Tag Archives: gun control

Gun Controllers, Shut Up and Listen For a Few Minutes

The Parkland high school mass murderer appears to have been a prohibited person, unable to lawfully purchase firearms, who was never reported to NICS.

Sound familiar?

Yes, I know; you’re enjoying your dance in the blood of the Parkland innocents. This looks like the perfect time to call for more restrictions on rights because people are upset. You think this one proves people can’t be trusted, and more laws will fix everything.

After all, who really needs a gun when the government is there to protect you, eh?

I’ve already discussed why you shouldn’t be targeting the tens of millions who didn’t do it. But I know those innocent millions are exactly who you’re afraid of (“Gee, what do they want to do to us, that they need us unarmed?” he wondered rhetorically.)

And NO. Genocide and ethnic cleansing really wouldn’t go down the way you hope. Drop it.

So let’s look at all the legal loopholes that need plugging; the ones you pretend allowed the Parkland horror to happen. Let’s see how well government protected those students and faculty.

Asshole T. Chumbucket (what; you thought I’d give him the notoriety he wanted by naming the SOB?) had quite the history according media reports.

  • He had been suspended from school multiple times for violence, acts of destruction, and weapons violations; incidents going back at least as far as the seventh grade. He was apparently never arrested.
  • Law enforcement was called to his home 39 times in seven years, for threats, harassment, vandalism, and window-peeping. He was apparently never arrested.
  • He was expelled from school for another act of violence. He was apparently never arrested.

Offhand, I’d say the first few dozen failures here were not “weak” gun laws. I’m looking at law enforcement and the school system. That probably explains why both the sheriff and school superintendent are trying to deflect attention by screaming for… Yeah, more gun control laws.

But wait! as the commercial narrator said. There’s more.

The Sun-Sentinel obtained a Department of Children & Familes (DCF) investigative report from September 2016 after the murderer-to-be cut himself on Snapchat.

“Mr. Cruz has fresh cuts on both his arms. Mr. Cruz stated he plans to go out and buy a gun. It is unknown what he is buying the gun for,” the DCF report reads.

But that didn’t really raise any red flags. Of course not. Why worry about a violent and self destructive guy getting a gun?

[The shooter’s mother] said her son did not have a firearm. She said she had confiscated his air gun because he didn’t follow house rules about only shooting it “within the backyard and at targets.”

And the little fact that his mother didn’t even trust him with an airgun still didn’t raise eyebrows.

Apparently DCF joins the line of government agencies getting paid to protect and declining to bother. Maybe Florida taxpayers should skip paying and just burn the government’s “share” for heat; less administrative overhead, and they’d get something for it.

But here’s where things get interesting. The investigation by DCF came after chumboy turned eighteen, after he became a legal adult, after he normally wouldn’t be under their jurisdiction. Why?

Cruz came under DCF’s supervision and care because he was classified as a vulnerable adult due to mental illness.

How does one go about getting “classified” as a “vulnerable adult” in Florida? Does some concerned citizen merely call DCF, who immediately declares him such?

Well, they can in certain emergency situations. Even though the cutting was done, that might count…

…but they came out to investigate because he was already a “vulnerable adult.”

Let me tell you how one gets classed as a “vulnerable adult” in Florida:

If the department has reasonable cause to believe that a vulnerable adult or a vulnerable adult in need of services is being abused, neglected, or exploited and is in need of protective services but lacks the capacity to consent to protective services, the department shall petition the court for an order authorizing the provision of protective services.

Petition the court? And how does that work?

1. The court shall set the case for hearing within 14 days after the filing of the petition. The vulnerable adult and any person given notice of the filing of the petition have the right to be present at the hearing. The department must make reasonable efforts to ensure the presence of the vulnerable adult at the hearing.

2. The vulnerable adult has the right to be represented by legal counsel at the hearing. The court shall appoint legal counsel to represent a vulnerable adult who is without legal representation.

A hearing before a judge, with advance notice, and legal representation. Remember those; it’s important.

(d) Hearing findings.–If at the hearing the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the vulnerable adult is in need of protective services and lacks the capacity to consent, the court may issue an order authorizing the provision of protective services.

Apparently a judge adjudicated the asshole to be mentally incompetent due to mental illness. TZP members saw where this was going some paragraphs back. I’ll explain for similarly mentally incompetent media types and other victim disarmers.

18 U.S. Code § 922
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
[…]
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution

So A. Fishbait was a prohibited person, unable to lawfully possess a firearm. To be a client of DCF he had to be to be mentally deficient.

So why wasn’t he reported to NICS, which could then have denied his rifle purchase? Did Florida simply not know about The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007?

The NIAA was enacted in the wake of the April 2007 shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to purchase firearms from an FFL because information about his prohibiting mental health history was not available to the NICS, and the system was therefore unable to deny the transfer of the firearms used in the shootings. The NIAA seeks to address the gap in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds. Filling these information gaps will better enable the system to operate as intended, to keep guns out of the hands of persons prohibited by federal or state law from receiving or possessing firearms.

In case you media and other rights violators have forgotten, another bucket of chum was able to kill 32 people and wound 17 more (at a school) because Virginia authorities neglected to report him. NIAA fixed that “loophole” that let governments screw up.

We don’t need more human/civil rights-violating laws. No “assault weapons” bans. No licensing, registrations, “improved” preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraints.

We need the schools, cops, DCF, and whoever the heck was responsible for reporting to do the freaking jobs they’re sucking taxpayer money to currently not do.

Let’s close the government “I’m too lazy to bother” loophole. Then the FBI’s “What? Multiple credible reports of a named threat? I’m too busy going to Starbucks” loophole — which likewise needs to be closed by closing the FBI — wouldn’t have mattered either.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



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

Never Again

I posted a column on my personal blog yesterday. While it was about “gun control,” I thought the tone and expletives made it inappropriate for The Zelman Partisans blog, where I’m a guest. I was angry when I wrote it.

But overnight, a comment on it was posted that makes it germane to the mission of TZP.

In the past, I have posted here about gun people controllers’ screeching for vague or redundant “new” laws to violate human/civil rights. I ask these 18 U.S. Code § 241 lawsuit candidates to be specific as to what solutions they want imposed, instead of whining, “We need common since laws.”

Someone  got specific.

So, there’s the first solution. Universal healthcare. Make healthy choice the norm rather than being a country that waits until a sickness is unbearable before seeking treatment.

OK, that’s still a bit general, and it doesn’t seem to have worked particularly well in other countries.

There’s something to the shooters being straight white men. Hellooooo, elephant in the room.

Beg pardon? And what does this person suggest doing about those “straight white men”?

So, an actual second solution. Do away with the old guard. People over the age of 55, for the most part, are only looking out for #1.

Genocide. Ethnic cleansing. Eliminating everyone over the age of fifty-five.

Getting rid of everyone over 55yo? That’s roughly 75,000,000 people. Sheesh, Hitler and Stalin were pikers compared to Little Miss Genocide here. But that might make her “universal healthcare” workable; Dr. Zeke Emmanuel thought well of it; when advising on Obamacare, he proposed limiting and cutting off care when people got too old.

Personally, I’m strongly opposed to genocide, hence my affillation with The Zelman Partisans. But if that’s your thing, maybe you should consider other target demographics than “straight white men,” or everyone over 55. Take a look at the UCR data on killer age and race. If you’re into ethnic cleansing, you could start with the 5% of US counties that account for nearly all murders.

Pro Tip: If you want people to give up their guns, don’t tell them you want them dead.

Pro Tip 2: So long as evil like that exists, so will groups like The Zelman Partisans who work to make sure it can’t, that everyone can choose defense.

Never Again.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Your……Call

I recently ran across some article that just seem to fit together. And while the country wasn’t America, the discussions are certainly ones that have taken place in America.

The article that caught my eye was in an Israeli newspaper. I know, you’re dumbfounded, right?

It’s about a group of German women that are rising up against the government. Quite similar to the American protest in that it’s women protesting their treatment at the hands of men. While American women walk around with silly pink hats on their heads and offensive signs to show how liberated and feminist they are, they protest against (mostly it seems) about the election of a man who “said bad things”. Mind you they do this marching around fully in the daylight and in the open. They know as long as they don’t break any laws they won’t have any problems. So you can tell they are very brave in speaking out. Yes, I’m being sarcastic #NoForcedHijab. Even that paragon of courage Linda Sarsour didn’t go to Iran to support her sisters as they protest having been forced to wear a hijab.

No, the German women’s protest is quite different.

Women? Yep
Protesting something male related? Yep
Signs and youtube videos? Yep
Silly hats and offensive signs? Nope
Protesting something legitimate? YES, oh HECK YES

Ahh, think we’ve found the difference. German women rise up

‘Because of your immigration policies, we soon face a majority of young men who come from archaic societies with no women’s rights.’

……….

A study commissioned by the German government using data from Lower Saxony concluded that migrants “may be responsible” for most of Germany’s recent rise in violent crime. More than 90% of the increase was attributed to young male migrants.

“Because of your immigration policies, we are facing soon a majority of young men who come from archaic societies with no women’s rights. You knew that, and you accepted it. You knew that, you accepted it, and you abandoned us. You sacrificed us.”

A Pew study found that the Muslim population in Europe will continue to grow in the coming decades even if migration to the continent is completely halted.

……

“It can’t go on like this. Pepper spray and pocket alarms are already the basic equipment of European women. Going jogging has become the most dangerous sport for us.

The average decibel of the average pocket alarm is 120 db. How loud is that?

110 Extremely loud Rock concert, chainsaw
120 Human voice at its loudest, police siren
130 Thunder
140 Pain threshold First Monday of the month siren from close by

So, it’s kind of like screaming in terror, except maybe the alarm can do it longer? Especially if the throat screaming for help is cut or a hand/s is/are clapped over the mouth doing the screaming for help.

Pepper spray, the other piece of standard equipment. How far will it spray? How long? Depends.

Regular pepper spray that probably most of the German women, and indeed European women sound like they are carrying are about a half ounce and will spray from 5 to 35 seconds with a reach of 5 to 12 feet. And you hope the wind isn’t against you. But you can get a foam spray.

You could go with bear pepper spray. With that you will get almost a 8 oz can, but it while it will only last 8 seconds, it will go 16 feet. Yeah, I’m not liking this one either.

What if the wind is against you, or more come after the fight ensues?

Now I’m sure they would prefer you do the “civilized” thing in a country that is becoming most uncivilized towards women. Just “call the police”. From this report the time till your emergency call is answered is 3 to less than 30 seconds. Response time seems to range from 8 to 15 minutes, a quarter of an hour. You know, a quarter of an hour is a long time to wait while you scream at the top of your lungs for help and watch as your pepper spray is empty and your attackers are now pissed. And still there, just out of reach of the pepper spray. They in the meantime have used their cellphones to “phone a friend”. Think you will still be there 12 minutes later when the police arrive?

Which brings me to the next column I would like to reference, Up In Arms: German Small Arms Ownership Soars 85% In Under 2 Years

Two years after your chancellor decides to admit over 1 million undocumented middle-eastern immigrants to boost the economy and instead gets a series of terrorist attacks in return, this is the outcome: “Germans are taking up arms of angst.”

………

There is a growing feeling that the state cannot sufficiently protect its citizens and therefore they must protect themselves. Recent cuts to the police force contributed to the problem.

No kidding? Ya think?

But Germany has very strict gun control laws, to keep everyone safe, of course. So they can pretty much only buy non-lethal weapons. But as in America, there are those that are telling the women that getting a gun is not the way to go.

However, Holger Stahlknecht, state interior minister in Saxony-Anhalt, isn’t convinced. He worries about the current trend and warns that arming oneself with small weapons can lead to a false sense of security. “Obviously, people believe they are buying safety with a small gun license,” he said.

“However, this sense of security is deceptive, since these weapons could escalate a situation and could even be used against the owner.”

Well, #1 Old Holger Stahlknecht is a government minister. And as I recall from another column I did, the government doesn’t appreciate anyone speaking out publicly against their “poor refugees”. So. And #2, Old Holger IS a man. Not so sure he is in sync here with the women who fear attack from his government’s policies.

Now I’ve heard the 9mm is called the European .45, so lets just look at the 9mm caliber cartridge. Looks like it’s roughly 980 to 1600 ft/sec.

Huh, how about that. And it doesn’t matter which way the wind is blowing, it’s unlikely to end up in your face. There is a good chance once you produce the delivery mechanism they may decide to go for easier pickings. Like maybe Old Holger, or Nanny Angela Merkel? Oh, wait no, they have government paid for security. Just women those in the video don’t.

The German government killed 6 million Jews, and 5 million dissents, gays, gypsies and assorted others. Now the German government chose to import millions of people that threaten the lives, liberty and way of life in Germany. Maybe some day the German government will learn, not all things are the same. Maybe some day they will learn to tell good from evil, right from wrong. Today apparently, isn’t that day.

There are a variety of ways to respond to the threats, it’s your call.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Math for Dummies

Mathematics is a logical discipline which some gun people controlling victim disarmers find difficult to master. To aid them in understanding, I’m providing a few simplified examples of how math works in the real world.

1.
Number of firearms homicides in 1993: 17,075
Number of firearms homicides in 2015: 12,979

12,979 is 4,096 lower than 17,075

2.
Rate of firearms homicides per 100K in 1993 6.56
Rate of firearms homicides per 100K in 2015: 4.13

4.13 is 2.43 lower than 6.56

3.
Number of accidental firearms-related deaths in 1999: 824
Number of accidental firearms-related deaths in 2015: 489

489 is 335 lower than 824

4.
Rate of accidental firearms-related deaths per 100K in 1999: 0.29
Rate of accidental firearms-related deaths per 100K in 2015: 0.15

.15 is .14 lower than .29

5.
Number of counties in US: 3,007
Number of counties responsible for recent jump in firearms-related deaths: 150 (5%)

150 is 2857 less than 3,007

6.
Estimated number of firearms in US in 1993: 150,000,000 to 211,000,000 (very vague estimate based on production/sales estimates)
Estimated number of firearms in US in 2015: 265-750,000,000 (basically, no one knows at all)

750,000,000 is 539,000,000 more than 211,000,000

7.
Estimated percentage of non-murderous firarms owners: 99.9978%
Estimated percentage of estimated number of murderous firearms owners: 0.0022%

99.9978 is 99.9956 more than .0022

Those suffering the disability of mathematical competence might think this demonstrates a reduction in homicides and accidental deaths at the same time that the numbers of firearms are increasing.

As I’ve said, math is hard for gun people controlling victim disarmers. As a result, they tend to rely upon Common Core “math” principles. To aid pro-human/civil rights advocates in understanding of their opposition, I’m also providing examples of how those people reach conclusions which seem to have little resemblance to reality.

1.
Number of homicides in 1993
Number of homicides in 2015
Not needed.

State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustrate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.

2.
Rate of homicides per 100K in 1993
Rate of homicides per 100K in 2015
Not needed.

State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.

3.
Number of accidental firearms-related deaths in 1999
Number of accidental firearms-related deaths in 2015
Not needed.

State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustrate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.

4.
Rate of accidental firearms-related deaths per 100K in 1999
Rate of accidental firearms-related deaths per 100K in 2015
Not needed.

State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustrate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.

5.
Number of counties in US
Number of counties responsible for recent jump in firearms-related deaths

State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustrate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.

6.
Estimated number of firearm in US in 1993
Estimated number of firearms in US in 2015
Not needed.

7.
Estimated percentage of non-murderous firarms owners
Estimated percentage of estimated number of murderous firearms owners
Not needed.

Shriek “We haven’t covered patriarchal percentages in college, therefore it has no meaning!”

Bonus Points for newspaper editors:
Editorial claiming machineguns used in shooting minus 404 Page Not Found when you get caught equals Zero Embarrassment.

+5 points for deletion
-10 points for doing real math; this was Common Core for Tyrants Dummies gun people controlling victim disarmers, damn it.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



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

Hmm kind of things

I ran across this story tonight, ‘I didn’t mean to’: Police reveal 12-year-old girl ACCIDENTALLY shot at classmates and injured five in LA middle school after dropping her backpack which was carrying a loaded gun Some of the bullet points in the article were

  • Police say the shooting at Salvador Castro Middle School in Los Angeles on Thursday morning was accidental

  • A 12-year-old girl was arrested and charged with negligent discharge of a firearm on school grounds

  • One of the girl’s classmates said she told him the gun was in her backpack and that it accidentally went off when she dropped the bag

  • Another classmate said the girl had said she thought it was a toy gun

  • Shooting left one teenager critically wounded and three other children injured

  • A 15-year-old male was shot in the temple and remains in intensive care, while a girl, 15, was shot in the wrist

  • Two other students, as well as a 30-year-old woman, were treated for non-gunshot wounds

A 12-year-old girl was arrested after gunfire erupted at Salvador Castro Middle School on Thursday morning.

Los Angeles police spokesman Josh Rubenstein says the girl has since been charged with negligent discharge of a firearm on school grounds.

The charge comes after one of the girl’s classmates, also 12, revealed he spoke to her moments after the gun went off and said she was sobbing and repeatedly saying: ‘I didn’t mean it.’

She told him the gun was in her backpack and that it accidentally went off when she dropped the bag.

Another classmate also said the girl didn’t mean to hurt anyone, saying she thought it was a toy gun.

The list of injured: A 15-year-old male who was shot in the temple,a girl, 15, suffered a gunshot wound to her wrist, an 11-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl were grazed and were treated and released from the hospital, and a 30 year old woman was also injured and treated in hospital.

This baffles me. Modern firearms are pretty reliable, and I understand it most modern firearms are unlikely to “go off” if dropped. I said most. I know I’ve certainly had a very stern talk with mine. Since people control advocates seem to feel guns have a mind of their own, I thought I’d cover all the bases and make sure mine realize that is unacceptable behavior. But back to my pondering.

The girl had the gun in her backpack. The story doesn’t say how she obtained it. Nor does it say why she had it in her backpack, or who she got it from. I’m actually not dogging the reporter on this, I just don’t think it was known. I am astonished she is being charged with negligent discharge and not the mountain of other crimes with which a normal concealed carrier would have been charged. We are talking about California #FutureVenezuela here. Or as my compatriot Bear calls it, “Occupied territory”.

But if she A) dropped the backpack B) the gun just went off. How many times did it go off that so many were wounded off of one cartridge? It’s making me think of the JFK assassination “magic bullet”. I’m not saying it couldn’t have happened that way, crowded hall and all, but, still.

The whole thing is just sad. And without knowing any other background the one thing that is front in my mind is that if firearms education were allowed in schools perhaps this would never happen as the girl, who’s life is bound to be a mess now if it wasn’t before, would have known the difference between a toy gun and a real one. She would have known safe gun handling practices if she had stumbled upon one, and she sure as heck would have known you don’t play with them.

But no, California would never allow firearms education in schools, after all, it’s for the children.

But had this been a real school shooting, with gun fire “erupting” as the column stated I’m quite sure the toll would have been far higher. After all, schools are Gun-free zones, to keep everyone “safe”. That’s “for the children” too.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Target Selection

[My obligatory SHOT Show posting.]

“Mohamet, I have selected a mission, Inshallah.”

“Yes, Mohammed? Will ISIS be pleased with our work?”

“Inshallah, yes. The Caliphate has stated that the mujahedin should use the work of the Mandalay Bay hero as an example. I have the perfect example!”

“What, Mohammed?”

“Paddock gained media glory by targeting 22,000 people at a gathering of sinners in that Great Satan’s hellhole, Las Vegas. But I have learned that just a few miles away, in that same den of iniquity, there is a far larger gathering of crusaders: 70,000! We can hose them down!”

“Umm… This America. Out of 70,000 evil satans, some are bound to be armed. It would be sad to die before bringing glory to Allah.”

“That’s the beauty of my plan, Mohamet. This is the SHOT show. Attendees are required to be unarmed. Vendors are required to remove firing pins from their display weapons. They’re helpless!”

“I see… Wait.”

“What?”

“Mohammed, isn’t this SHOT thing held indoors?”

“Mostly. They had a range day, but I thought it best to skip that.”

“Allah has blessed you with wisdom. But still… the main show is indoors, where attendees are disarmed?”

“Yes!”

“But outside, where we can shoot them… these are Americans. Americans specifically attending a show to see what new guns they wish to market and purchase. Americans who already own most of the small arms in the world. Who practice.”

“Ye-es…”

“Including arms for the crusaders’ military.”

“Ye-es.”

“Mohammed, these would not be metrosexual pajama boys suitable only for servicing mujahedin heroes. Mightn’t they shoot back?”

-sigh- Then we shall don martyrdom vests and go inside where they are unarmed and even the guns cannot fire…”

“Mohammed, how long does it take to put a firing pin back in?”


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

The “Head in the Sand” Gambit

I noted yet another news story with questionable “facts.”

League of Women Voters Calls for Tighter Gun Control
The group is also helping to educate its members on firearm laws.
[…]
“We ask them to increase the background check system to expand it to cover commercial sales – that’s gun shows, online sales, anytime an individual is selling to a stranger,” says Goddard.

It’s a slow day, so this time, I wrote to the reporter and the guy who thinks PPYI background checks aren’t required for commercial sales.

The reporter’s reply:

Watch the video and hear it straight from his mouth

Yeah, Peter DeLuca knew “Legislative Director” Andrew Goddard was blowing smoke… somewhere. So he made sure to record it.

Andrew Goddard, legislative director for the Virginia Center for Public Safety replied to my first email (asking if the quote was accurate):

It was a quote from me given to the Charlottesville Channel29 station yesterday. It looks correct to me. – Andy

Oh boy. Now for some fun.

Moi: I wondered if it was accurate because all commercial sales — whether in-store, at a gun show, online, or in a newspaper ad — to individuals have required background checks for decades, and I’d expect a “legislative director” to know that.

I received a reply from his personal email address (which I won’t include here). I just had to reply to his ravings.

Mr. Goddard,

AG: In response to your recent email regarding background checks, I see that you are under the impression that all commercial sales of firearms are subject to background checks on the buyer.

Yeah, I know. I suppose I was misled by that pesky 18 U.S. Code § 922(a)(1) which says “It shall be unlawful for any person except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms”.

AG: So let’s look at the facts:

Oh; let’s.

AG: In Virginia, and all other states, gun sellers who engage in the business of buying and selling Firearms must obtain a Federal Firearms License and all sales that they conduct are subject to a background check being performed on the buyer.

You did read 18 U.S. Code § 922.

AG: Almost all FFL’s follow this to the letter with just a tiny fraction of sales taking place “off the books” and without a background check. Some of these sales are later disguised as thefts.

If you have specific information on that, I do hope you shared it with the ATF. Tell me; exactly what percentage of VA FFLs do you have proof of indulging in this unlawful activity?

(He never answered that one.)

AG: In Virginia a person who does not have an FFL can buy and sell guns at gun shows and from their own homes. They can advertize the availability of guns via the internet at specialist site such as Armslist.com and many others. They can even advertize the availability of guns via local newspapers etc.

Yep, that’s been the case for a couple of centuries now.

AG: There are no laws that govern the number or type of firearms that each individual can sell or buy and there is no effort made to require a high volume seller without an FFL to obtain such a license.

