Tag Archives: rights

What color is your coat?

David Codrea addresses the recent minor furor over the lack of prosecutions for NICS denials.

Gun Groups and Grabbers Find Common Ground on NICS Denial Prosecutions
That mass roundups of the scofflaws haven’t begun has got gun-grabbers – and some gun groups – in a lather. Lost in much of the noise is economist and author John Lott’s contention that a “high percentage” of “false positives” wrongly deny purchases. Not that due process is a concern when there are guns to be “taken off the street”…

I was a bit concerned where Codrea was going with this initially, since I’m not one of those in a lather over lackadaisical enforcement. My take differs that; and it certainly doesn’t share common ground with human/civil rights violating victim-disarmers.

Let me spell it out for those who have not yet caught on:

We now have 20 years of data that clearly establishes that preemptively-prove-your-innocence (PPYI) prior restraint on Second Amendment-guaranteed (not “protected,” sadly) human/civil rights is a complete failure as “gun safety.”

1. Roughly 96% of the denials proved to be false positives. As David notes, there were a mere 12 referrals for prosecution in 2017. The last time I checked the total number since it began, it was…

140. In two decades. Out of tens of millions of NICS transactions.

When the Bradys et al proudly point at three million denials, they are gleefully bragging on violating constitutionally guaranteed (not “protected,” damnit) rights of 2,880,000 innocent people.

Almost three million people that they have successfully — at least for a time — rendered into helpless targets for criminal predators. And they’re happy about it. If you hadn’t before, think about that now.

That’s false positives, which brings us to…

2. False Negatives. Almost every week, I come across a news story about a felon (or other prohibited person) who got a gun by passing the NICS check. No one seems to track false negatives, so I don’t know how common it is. And I’m not speaking of cases like the DC Navy Yard or Sutherland Springs shooters, whom the “authorities” never entered into the NICS databases. I’m speaking of those who are in the databases, who pass by misspelling a name, changing their name, or just giving the wrong birth date.

And those are just the few felons who bother gaming NICS. Roughly 94% of firearms used in crimes were obtained through unlawful channels, completely bypassing NICS.

NICS doesn’t have a bloody thing to do with most criminals; those who do submit to checks can easily spoof it.

The only thing NICS is good for is delaying rights, and completely denying them, for honest folks.

And that is precisely the point.

I have heard well-meaning people call for 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law charges for those responsible for the violation of rights through improper denials, or for deaths when a sale is improperly allowed. In fact, survivors of Sutherland Springs (where the Air Force failed to report a felony-equivalent conviction, a domestic violence conviction, and an involuntary committal) trying to sue over it.

I wish them luck, but I’m astonished that the judge hasn’t dismissed the case already. There’s something in 18 U.S. Code § 922 that many people don’t seems to know about.

18 U.S. Code § 922(t):

(6) Neither a local government nor an employee of the Federal Government or of any State or local government, responsible for providing information to the national instant criminal background check system shall be liable in an action at law for damages—
(A) for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section; or
(B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm.

Bureaucratese Translator: We can directly violate your rights — even get you killed — and you cannot hold us responsible for our failures, sucker!

That was built into the Brady Bill. Its original intent was to rape human/civil rights with total impunity.

And the Bradys brag.

As I said, I was briefly concerned about Codrea’s direction, which seemed odd for someone with whom I’ve been somewhat acquainted for years. My confidence in his respect for rights was rewarded.

Enforce existing “Intolerable Acts?”

The people who have been complaining consistently are the NRA’s “leaders.” They’ve made “enforce existing gun laws” a mantra many gun owners repeat unthinkingly, as if ceding to the status quo of infringements will dissuade the totalitarian lobby from enacting any new citizen disarmament edicts.

Substitute “Intolerable Acts” for “gun laws” and see how much amplification that gets from members and supporters. Instead, we got “bipartisan” kabuki.

Intolerable Acts, indeed. Any supposed “pro-gun” group or person in a “lather” over the lack of enforcement of a law meant to violate rights, is supporting exactly the same disarmament which sparked the American Revolution.

Is it any wonder the field of pro-PPYI NRA’s logo is red?

What color is your coat?


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

Deprivation of Rights Is Suddenly a Bad Thing?

Young Mister Hogg, speaking at the Toronto International Film Festival, made the astonishing — for him — assertion that people should not be deprived of human/civil rights because of a mere felony conviction.

“I think the most important thing to realize, however, is the problems we face as a country, whether it be water in Flint, Michigan or the mass amount of mass incarceration of people of color that can’t vote. In Florida, the number of eligible African Americans that would otherwise be eligible to vote but can’t because of a previous conviction is 21 percent. In Kentucky it’s 26 percent. In Mississippi and Alabama it’s 15 to 16 percent.”

I personally subscribe to the notion that anyone who can’t be trusted with a firearm should not be on the street without a keeper. If they’re safe to be on the loose, they’re safe to exercise constitutionally protected rights. Whether that’s voting or bearingdefensive arms.

I’m pleased to see that Hogg agr… oh. Wait.

“Why didn’t you ban bump-stocks and raise the age to purchase firearm to 21 when you said you would?”

We’ll leave aside for the moment the fact that the befuddled boy has no idea of how our constitutional representative republic works, and that no president has the lawful power to do that. And if he did rule by edict, Hogg would probably call him a dictator; “Hitler” even.

Hogg is outraged that those convicted of felonies lose rights. But stripping Second Amendment rights from people never convicted of any crime is a good thing?

This is the punk who wants the voting age lowered to 16 so they can vote to raise the age to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

Eighteen year-olds are too immature to safely operate a simple device with three or four controls, but sixteen year-olds can operate massive motor vehicles with a plethora of controls to manipulate?

If they cannot master arms, then they certainly can’t be trusted with the far more complex instruments of democracy.


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

Minorities don’t have rights?

David Frum, writing in The Atlantic, has an interesting take on rights.

Only 30 percent of Americans own guns. Thus far, that minority has sufficed to block substantial federal action on guns. But a one-third minority—and especially a nonurban one-third minority—may no longer suffice to shape American culture.

Does he really want to go there? Does he really want to argue that rights are subject to a majority vote; that some minority should lose some right because they’re outnumbered?

What other minorities would he like to disenfranchise?

(https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&src=pt)

America has done that before. It was a bad idea — morally, legally, and constitutionally — then. It’s a bad idea now.

Especially when said minority is heavily armed.


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, what with truck repairs and recurring bills.

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

Rights are not up for grabs or votes

Now that Election 2014 has come and gone, and Bloomberg’s Everytown initiative suffered losses in nearly every arena, forcing him to waste $50 million  on an effort Americans obviously oppose, it’s time to ask some questions about our rights.

Among the sea of rejection for the gun control mission, however, there were tiny spots of stupid that gave small victories to the gun grabbers.

Washington state (as if you hadn’t heard Gunsense drones crowing about it) has passed Initiative Measure 594 – a gun control measure that would require every person wishing to purchase a firearm – even those doing so via private sales – to get government permission to do so.

This, in essence, has banned private sales. When you insert a government transaction, done through an FFL, into a private transaction, said sale ceases to be private.

Was the initiative about safety? Anyone who has been following the gun rights debate for any length of time knows that safety has nothing to do with it.  Criminals, for the most part, do not get guns through legal channels.

Guns purchase

Basic economics indicate that as long as there is a demand, there will be a supply, and when you close off legal supply channels, the black market flourishes.

So it’s not about safety. So why is it that Washingtonians were so eager to cede their basic rights to government infringement, even though this measure has no hope of stopping crime?

Why hand over your rights so easily?

Make no mistake, these are rights.

The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that stems from the right to life and the right to defend your life. Why allow petty elected tyrants to control what tool you use to do it?

What about the right to property? Why would you allow the government to intrude on your right to dispose of your property as you see fit? If it rightfully belongs to you, why would you allow any government to control to whom you sell it?

And lastly, why would Washingtonians subject their natural rights to a vote in the first place?

Less than 50 percent of Washington residents voted in this election, and yet, they decided the fate of the natural rights of their fellow citizens – the right to dispose of their property, and the right to purchase it without government intrusion.

They decided this despite the fact that no loud, screeching, uninformed majority should ever be allowed to decide the fate of our natural rights with a push of a button.

That is not a decision any majority should be allowed to make.  And yet Washingtonians not only allowed the right to keep and bear arms and the right to property to be limited by their fellow state residents, but also allowed those rights to be put on the chopping block in the first place.

Rights exist. They are not and should not be up for discussion, debate, or a vote.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail