All posts by Carl Bussjaeger

Author: Net Assets, Bargaining Position, The Anarchy Belt, and more

Chicago sez: “Do as we do, because it works so well.”

Chicago mayoral candidate Gery Chico has a plan to fix Chiraq’s little “gun violence” problem: Force Indiana and Wisconsin to inflict Illinois-style victim-disarmament laws on their citizens, suing them if necessary.

‘If we can’t get Indiana and Wisconsin to work with us, we sue ’em’
Chico said more than 60 percent of guns recovered from crime scenes in Chicago arrive from out of state. Previous reports have attributed the largest share—19 percent—to Indiana, which allows gun owners to sell their weapons without background checks or a record of the sale.

I wonder what percentage originated in-state, from felons equipped with FOIDs?

I mean…

A federal class-action suit filed here last fall said 40 percent of firearm-related crimes in Chicago involved guns imported from the suburbs.

The number crime guns originating in Illinois — immediately around your bright shining city — is more than twice as much as those coming from the next leading state?

Let’s jump down that rabbit hole.

According to that report, 40.4% of Chicago’s crime guns do come from a single state: Illinois. The next closest is Indiana at 21.0% almost half IL’s contribution. From there, the next state is Mississippi at 5.1%, ahead of Wisconsin’s diminutive  4.0%. I wonder why he ignores MS? That state doesn’t have deep enough pockets to pick?

How much will the Indiana numbers jump if they were to adopt Illinois’ oh-so-successful model?

Chicago’s problem is Illinois. Maybe Chico should sue the State Police for giving felons FOIDs so they can buy those guns.

He passed the background check when he bought the gun, so I guess his felony was never properly entered into NICS.

What it looks like is that Illinois has created a a system for felons (or other prohibited persons) to verify whether or not they’re in NICS for just 10 bucks and no consequences.

“Hey, look, Jaquan. I got my FOID. My record didn’t make it into NICS. I’m clean.”

“Cool, bro. Here’s a grand. Go buy guns for the gang.”

 

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Let’s Ex Parte!

Ah, the fad for Extreme Risk Ex Parte Protective orders. You know, I shall henceforth refer to them as EPPOs.

Supposedly, these are to get guns out the hands of “dangerous” people, but the fact is that every state already has laws — for years — that allow that. The only thing EPPOs “add” is stripping away due process, through ex parte “star chamber” proceedings with the subject not even being aware of the accusation until the cops show up to steal his property. That’s the point.

Besides ex parte proceedings stripping away human/civil rights being morally repugnant, that don’t meet the federal definition of due process, which requires a hearing with the accused before the rights-stripping. (You hear that, NRA?)

So yes, I oppose EPPOs. But allow me to make a little suggestion. This isn’t actually being offered as a compromise, just a thought experiment to see how the victim-disarmers react. Let’s modify the basic “ERPO.”


The individual applying for an EPPO shall, in addition to any court/filing fees, post a $10,000 bond.

When the ex parte hearing is held, the judge shall either issue the order or deny it.

  • If the order is denied, $5,000 of the bond will be delivered to the subject of the EPPO application, in restitution for the attempted infringement of the subject’s rights. The subject will be informed of the denied application and the identity of the accuser.
  • If the order is issued, $10,000 will be delivered to the subject when the police remove the firearms.

If the order is issued, the after-the-fact appeal better-late-than-never-due-process hearing will be heard by a judge other than the judge who issued the order, who has no conflict of interest in case.

If that judge does not uphold the original order, the first judge who issued the order will be suspended from the bench without pay and criminally charged under 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law. A civil judgement will be entered against the offending judge ordering him to pay the subject of the order $10,000.

In any case, the subject of the order keeps the original $10,000 in restitution for the rights-violation which occurred before he had a hearing. No shall the subject of the order incur any court costs, filing fees, or fines; and all of the subject’s legal expenses will be borne by the party who applied for the rights-violation.

None of the restitution paid to the subject in this process shall be construed as disallowing additional compensation awarded through other civil or criminal proceedings.


OK, victim-disarmers. Put up or shut up. Is it your goal to protect people from themselves, or to make cheap, anonymous SWATting of gun owners legal?

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

This is why the people must be armed

“The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would certainly shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did.”
James Madison, The Federalist #46

You want to see tyranny? We got your tyranny.

The Green Raw Deal.

Ocasio-Cortez may be backtracking and trying to disavow her too-truthful “FAQ,” but it was published on her own site and the metadata lists Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, as the author. The FAQ is consistent with the House Resolution she also published. The FAQ is simply a little blunter in stating their end goals.

If implemented, the GRD would fund the enslavement of the nation through hyperinflation. You would work for the government, or in whatever remaining government-approved jobs might survive her purge. You would live in approved government housing, subsisting on a vegetarian diet for as long as the food held out. Not long, since the nation’s power infrastructure would be gutted. But you might freeze to death in the winter first, as the wind gennie-powered electric heaters sit idle.

What land isn’t needed for “renewable energy” factories spewing out corrosive, toxic sludge that would horrify even the Chinese would be “afforested.”

Ocasio-Cortez and her merry band of psychopathic slavers have a plan for us that makes Ayn Rand’s Anthem look bright and cheery.

Of course the left-wing greenweenies want to disarm us. They learned that much of a lesson from Venezuela. And Stalin.

Compliance rates with their little registration and turn-in programs are already laughable. Do they expect better compliance now that they’ve explicity told what they mean to do to us?

I think not.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Nevada Legislative Alert

Nevada Firearms Coalition
NVFAC Urgent Alert

When the current legislature was elected, a majority of the members as well as the governor were of the same party which had made anti gun legislation promises during their campaigns. We knew we were in for a tough fight to protect our rights, but we felt we would be entitled to have the regular legislative process in place.

Yesterday we learned that the majority party is suspending the rules of the legislature by announcing a bill late in the day on Monday February 11th and then having a joint hearing on the bill the very next day. We also learned that a Bloomberg group had been notified earlier and is planning a demonstration on the day of the hearing. All this was done in secret to keep the Second Amendment supporters in the dark and preventing public testimony that would be contrary to their gun control efforts.

This process cannot be tolerated in a Constitutional Republic. Please let your legislators know that you do not approve of this tactic and request that the regular rules of the legislature be immediately restored. Also go to our web page at www.nvfacpac.org and sign up for our legislative alerts.

The hearing for this bill will be held at 8 am on February 12 in Carson City and the Grant Sawyer Building in Las Vegas. The hearing will be one hour for pro testimony, one hour for con testimony, one hour for neutral testimony and then public testimony. NVFAC and NRA-ILA will be testifying at the Con testimony. You are urged to attend and testify at the “public comment” session which will start after the neutral testimony. If you are able to attend but can’t or don’t want to testify, please sign in under the “opposed” category. Numbers count and you are important.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

When is a gun not a gun?

When it isn’t a gun.

When I saw this report…

How Academy Sports Could Be At Fault For Sutherland Springs Because Of A Firearm Accessory
A state district judge in San Antonio ruled Monday that relatives of the victims of the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs can sue Academy Sports, the Katy-based sporting goods chain that sold the shooter the rifle he used in the 2017 attack.

… I expected BS. When I saw this…

Timothy Lytton, professor at Georgia State University College of Law, says this could have implications nationwide because the judge ruled that Academy broke a federal law.

… I knew I’d found it. I happen to be familiar with Lytton, from correspondence last year.* Lytton has expressed outrage that: “Designs include handguns and semi-automatic assault-style weapons. Federal background check laws applicable to the physical sale of firearms do not apply to the electronic posting of digital blueprints”.

Mainly because electronic files aren’t firearms. He could never quite grasp that point. And while he seems vaguely aware of NICS, he’s a little hazy on other laws: “Since the 1980s, anyone can purchase the most lethal of firearms
free from all legal restrictions.”

W. T. F?

But this comment he made in a column last year is very, very important to our current discussion.

“Gun parts – as opposed to whole guns – are not subject to any of the federal regulations that govern firearms sales. No federal license is necessary to sell gun parts. And no background check is needed to purchase them.”

Gun parts. That’s… partially true. AR lowers, drop-in auto sears, and any receiver more than 80% complete require an FFL to sell commercially (and in the case of the DIAS, NFA applies). The ATF famously once classified a shoestring as an NFA-regulated machinegun.

But not magazines.

Which brings us to the Academy Sports “negligence” lawsuit. Academy Sports in Texas sold an AR with a 30-round magazine to the shooter-to-be, who presented himself (complete with ID) as a Colorado resident. The buyer passed a NICS check (thanks, negligent USAF). The magazine — unlawful in Colorado, which is why Magpul left the state — is the basis of the suit.

Texas judge lets Sutherland Springs church shooting victims sue gun retailer
The plaintiffs reportedly argue that the chain was liable for the shooting because employees at its retailer in San Antonio sold Kelley a high-capacity magazine that was illegal in his home state of Colorado.

The two sides reportedly sparred at a hearing Thursday over whether the federal definition of a firearm includes any magazine sold with it, and whether a Colorado law that bans the sale of high-capacity magazines applies to Colorado residents who make the purchase in Texas.

There was no need for “sparring.” The judge should have tossed the suit with a sneer.

The applicable federal regarding interstate long gun sales is 18 U.S. Code § 922(b)(3):

(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

“Any firearm,” not any “firearm part,” or “accessory.” The ATF regulates AR lowers by calling them firearms. Drop-in auto sears are “machineguns.” How does federal law define “firearm,” or “rifle” in this case?

26 U.S. Code § 5845(c) Rifle
The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.

No mention of magazine there. No “or any ammunition feeding device for same.”

Nor here:

18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(3)
The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

So federal law defines firearms and rifles, but doesn’t mention magazines as a part of either. In this case, we have to fall back on state law.

Does Colorado — the formal state of residence of the shooter — call magazines “firearms” in state law?

18-1-901 Definitions
(2)(h) “Firearm” means any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.

No magazine there. In fact, 18-1-901(2)(e) makes it clear that that a firearm is a firearm whether or not it is loaded:

(e) “Deadly weapon” means:

(I) A firearm, whether loaded or unloaded;  or

The magazine is extraneous to the firearm.

Let’s go a little deeper into Colorado law. Colorado does separately define large-capacity magazine.

18-12-301. Definitions
(2) (a) “Large-capacity magazine” means:
(I) A fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip, or similar device capable of accepting, or that is designed to be readily converted to accept, more than fifteen rounds of ammunition;
(II) A fixed, tubular shotgun magazine that holds more than twenty-eight inches of shotgun shells, including any extension device that is attached to the magazine and holds additional shotgun shells; or
(III) A nontubular, detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip, or similar device that is capable of accepting more than eight shotgun shells when combined with a fixed magazine.
(b) “Large-capacity magazine” does not mean:
(I) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than fifteen rounds of ammunition;
(II) An attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or
(III) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

To Colorado, “large-capacity” magazines are a thing unto themselves, not firearms.

18 U.S. Code § 922(b)(3) restricts the interstate sales of firearms. It does not restrict the sale — interstate or intrastate — of accessories, whether scopes, slings, muzzle brakes, or magazines — which even Colorado doesn’t consider firearms. It simply doesn’t apply. Right, Prof. Lytton? (“Gun parts – as opposed to whole guns – are not subject to any of the federal regulations that govern firearms sales.”)

While Colorado statute 18-12-302 generally bans possession of “large-capacity” magazines themselves, I have to question whether that law would apply outside of Colorado.

Out of state? Of an object that was never alleged to have been in Colorado?

“Gun parts – as opposed to whole guns – are not subject to any of the federal regulations that govern firearms sales.”