That’s where federal law conflicts with federal regulation. 18 U.S. Code § 921 defines dealers in the business. But in 1994, President Clinton thought he could limit the availability of firearms by limiting FFLs. The ATF purged roughly 200,000 dealers — through revocations and nonrenewals — on the grounds that they weren’t really dealers, thus eliminating their future requirements to conduct background checks (better called “prior restraint on rights through preemptively proving your innocence (PPYI)”).

Gun owners called on the ATF to define “dealer”: X number of firearms in Y time frame; they refused.

Fast forward to the Obama administration which thought there weren’t enough “dealers” doing PPYI, and started busting unlicensed dealers. Again gun owners called for an actual definition. The administration refused, merely issuing the vague statement, “There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is ‘engaged in the business.’”

And still bogus. If they have indications that a person is an unlicensed trafficker, they can open an investigation and subpoena tax returns. If firearms transactions make up a large percentage of income, in the business. If they’ve documented large numbers of sales, but the income isn’t declared, tax evasion. You may recall that’s what Al Capone was finally busted for.

Your problem doesn’t seem to be a lack of laws, but federal incompetence.

AG: The law in Virginia allows these “private sellers” to sell in public venues yet still self determine that that are not “dealing” in firearms. I have plenty of video evidence of such sellers, who move from show to show exhibiting large numbers of guns and trading openly without an FFL.

Do share that evidence. But be careful how you do it. Then-NYC Mayor Bloomberg gathered such “evidence” by sending private detectives out to complete unlawful sales. Not only were gun owners and law enforcement calling for Bloomberg’s (and his stooges) arrest, the ATF was pissed because he blew multiple active investigations.

Let me tell you a related story: An individual was arrested by the ATF for engaging in the business of firearms sales without a license. Information I received certainly indicated that he was doing so, and knowingly doing so unlawfully. But suddenly he was back on the street, selling guns again, and no charges in sight. He showed up at my house uninvited and tried to sell me machineguns, which I rather forcefully rejected with a scattering of obscenities as I ran him off the property. I immediately made his actions known. Shortly after, another set of arrests was announced; prohibited persons purchasing firearms, mostly at gun shows.

Guess who the fed’s star witness — who sold those guns — was.

If you go to a gun show, see a guy clearly in the business, who states that he’s unlicensed, run away. He’s most likely an ATF or FBI CI.

AG: The law that is intended to prevent these sellers from selling a gun to a person that could not pass a firearms purchase background check is written such that there is only a penalty on the seller if it can be shown that the seller knew in advance that the buyer was prohibited from possessing a firearm.

That’s our pesky English common law heritage (and judicial precedent) that requires that a crime include intent; Mens rea. Look it up.

Just imagine if someone were to take your email as guidance for getting around laws against trafficking in Virginia, and you got arrested as an accessory. “But I didn’t intend to help someone break the law!” you’d exclaim reasonably. Maybe you should be required to run background checks on correspondents.

AG: This very weak law is skirted by sellers who deliberately avoid asking the prospective buyers for even the most basic information, such as name and state of residence. If you don’t ask anything about a buyer then you cannot be prosecuted for selling a handgun to the resident of another state, or to an individual that is under age etc.

And there you run up against another set of facts. Private individuals aren’t allowed to call in checks to NICS. To go through NICS, you have to go through an FFL, who has the hassle of logging the firearm and sale in his bound book.

An option that has been proposed that would allow private individuals to run checks is “BIDS;” “Blind Identification Database System”. The federal government has repeatedly rejected calls to implement BIDS because it doesn’t provide sales data to the government. I also suspect that it would be cheaper and more efficient than the NICS call center
has something to do with it: you wouldn’t need all those people answering phones and typing sales into computers.

And how useful are PPYI “background” checks? Over 90% of firearms murders are committed with stolen guns. Roughly 64% of murderers have prior felony convictions. HAYNES ruled that felons don’t have to comply anyway. A government study on the sources of firearms used in crimes found that most are obtained from friends and family (who could reasonably be expected to know the person is prohibited), or purely black market street sales. Gun shows accounted for .07% of crime guns; that’s seven one-hundredths of one percent. (On a personal note, while I was in law enforcement, several convicted felons informed me that they wanted more background checks and restrictions because it would not affect them, and made it more likely their chosen victims would be disarmed. Why do you propose assisting violent criminals?)

NICS denials are 93-96% false positives. That may be higher, because the ATF has a backlog of several tens of thousands of NICS denial appeals.

Tures et 2017 found that “In comparing our observations to a random model, we found that there was little to no difference in the results. We cannot conclude that states that regulate private gun sales have a higher, or lower, gun homicide rate.”

But… on the rare occasions that I’ve sold firearms, I sold only to friends, someone referred by a trusted friend, or an FFL. That’s what most gun owners do. Let me emphasize that:

PEOPLE WHO OWN GUNS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST BAD GUYS HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN NOT PROVIDING GUNS TO BAD GUYS.

AG: My statement was made because I believe that ALL of the transactions that I just described are indeed commercial sales and should be subject to the same level of scrutiny, by first being subject to a background check on the buyer.

Your belief is wishful thinking, which you should carefully distinguish from legal reality.

AG: Virginia is one of the most prolific exporters of guns that later are recovered from crime scenes in other states, and one of the lowest importers of crime guns due to the fact that our own criminals are so well furnished with weapons that they do not need to go out of state to obtain them.

18 U.S. Code § 922 again. It’s already illegal to traffick firearms. What new law do you need?

So… How does Virginia’s violent crime rate compare to those “other states?” I noticed that Massachusetts routinely blamed its crime on guns from New Hampshire, yet could never explain why those same guns weren’t causing crime in NH (which typically vies with constitutional carry Vermont for the lowest violent crime rates in the nation).

(No answer to that one, either.)

Estimates of American gun owners vary by significantly large amounts. The lowest I have seen is 55 million, or roughly 17% of the general population. The highest is 120 million, or approximately 37%. Murderers who were lawful gun owners are just 0.0022% of all gun owners; 22 ten-thousandths of 1 percent. At most.

Calling for new laws on gun owners is like a cancer researcher ignoring smoking or asbestos correlations to call for a ban on parakeet ownership.

Another analogy: Moron gets mad when his football team loses and throws his TV out the window injuring a passerby. You respond by calling for TV and TV owner registration, licensing and training, and background checks on TV sales. And who needs one of those “high capac… er, definition
TVs?

I prefer to think that you, and VACPS, are well-intentioned and wish to reduce violent crime. But to fix an existing problem, you have to understand existing conditions, including laws. You cannot confuse law with wishful thinking and base your decisions on that confusion. You have to be willing to target the problem and not the 99.9814% of gun owners who didn’t commit the crimes, or the 99.9693% of firearms that weren’t used in crimes.

I would prefer to persuade you than argue. But if you can’t focus on facts — whether willful or incapable — I have to question your intelligence, sanity… or agenda.

With bated breath, I awaited his response.

Bingo! The “bury my head in the sand” gambit.

AG: Thank you for taking so much time to point out all my “errors”, and provide me with so much evidence and unsourced statistics. Had you refrained from insulting and demeaning remarks, I would have spent an equal amount of time to counter every one of your “insights”. However, I have better things to do with my time and you are obviously in possession of some pretty powerful, yet alternative, facts.

Oh, no! “Alternative facts.” I think he mistook me for a CNN reporter.

Well, I can’t leave the guy hanging, bereft of basic facts on which to concoct his rights-violating plans. He might have to continue with his unicorn-based wishful thinking.

Moi: Hey, you’re the “legislative director” who should know this stuff, and has a whole nonprofit to draw on. I’m just one guy.

But I’ll help you out. Granted, some of these “alternative facts” come from disreputable organizations like the FBI, the Census Bureau, Cornell, the Supreme Court, and peer reviewed papers, but you might want to see what your pro-freedom opposition is thinking.

18 U.S. Code § 922
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

FBI Uniform Crime Reports
https://ucr.fbi.gov/

Presidents Clinton and Obama on FFLs
http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-gun-action-reverses-course-on-clinton-admin-policy/

Mens rea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

NICS not available to private individuals
https://www.atf.gov/file/56331/download

BIDS
https://web.archive.org/web/20010414075236/http:/www.keepandbeararms.com/Puckett/bids.asp

HAYNES
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/85/

Firearms sources
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-09/du-cag091615.php

What Percentage Of Murders Are Committed With Stolen Guns?

Firearms ownership
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-three-americans-own-guns-culture-factor-study-finds-n384031

Prior felony convictions
https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/508908-Most-convicted-violent-felons-have-prior-record-report-says/

Gun show crime guns
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001486

NICS false positives
https://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/bradylaw-gunownership/2011/06/14/id/399967/

and
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

Tures et al
http://savannahnow.com/column/opinion/2017-10-26/john-tures-no-proof-gun-laws-reduce-gun-homicides

also
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2711323

Population numbers
https://www.census.gov/

Analysis and number crunching
http://zelmanpartisans.com/?p=4555

Should Mr. Goddard reply again, I’ll update this post. But I expect he’ll either delete my email or stroke out.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Door Kickers

I’ve noted the theoretical problems with door-to-door weapons searches. Let’s see how that works in the real world.

Firearms Recovery Operation Held In Santa Cruz County
Santa Cruz County law enforcement agencies teamed up with agents from the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms for a two-day operation on Tuesday and Wednesday to recover guns owned by individuals who are prohibited from possessing them, according to the Santa Cruz County Law Enforcement Chief’s Association.

In this case, California started with a gun owner database, which they compared to other databases to see who suddenly became a prohibited person. So, unlike my worst-case (for the cops) “belling the cat” scenario, they should have a good firearms hit rate. Right?

So how did it go? Multi-agency teams. Two days. 47 addresses.

One bust. For one gun.

At that rate, it’s going to take them 426 days just to clear the current backlog of 10,000 newly prohibited persons they think they know about. Never mind all the folks continually being added to the list even as they work.

But — as the infomercial says — Wait! There’s more.

One bust. For one gun. Perhaps that means that Californians are just really compliant with gun people control laws, unlike the old days of 20 years past when the state saw a whopping 2.33% compliance rate with registration, and those prohibited folks properly disposed of their firearms. Except…

California does have registration. And universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks. If they properly disposed of their guns, that should have been in the state’s records and there’d be no reason to send the confiscation squads.

Are state records that bad? Did 46 out of 47 people lawfully transport their firearms out of state? Did 46 out of 47 unlawfully transfer them within the state? Did the cops simply not try very hard?

Was 1 out 47 simply a slow learner? Or maybe he didn’t even know about that protective order.

If it took California 2 days to not find 46 registered weapons in the hands of 46 registered gun owners, how long will it take to fail the other 9,953 (and counting) times?

On the bright side, this may identify another challenge to California’s obscene gun laws. You may recall that New York City was forced to end their warrantless “stop and frisk” program not merely because it was unconstitutional. Courts have long upheld unconstitutional practices if the government could demonstrate an overriding need for the sake of public safety. The judge in the NYC case tossed “stop and frisk” because, according to the city’s own data, it didn’t work, obliviating their “public safety” argument.

California’s restrictions and confiscation attempts don’t work either.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



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

Correlation? Causation?

The latest gun people control argument making the rounds is a “report” from the Violence Promotion I-mean-Policy Center that purports to show:

U.S. Gun Death Rate Jumps 17 Percent Since 2008 Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Heller Decision Affirming Right to Own a Handgun for Self-Defense

Oh, dear. Heller is killing people.

Not. Let’s take a look at the VPC’s own chart demonstrating that dramatic jump post-Heller.

Hmm. Modest increases through 2012; but nothing dramatic. Still well below the long-term average and part of a long term decline in firearms-related deaths. But look where we do see a dramatic jump: 2015 and 2016. That starts 7 years after Heller.

You’d think that if Heller were the cause, we’d see that big increase a little sooner. My uneducated, troglodytic gun owner guess would be that something changed in 2014 or 2015; maybe 2013 or 2016. But what?

2013:

  • New York passes “NY SAFE” act )assorted bans, registration, licensing, universal firearms PPYI, ammo PPYI, and more).
  • Colorado launches universal PPYI checks, “high capacity” magazines bans, mental health reporting requirements.
  • Maryland passes its “Firearm Safety Act,” called “one of the strictest gun laws in the nation.” (Sure helped Baltimore reach its goal of one of the highest homicide rates in the world, eh?)

2014:

  • California begins keeping more firearms sales records and bans “high capacity” magazine sales.
  • Connecticut begins “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine registration.
  • Obama launched his “Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions;” 23 new executive orders intended to restrict honest folk.
  • Obama announces his intent to expand DACA protections for illegals.
    Washington passes I-594 PPYI checks.

2015:

  • Oregon launches universal PPYI.
  • California somehow found something about guns not already regulated to their taste and added several more restrictions, including confiscations.
  • Alabama prohibited more people possessing firearms, and required more reporting.
  • Obama ordered the ATF to increase FFL licensing requirements, increase hiring, boost NICS reporting, and make many SS disability recipients prohibited persons.
  • Virginia’s AG reneged on reciprocal carry agreements.

2016:

  • California expands firearms seizures, blocks campus carry, imposes ERPOs

And much more.

Granted, none of that establishes causation, but at least the temporal correlation is a lot closer than a SCOTUS decision years back. And about that decision…

Heller was specifically about District of Columbia firearms restrictions. Not national laws. It was important at the national level because everyone expected it — correctly — to be used as a precedent in future. But to blame Heller itself for an increase in deaths indicates a simplistic… nay, simple-minded understanding of law and precedent.

It wasn’t until the SCOTUS McDonald decision two years later that Heller‘s precedent was applied to all the states. Funny that the VPC report doesn’t even mention that case.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

[UPDATE 2] Survey: Support for New Gun Control Laws

Update: For some reason, my questions have disappeared.
Had to reenter all but one question. Seems to be working now.

I’m presenting another survey. Unlike past polls, this one is not directed at the RKBA/Firearms community, although anyone and everyone is welcome to participate.

But I would very much appreciate it if you distributed it far and wide, to the general population. Specifically those who allegedly poll in favor of new “gun” control laws.

START THE SURVEY

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail