally has no effect on the crime.  If you’re doing these acts with or without a weapon, you can be prosecuted under the same ordinance.  This is solely a jab at statewide preemption.

From Hudson County Sheriff Juan Perez:

t is most certain that handguns and other types of weapons only belong in the possession of law enforcement and military personnel. We lost a dedicated, professional and caring Jersey City officer in the person of Detective Marc DiNardo, slain by career criminals in possession of an automatic type of shotgun which was bought to our city from another part of the country. Certainly, these types of weapons should be prohibited from being manufactured, imported, or sold in the United States of America.

Emphasis mine.  So because New Jersey can’t keep dangerous people behind bars where they belong, the rest of us get to deal with not having pump shotguns (murder weapons) and handguns, both of which are highly useful at protecting ourselves against the same criminals that are murdering police officers.

Next quote from our token anti, MikeB:

Well, to them and to everyone else, I say guns are bad news for women. Those three great bloggers are the exceptions to the rule. The rule is, in America, too many women are at the mercy of too many men with guns.

Except women victims of murder are exceptions to the rule too.  80% of all homicides are committed against men.  It would seem to me that men have considerably more to fear in terms of being murdered than women do.  Nonetheless, women are the fastest growing demographic within the shooting community, and represent about 23% of the total shooting community.  So are these convincing enough statistics to keep MikeB from gender baiting in this debate?  Just because the Bradys do it too, doesn’t mean it’s a smart tactic.

UPDATE: Actually, of the 20% of women killed by homicide each year, women commit 10% of those murders.  When it comes to murder of intimates, 33% are committed with weapons other than firearms.  The gun homicide rate by gun of men onto women has been dropping precipitously since the 1990s, while the rate of non-gun homicide by intimates has actually increased.

We thank MikeB for answering in the comments, on my challenge to show me how to solve the straw purchase problem without making guns illegal:

I’d say better record keeping which is not limited to the individual FFL guys, and a system of licensing gun owners and registering guns. As was pointed out on my blog by yourself, these things are not objectionable because of the inconvenience. You’ve helped me to understand my position better. Your objections are two things really, government involvement, the libertarian objection for lack of a better term, and the possibility that such initiatives will eventually lead to gun confiscation. I say if we want to do something about the gun flow into the criminal world, gun owners would have to accept both of those.

Understanding that if police recover a gun from a crime scene, we already have enough registration to trace the gun to the last legal purchaser within a matter of hours, typically.  The Pennsylvania State Police have made a computerized database of all the gun purchases conducted in the state going back to the mid 1990s.  They can look up in a second to see all the pistols I own.   And yet, I’m told we have a huge straw purchasing problem in Pennsylvania, such that I have to acquiesce to rationing and reporting requirements to fix the problem.  Pennsylvania passed handgun restrictions, including a waiting period, in the 1930s.  That didn’t fix the problem.  In the 90s, we computerized the system, and overhauled the prohibited person statutes, and gave law enforcement additional tools.  That didn’t fix the problem.  The the state police created a database of all gun purchases.  We took them to court because that was supposed to be illegal in Pennsylvania, and we lost.  And that didn’t fix the problem.

California has a registration requirement, and California is still, overwhelmingly, the largest source of traced guns recovered in California.Illinois has a licensing requirement, and Chicago a registration requirement, with handguns just being plain illegal, and Illinois still is the largest source, over 50% of its own traced guns.

So no, we don’t have to accept both of these, because they don’t work.  If they did, California wouldn’t be clamoring to enact ever greater restrictions in a futile attempt to fix the problem, and Chicago wouldn’t be desperately and bitterly clinging to their unworkable gun ban.   Marko even had a great post this week about why even prohibition won’t really work.  So you don’t really get to tell us we have to accept certain things when you can’t offer evidence that they work, and we can offer plenty of evidence that they do not.

I think Louisiana should change their state abbreviation to LO from LA.  I heard about a sales tax weekend in LA last night from NRA News on Twitter.  For a second I thought California was turning around on the gun issue.

From the Contra Costa Times:

From pocket-size assault weapons and sniper rifles that can kill a man a mile-and-a-half away to incendiary armor-piercing bullets, you can find what you’re looking for at gun shows across the United States.

You know the article is going to be a doozy when it starts out like this.  Pocket-size assault weapons?  I’ve never seen one of those, personally, but I suspect they are talking about the Magpul FMG 9, which appeared at SHOT.  Aside from being a submachine gun rather than an assault weapon, it’s not legal to sell to civilians. But why let facts get in the way?

In hidden-camera photos and videos captured by researchers at the University of California, Davis, men roamed gun shows with assault rifles slung over their shoulders and pistols tucked in their belts, available for sale with no waiting period, background check or paper trail.

Yes, because outside of California, where Wintenmute does his “research”, it’s legal to sell a firearms in a private sale if you’re not “engaged in the business” of selling them.  If you’re selling firearms at a gun show as a gun dealer, you need a federal license, and the background checks for transfers.  Conveniently left out is the fact that this is the case whether you’re at a guns show or not.  Just last week I bought an M1903 Springfield from a guy I shoot with under the same “loophole.”  No gun show involved.

“California is a good example of the fact that you can regulate gun commerce … without putting (gun shows) out of business,” Wintemute said.

He said he almost never saw individual sales or straw buys in California. But large gun shows take place in Reno and Phoenix.

Well, let’s take a look at California, and compare to states that border it, all of which have gun laws that are considerably less strict, and none of which regulate private sales of firearms at gun shows or anywhere else.  California’s violent crime rate is 523 per 100,000.  The combined violent crime rates of Arizona, Nevada and Oregon are 468 per 100,000.   The burden ought to be on those who advocate limiting people’s freedom, to show that their policies will actually make the public safer.  They’ve never been able to demonstrate that it does.

So the Post-Gazette says:

We would be the first to concede that the gun provisions are legally dubious, given that in this case — regrettably — state law would seem to preempt anything Pittsburgh might enact. Empowering the police to be mind readers of intent is also troublesome. City Council should tread warily when these proposals are discussed in chambers tomorrow and a sunset provision would be reasonable.

So it’s questionably legal, but the Post-Gazette will support it anyway, because police can’t be mind readers.  I guess that means they can’t be expected to delineate between peaceful and non-peaceful protesters too, so we might as well just tear gas them all!

I can understand Pittsburgh’s concerns about the G-20.  These meetings attract all manner of violent, idiotic people.  But I what I’ve failed to understand is what the City Council is trying to accomplish with this ban.  Either someone is engaging in riotous behavior, or they aren’t.  Police are legally permitted to use deadly force against rioters under Pennsylvania law, and I would certainly agree that use of deadly force against rioting protesters with guns would be justified.  I’m just not sure what extra power the City of Pittsburgh thinks this will give them that they don’t already have.  Protesting peacefully is lawful.   Rioting behavior is unlawful.  If there’s people planning to riot at the G-20 with guns, I’m not sure they are going to care all that much that the City of Pittsburgh says you can only riot as long as you’re not carrying 67 models of firearms.