Now I wonder why Lytton didn’t tell Ms. Covington that, instead of suddenly deciding magazines are firearms, contrary to actual law.


* From there, Lytton devolved into incorrectly describing the outcome of a lawsuit revolving about “MAC-10s,” misstating my positions, and evading nearly every question I asked. I can make copies of our exchange publicly available should he wish to dispute my account.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Stupid Enemies, Part II

Last week, we saw an idiot enter a bill to make violating the Undetectable Firearms Act illegal. Now I think I need to add a “Department of Redundacy Department” category to our Gun Culture Primer.

Illinois state Sen. Julie Morrison has filed an “assault weapon” ban bill, SB 107. It’s the usual, with grandfathering of registered “assault weapons,” which can then be transferred only to an heir or out of state.

I always like to see just what gets defined as an “assault weapon.” This one includes a doozy.

(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
[…]
(ii) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock;

Most folks call that a short-barrel rifle (SBR), and it’s an NFA item that already has to be registered. And Illinois regulates the heck out of them.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

For the utter stupidity of our enemy, let us thank G-d

I was going to include this in next week’s alert newsletter, but it’s so monumentally moronic, it needs to be addressed here, too.

Seeking to ban ‘undetectable’ guns, Rep. Madeleine Dean proposes law
The current law “does not adequately address today’s technologies or security risks,” said Dean, who represents Montgomery County. “Today, we face a more pressing issue — firearms made entirely of plastic, or with so much plastic that they fall below the current law’s detection standard.”

“…with so much plastic that they fall below the current law’s detection standard.”

@RepDean actually did it. She filed a bill to make it illegal to violate the Undetectable Firearms Act (18 U.S.C. § 922(p)).

If the firearm doesn’t contain 3.7 ounces of steel, the maker has committed a felony. Ms. Dean’s bill would make it illegal to commit that felony.

If a plastic firearm doesn’t show up on airport x-ray, the maker has committed a felony. Ms. Dean’s bill would make it illegal to commit that felony.

To be sure of the latter, one could add barium sulfate to the plastic mix, but it really isn’t necessary. While this fact is apparently unknown to materials scientist Dean, doctors, nurses, veterinarians, parents, and anyone else who has had to deal with a child or pet who swallowed a plastic toy — heck, anyone who did a cursory web search of weird pictures — is well aware that…

Yes, plastic shows up in x-rays.

I don’t have the bill number, much less the text. I’ve asked Rep. Dean for that information. But I think it’s fair enough to take her at her own word.

Added: Here it is: H.R. 869: To modernize the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. No summary or text yet. 14 co-sponsors, including Jackson Lee and Swalwell; actually, it’s a regular list of the dimmest of Dems.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Interview with Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA

A couple of months ago, I received a form response (in reply to my email regarding reciprocal carry) from Senator Johnny “Crickets” Isakson, the new nickname earned through his silence when questioned about his actual RKBA positions. The Senator noted that he was a co-sponsor of that bill, which I already knew, but avoided saying what he might do to advance it.

But his form letter did tell me something else.

“I firmly believe that we do not need more gun control in America; rather, we need more criminal control. To that end, I support instant background checks on the purchase of all guns to prevent convicted felons from obtaining them, but I do not support waiting periods or the registration of any firearm.”
— Senator Johnny Isakson [R-GA], December 14, 2018, A rated by the NRA, A- by the GOA.

At that point, several Democrats had said that they would be filing bills to implement “universal background checks.” Since Isakson is on record supporting that, I decided a proper interview on the subject was in order. I sent his office a list of questions on January 3, 2019.

Receiving no response, not even an automated acknowledgement, I followed up on 1/9/2019. And again on 1/13/2019. Then on 1/15/2019. At long last, on 1/22/2019, I received a reply. I sent a request for clarification or expansion of his statement. No reply.

Let the interview begin.

1. How would you respond to those who say background checks, a requirement that a buyer preemptively prove his innocence, are a prior restraint on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right?

-crickets-

2. Research shows that approximately 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained through unlawful channels bypassing background checks (private sales between non-prohibited persons without background checks are not one of the unlawful channels). How will you shut down the unlawful transactions, thus forcing those people to turn to lawful channels and background checks?

-crickets-

3. At least 93% of NICS denials turn out to be false positives, and there is currently a backlog of tens of thousands of denial appeals. How will you fix the false positive problem, which can only increase the backlog as private sales are forced to turn to NICS?

-crickets-

4. There is an unknown, but large, false negative problem with NICS; prohibited persons listed in NICS still passing background checks. How will you fix that?

-crickets-

5. A 2017 study showed that “We cannot conclude that states that regulate private gun sales have a higher, or lower, gun homicide rate.” California, with universal background checks as part of the most comprehensive gun control laws in the country, saw an 18% increase in firearms homicides from 2014 to 2016. How would federally imposed universal background checks work better?

-crickets-

Other legislation has been entered or seems likely:

Graham has introduced an “Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO/”red flag”) bill would you support that? If so, why; and how would you respond to those who say that “preemptive” orders with after the fact “due process” are unconstitutional bills of attainder?

-crickets-

Do you support or oppose a ban on bump-fire stocks, and why? Do you consider the recent rule change making bump-fire stocks “machineguns” to be lawful?

-crickets-

Do you support or oppose national reciprocal carry, and why?

“In the 116thCongress, I have again cosponsored the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This commonsense legislation would protect the rights of law-abiding citizens with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state with concealed carry laws, while abiding by that state’s laws.”

An answer! A form reply, but something.

Do you support or oppose removing suppressors/silencers from National Firearms Act regulation, and why?

-crickets-

Do you support or oppose raising the minimum purchasing for rifles and shotguns from 18yo, why?

-crickets-

Do you support or oppose a ban on any class of firearms, such as “assault weapons,” and why?

-crickets-

Is there any other firearms-related legislation you would support or oppose?

-crickets-

About all I can establish about Senator Crickets’ positions is that he’ll eventually sign on to reciprocal carry but not carry through (or it might have at least come to a floor vote last session), and that he wants ineffective, expensive prior restraint of rights through preemptively-prove-your-innocence background checks whose only real purpose can be to assemble 4473’s to identify gun owners and their firearms.

Sadly, Georgia and the nation are stuck with him until the 2022 elections.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

CDC is at it again: School Homicides

On January 25, 2019, the CDC released a report on school homicide trends.

Characteristics of School-Associated Youth Homicides — United States, 1994–2018
The overall 22-year trend for single-victim homicide rates did not change significantly. However, multiple-victim incidence rates increased significantly from July 2009 to June 2018.
[…]
Overall, media reports were solely relied upon for coding demographic and circumstantial details for 80 (18.6%) of 431 incidents.

Sounds bad, doesn’t it? But…

First off, their own Table 2 gives different incident numbers. In text, they claim 431. Table 2 says says 393 single-victim incidents and 33 multi-victim incidents. That’s only 426 total incidents. So right from the start, I take issue with their “data.”

Moving on…

In fact, eyeballing that chart, single-victim incidents/deaths… appear to trend downward, from roughly .052/100K to around .034/100K; a difference of .018/100K. That’s a drop of almost 35%, which strikes me as significant.

Multi-victim incidents — over the entire period — have increased (eyeballing again) from the neighborhood of .004/100K to .010/100K.

Deaths in multi-victim incidents definitely seem to have increased significantly, from around .002/100K to .048/100K.

Now allow me to explain why that is absolutely meaningless.

By their own admission, at least 47.42% of these school incidents did not occur at school or at a school-related event. I have to guess at the number of non-school incidents. They tell us that there were 33 total multi-victims incidents. They tell us 10 people died in non-school multi-victim incidents. But they never tell us. How many non-school incidents there were. To be “multi-victim,” I’ll assume a minimum of 2, so there may have been 5 multi-victim non-school incidents. Or it could be as low as 2 incidents. Either way, nearly half the “school homicides” weren’t at school.

By their own admission, 210 people –40.85% — of the victims were not killed at school or at a school-related event.

I was hoping to find a breakout of weapons type by incident location. They don’t do that. So I went looking at their references to see if I could find the data myself. But when I saw this…

2016–17 and 2017–18 multiple-victim cases were identified through manual Internet searches using phrases such as “school shooting” and “multiple victims and school,” as well as supplementary review of web-based firearm injury data sets (i.e., Everytown for Gun Safety and the Gun Violence Archive) to identify cases matching the School-Associated Violent Death Surveillance System case definition for multiple-victim youth homicides.

Everytown for Gun Safety. Regular readers may recall that I like to play find the school shooting with Everytown’s alleged school shootings list. When I started almost a year ago, only 71% of their “school shootings” were in fact school shootings by their own definition. The last time I checked, only 40% of the listing met their own definition. At least one “shooting” hadn’t occurred at all; anywhere.

Since the CDC compiled their “school-related” homicide data from a source which gets that wrong 60% of the time, I am forced to assume that the numbers I get from this report are worse than we thought. Nearly half of these researchers’ school incidents aren’t. And the one’s that they do claim happened at school… come from sources that invent fake listings.

Dear Bog: a fake report based on fake stats based on fake news. This error-ridden CDC report on school homicides really needs to be retracted. Their discussion cites numbers that differ from their own tables, they claim one trend is insignificant when it’s actually a 35% reduction (by their own numbers), nearly half their “school-related” incidents aren’t school-related by their own data, and they used a source known to have an error rate of as much as 60%. We paid Holland $106,380 a year for this garbage?

There was a reason for the Dickey Amendment, and we obviously need to keep the CDC out of this.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Let’s look a little closer at my “Baker Act” suggestion

Tuesday, I wondered why the VNRA was pushing “red flag” laws with “due process” instead of a Florida style Baker Act. After all, the Baker Act allows due process before the subject’s Second Amendment right are suspended.

In comments, JdL asked a very reasonable question.

But I’m not crazy about your proposed substitute. Why do we need any law that snatches someone off the street who has not committed any crime?

It’s a trap for the VNRA.

Proponents of red flag/ERPOs claim their only concern is getting guns away from dangerous people.

The VNRA — who backtracked slightly after the uproar over their support — claim they don’t want dangerous people to have guns, but that due process is needed. Except when it isn’t.

“I have been working with members of the Assembly and Senate to ensure they fully understand the dangers of poorly drafted red flag legislation and the due process violations that come with.”

If safety is the real motivator for these laws, “Baker Act” type laws would seem to be a better fit with the Constitution, although still problematical in its preemptive (“pre-crime“) aspect.

And therein lies my trap. For victim disarmers, whether Giffords Law Center or the Vichy National Rifle Association.

Every state and the District of Columbia already has Baker Act or equivalent laws on the books. And they’ve survived judicial scrutiny. They allow due process before permanent (or long-term) loss of rights. They provide tools to take people into custody, with probable cause as opposed to anonymous complaints, to determine if they are a danger to themselves or others.

I’m proposing nothing more than using existing laws that allow due process and do what these people claim to want.

The only thing ERPOs do that current laws and tools don’t do is violate human/civil rights without due process, with no notice. Anonymously. And then leave the possibly now angered subjects on the loose with access to other lethal weapons.

“Baker Act” style laws require probable cause for someone to be taken in evaluation (officer called, notes person behaving strangely), then a doctor establishes probable cause for committal hearing (yep, he’s crazy), then a due process hearing is held for a judge to make the determination, at which point 2A rights can be suspended.

ERPOs skip all the probable cause and due process and go straight to rights violation. As others have noted, ERPOs are just legalized SWATting.

There’s a reason they call them “red flag” laws.

So, please NRA, explain again why you back unconstitutional new laws when these tools are already in every states’ toolbox?

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail