On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the GCA.
Suppressors are “rarely used in criminal shootings.” No kidding. Therefore, they aren’t a threat to public safety and shouldn’t be NFA items. I can agree with that.
One of the government’s lawyers brought up the Las Vegas shooting from 2017 as a reason to ban bump stocks. He claimed that the inherent dangerousness of bump stocks necessitated a ban for the sake of “public safety.”
Ooooh. “Public safety.” Because bump stocks are used… Um, how often?
GOA’s attorney countered by telling the judge there is no actual proof of one recorded instance where bump stocks have been used in a crime.
Olson even cited the lack of FBI and ATF statements, studies or reports to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that a bump stock was actually used by the Las Vegas shooter.
I’m sure the DOJ lawyer was quick to set the record straight, and tell the judge all about Mandalay Bay and all the… other… times.
This was something of a “mic drop” moment, because when given the chance to respond, the government’s lawyer could not — in fact, he refused to — counter Olson’s statement on this point.
Since that would have been a heck of a good time to affirmatively state that bump stocks were used (as opposed to being there), the refusal to do so suggests that…
Bump-fire stocks have never been used in a crime, unlike suppressors which are not a threat to public safety.
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)
Measure Title: URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AND ADOPT A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO CLARIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
Stripped to basics, it calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment, under the guise of “clarification.” Because…
“WHEREAS, under this “individual right theory”, the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Second Amendment RENDERS PROHIBITORY AND RESTRICTIVE REGULATION PRESUMPTIVELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL” (emphasis added)
Their argument is that the individual rights “theory” currently — and correctly — held by the Supreme Court makes all their gun controlvictim-disarming people control laws unconstitutional.
No kidding. All else aside, you’d think they’d have noticed the separate usage of “people” (when talking about… people) and “states” and “congress” in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps they’re public school graduates and were unaware that the first ten amendments were proposed and adopted as a single document.
I was also amused by their claim that the MILLER case declared the Second Amendment to be a collective right. Yep, gotta be public school victims.
No. What MILLER did was merely say that in the absence of evidence that sawed-off shotguns are useful militarily, they “cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
In fact, in describing militias, the Court specified that it is composed of individual civilians called up for service (and carefully differentiated the militia from government “troops” in regular service). What’s more, those called up for militia service are expected to appear with their own personal weapons. Which, by necessity, they’d have to own before and separately from militia service.
That’s about as individual as it gets. And a strict read of MILLER suggests that those in the militia could be required to own military-grade firearms. (I don’t go that far, but only maintain they must be able to acquire them in time for a call-up.)
The collective right theory of the Second Amendment is a relatively recent invention of gun controllers. It has never been held by the Supreme Court, which always recognized it as a right of individual people. It even factored into the infamous Dred Scott case in 1856, with the majority maintaining that if Scott were recognized as a citizen then he — as an individual — would have the right to bear arms and all other enumerated rights.
I very much hope Hawaii passes this bill. Imagine anyone busted for breaking the state’s gun laws walking into court and declaring, “Your Honor, even the State says this is unconstitutional.”
Ah, but so long as we’re talking about MILLER…
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
TL;DR: Short-barreled shotguns can be regulated under the National Firearms Act because they weren’t shown to be suitable for military use.
I believe that is why the Supreme Court has never granted certiorari for a direct challenge to the NFA since MILLER. NFA items, under that ruling, are things that are not used by the military. Except… machineguns certainly are. And gun controllers whine about “military-grade” or “military-style” “assault weapons.” SCOTUS doesn’t really want to touch that.
Which is probably why the Court keeps granting extensions on the petition for cert in the Kettler NFA challenge. Their cert decision was due in February; they granted two extensions, making it — so far — due by April 22, 2019.
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)
The proposed amendment is not the same – ours wants “strict scrutiny.” The “strict scrutiny” language will make it much easier to bring and win legal challenges to Iowa’s gun laws.
It requires “strict scrutiny” be applied to any firearms laws, therefore much more likely a court could strike down important state laws that protect public safety, such as Iowa’s background check, concealed-carry and permit-to-purchase laws.
The concept of strict scrutiny is a binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). More specifically, the infamous Footnote Four.
“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth….”
I could stop there, having shown that — no doubt to Ms. Stellish’s dismay — strict scrutiny must be applied to any gun control law, as they infringe upon the Second “of the first ten amendments.” I needn’t show what the effect of such scrutiny would be because Stellish has already conceded that gun control laws will fail upon close examination. One might wonder, rhetorically, of course, exactly why Jackie Stellish is deliberately and overtly advocating for the violation of human/civil rights through unconstitutional laws. I seem to recall something about “conspiracy against rights.”
But this is educational, and others may not be so insightful as Stellish. I continue.
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest.
Take H.R. 8Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 for example.First, it infringes upon a constitutionally enumerated right, so right off strict scrutiny is automatically required. Now the tests.The compelling governmental interest is “to ensure individuals prohibited from gun possession are not able to obtain firearms.” Presumably the intent would be to protect life, one of the Declaration of Independence‘s unalienable rights which “Governments are instituted” to secure.
Test one passed.
Is the law narrowly tailored to achieve that goal? No.
It requires everyone wishing to transfer a firearm to prove they aren’t prohibited, not just those who are.
It targets all transactions even though government reports confirm that prohibited persons most commonly acquire firearms through unlawful channels (primarily the black market and theft).
By far the most commonly used in crime type of firearm is handguns. This bill requires checks for all firearms.
Requiring everyone to prove they are not prohibited persons (rather requiring the government to prove they are) is presumption of guilt without due process, and a prior restraint on rights.
Test two failed.Is the law the least restrictive means available? No.
One could create a toll-free number which any seller could call, input the buyer’s social security number to an automated system, and get an instant pass/fail, and a control number. Instead, both must travel to an FFL, pay a fee, fill out a 4473, the FFL enters the firearm in the bound book, and makes the NICS call. This creates a permanent record of who has what.
One could avoid regulating 100 million gun owners, and limit the regulation to prohibited persons. Via NICS, the government already tracks them. Those on parole/probation are already subject to searches, and the dangerously mentally ill shouldn’t be on the street anyway.
Since the black market is the primary source of crimes guns, one could ignore other transactions, and concentrate on eliminating that market with existing laws. Firearms trafficking is illegal, after all.
Test three failed.
H.R. 8, if passed and signed would be unconstitutional. Not to mention stupid, if the real goal was to reduce gun violence. But we know what they want.
Shall we apply strict scrutiny to a few more victim-disarmer wet dreams?
“Assault weapon” ban:
1. Interest – Protect life. Check.
2. Narrow – Bans large class of implements rarely used in violent crime, not just the handguns used predominantly. Fail.
3. Least restrictive – Ban large class of weapons commonly held for defense, when they could simply use sentence enhancement for unlawful use. Fail.
The ban would be unconstitutional.
Safe storage”
1. Interest – Protect life. Check.
2. Narrow – Requires all defensive tools to be “secured,” even when unnecessary. Fail.
3. Least restrictive – One could set penalties for intentionally (to meet mens rea requirements) allowing access by a prohibited person or unsupervised child and bad things actually happen. Fail.
The ban would be unconstitutional.
Please note that in HELLER the Supreme Court ruled that “safe storage,” even in the form of a trigger lock, fails “any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights”, not just strict scrutiny. Defense attorneys, take note.
Permit-to-purchase:
1. Interest – Protect life. Check.
2. Narrow – Similar to background checks. Targets everyone, not criminals. Fail.
3. Least restrictive – Redundant, since FFL purchases — as yet — require NICS checks. Fail.
The ban would be unconstitutional.
The only reason these rights-violating laws stand is the appointment of judges who actively refuse to perform their constitutional and judicial duty to apply strict scrutiny to laws infringing the Second Amendment.
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!
WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 4, 2019) — Today, attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation filed opening briefs in their consolidated appeals with the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the ongoing federal litigation challenging the confiscatory “bump-stock” ban rulemaking by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Copies of the briefs and related filings are available at BumpStockCase.com.
[…]
n the Guedes appeal, FPF argues that the text of the federal statutes at issue in the Final Rule are clear and unambiguous, that the rule of lenity precludes the ATF’s proposed new definition of ‘machinegun’, and that the rule is unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. The brief also argues that the “district court abused its discretion in finding the statutory language ambiguous and erred as a matter of law in according ATF Chevron deference regarding the terms ‘single function of the trigger’ and ‘automatically’.”
[…]
“A BILL To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act any semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.”
H.R. 1263 was filed a couple of weeks ago. I’ve been checking congress.gov daily for the text, since the devil is always hiding in the little details. And, frankly, just making nearly every semiautomatic rifle an NFA item already sounds pretty bad.
Any semiauto that takes a detachable magazine — which is anything but .22 rimfire fixed tube magazines — would become an NFA item. That isn’t even the truly bad part.
Here you go:
(b) Applicability.—Any person who, on the date of the enactment of this Act, lawfully owns or possesses a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun (as defined in section 5845(a) of such Code, as amended by this Act) that has the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device (as defined in such section) shall, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, register the semiautomatic rifle or shotgun in accordance with section 5841 of such Code. Such registration shall become a part of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record required to be maintained by such section. The prohibition on possession of an unregistered firearm under section 5861 of such Code shall not apply to possession of such a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun that has the capacity to accept such a detachable ammunition feeding device on any date that is 120 days or less after the enactment of this Act.
“Register.” Not apply to register. You need a tax stamp within 120 days of enactment. No stamp after the magical date and you’re a felon.
Good luck with that.
It’s currently taking a minimum of 227 days to receive the stamp. That is, it’s taking three months longer than this bill would allow. With existing NFA firearms.
Now throw in Ghu only knows how many millions of newly declared NFA rifles, and the waiting period for approval is going to shoot up into the decades at best.
There are 175,977 transferable machineguns registered now, and it takes better than 7 months to get a stamp. Throw in an estimated 16 million semiauto AR- and AK-pattern rifles into the mix and you’ll have 92 times as many for 92 times the wait, 644 months (I rounded). It’ll take almost 54 years to get your stamp.
Well, longer. I only added ARs and AKs; hardly the only semiauto rifles out there.
Rep. Douche did not set that 120 day limit by mistake. He deliberately crafted a law designed to be absolutely impossible to comply with, even if you were so inclined.
This bill will make it through the Democrat socialist-controlled House. It probably won’t make it through the coward-controlled Senate, but given my own Senator’s lust for shredding the Second Amendment, I’m not sure enough of that to bet.
If it does, it is an outright declaration of war.
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)
HR 1112, the so-called “Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,” just passed the House as expected.
If you haven’t been keeping up, this one was billed as closing what Demoscum Rep. Jim Clyburn calls the “Charleston loophole.” The Charleston shooter bought a gun while awaiting trial on a misdemeanor drug charge. A clerical error directed the NICS examiner to the wrong police department when he tried to clarify the charge. As a result, it took longer than the allowed 3 days, and the sale went as a default proceed. CLieburn claims extending the NICS period to 10 days would fix that.
As I said: CLIEburn. He lied. Let’s review some history.
He purchased his handgun on April 11, 8 days after his 21st birthday. As noted, the NICS check was delayed.
On June 17, he murdered a bunch of kindly, innocent people who had welcomed him.
During the post-shooting investigation, authorities began to wonder if his arrest should have caused a NICS denial.
Roughly a week after the shooting, “examiners officially denied the Roof application.”
The killer’s NICS denial didn’t take 10 days. It took 74 days to figure maybe he should flunk the NICS check. For arithmetically-challenged congresscreeps, 74 is more than 10. Even with this extension, the chumbucket’s sale would have proceeded.
No preemptively-prove-your-innocence check is going to work, if the people running it won’t do their jobs until after people die.
But here’s the thing: NICS should have approve the sale anyway. The scumbag hadn’t been convicted on that drug charge; the case was still pending. The charge was a misdemeanor, not the felony indictment that makes one prohibited to purchase. And that arrest was apparently his only drug bust, so there weren’t “multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years,” as called for in 27 CFR § 478.11 Meaning of terms.
Probably that’s why Chum-boy bought the gun when he did. He was finally 21 and wanted to get it before the conviction.
So once again, they’re pushing a law to allegedly fix a crime problem, but targeting innocent people. Infringements based upon lie.
“High capacity” magazine bans because Parkland (he used politically correct 10-rounders).
“Assault weapon” bans because Santa Fe (he used a pump shotgun and a revolver).
Universal background checks because Mandalay Bay (he passed background checks).
Once is chance. Twice is coincidence. Third time is enemy action. This is an — as yet — undeclared war.
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)
Appeal is good. Because that ruling is a mess. Friedrich just shot an upright middle finger to the Constitution, statutory law, administrative procedure, physical reality, and sanity. It’s that bad.
The Guedes case and the — previously — separate Codrea challenge were consolidated as Guedes et al. So this ruling is twice as damaging as it might’ve been.
The hours I spent studying hundreds of pages of documentation can be summarized quite briefly.
A preliminary injunction temporarily stopping implementation of the rule is denied.
A preliminary injunction isn’t called for anyway because you can get compensation later… for losing an “unlawful machinegun” for which compensation isn’t offered?
Administrative Procedures Act (APA) required 90 days of commenting, not the 85 we got. Tough shit. Unless you can prove someone definitely would have offered something not presented by another commenter, no harm, no foul. So what if their right to speak was denied?
APA requires a public hearing, which was denied. Tough shit. ATF said no one would have offered anything new (even though FPC/FPF was trying to do just that).
New definitions of old terms. (This will require elaboration below.)
The president can appoint acting-anything regardless of the Constitution and statutory law.
Judge Dabney L. Friedrich is nuts.
In declaring bump-stock-type devices (BSTD) machineguns, the ATF found it necessary to redefine a couple of terms. A machinegun is “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
While it was long believed that “automatically” referred to the process of chambering, firing, extracting, and reloading, the government’s lawyer, one Eric Soskin, informs us it now means something that “thus allows the ordinary — of the ordinary skill, the ordinary shooter to shoot must [sic] faster.”
“Function of the trigger,” received a similarly crazed reworking. I’ll spare you the pages of argument, but it goes: “function of the trigger” refers to the finger, not the trigger. The government’s definition of machinegun now becomes…
“any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot much faster, without manual reloading, by a single volitional function of the trigger finger.”
With bump-stocks, it no longer matters that the finger engages the trigger and operates it for every shot. Engagement doesn’t count unless the finger itself is intentionally moved to operate that trigger. Volitional movement of other body parts — like the non-trigger hand and arm that move the rifle into the finger — don’t count. They defined the trigger as actually being the finger, or as plaintiff’s attorney Joshua Prince put it:
I think then it becomes the question of whether the person is actually the machine gun, and how are we going to contend with that. Because now if we’re saying for it to operate automatically it has to be the person who actuates it, we’re talking about every single person in the United States and throughout the — through the world as being a machine gun, if that’s the rabbit hole we’re going to go down.
A year ago, I was warning that this made body parts into machineguns, along with anything that can be fired “much faster.” The federal government just went to court and said so. You’re welcome. Please hit my tip jar.
As for pants and rubber bands… that remains to be seen. When all this documentation becomes public, you must read the discussion of rubber bands. When asked if a closet full of semi-auto rifles and a box of rubber bands would be considered by the ATF to be a machinegun, the DOJ lawyer answered:
You know, I think until we — I don’t think we are in a position to come out and give an advisory opinion on what the agency might decide to do with a particular rubber band.
In denying the preliminary injunction, Friedrich found that it was not justified because “the Coalition is unlikely to succeed on these final challenges to the bump stock rule.” She essentially found that the ATF may arbitrarily redefine any word for which Congress neglect to specify a definition (the discussion included “the” and “shall,” and probably should have included “and.”
Friedrich found that federal agencies are not required to follow federal law if they don’t think it would helpful.
And she found that the President can do whatever he wants.
Did I wake up in Maduro’s Venezuela this morning?
I’m sure someone will trot out the old argument that this is Trump’s multidimensional art of the deal. When the ANPRM dropped, it was, “He’s just going to get a bunch of opposed comments so he can say no one really wants this.” When NPRM dropped, it became, “Nah, it a cunning plan to collect comments so the ATF can say they made a mistake and the rule isn’t justified.” When the rule dropped, “His plan is to get this challenged in court so it’ll get tossed as obviously, blatantly illegal.”
Well, it’s in court, and the judge isn’t tossing it. In fact, she says it’s probable that it will stand. And guess who appointed Dabney L. Friedrich, who looks to be upholding the ban, to the DC District Court.
Go ahead, tell me about the dimensional shift to SCOTUS.
Oh, and Friedrich? It’s not “Condrea.”
* That NBC article illustrates just why I will not use that outlet as a source without confirmation. It’s factually wrong on multiple points. The judge did not — yet — uphold the ban. Friedrich did not dismiss the case. And her court is not in Washington state.
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)
San Jose leaders propose tougher gun laws
“We’ve seen enough studies demonstrating straw purchasing are endemic particularly among gangs that are purchasing guns, often from gang members who don’t have a prior record,” said Liccardo.
But Liccardo cited national statistics showing about half of all guns used in crimes were purchased illegally – leading to community heartache.
Straw purchases might be as high as 10.8%, but since retail sources accounted for just 7.5%, it seems unlikely.
The mayor is proposing four amendments to the city’s existing gun ordinances. He’ll require video and audio recording of all gun sales in shops, for access by police if needed;
If he’s planning to record “about half of all guns used in crimes […] purchased illegally,” he has to require black market dealers to do recordings. No doubt the costs of compliance will drive them out of business.
prohibit the sale of guns and ammunition within a residence;
That’s already the case in California.
require a license for the sale or transfer of all concealable firearms;
Again, that’s current law.
On the one hand, it’s good to see them waste resources on stupidity that merely duplicates existing laws, instead of imposing new human/civil rights violations. On the other hand, they’re still directing their attention at the wrong target… if this were actually about reducing crime. But this is a state that actively invites and protects criminals, and releases the ones who were stupid enough to be jailed at all. Of course they want to disarm the preferred prey of their real constituency.
On the gripping hand, we have this.
and display information about local gun laws, and post suicide warning signs and prevention programs.
If you are sane, but still in San Jose, get out. Get out of California.
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)
Ah, the fad for Extreme RiskEx 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)
“Demonstrating perseveration, liberals insisting they don’t want to take away anyone’s guns is like the government telling plains Indians, because no tracks have been laid is proof trains will never come through their land.” Author
I Recently returned from Monaco celebrating Lewis Hamilton’s fifth Formula 1 World Championship, the Port Palace Hotel, (7 Avenue, Kennedy, Monaco) is fabulous. Hamilton, who is British and Black,2 joins Argentinian Juan Manuel Fangio at that mark with German Michael Schumacher holding the record at seven. Okay, I wasn’t really in Monaco. My family popped corks in the states. Cheers. But all was not well.
To my chagrin, the Great Unwashed turned Congress over to trolls who despise the U.S., hate its Constitution, and hate its Judeo-Christian foundations. I kind of understand young sock-puppet Millennials voting for neo-Marxist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (or is it Evita?) in spite of her abysmal ignorance of economics, history, and the Constitution after all, they probably went to public schools. When run by liberals, dumb kids showing up at school house doors (Alyssa Milano) graduate even dumber. What I can’t fathom is how anyone could vote for reprehensible batrachian Nancy Pelosi whose former career, if I’m not mistaken, included playing Miss Gulch, the woman who took Dorothy’s dog away. Technology doesn’t exist capable of measuring her level of arrogance, pomposity, and deceitfulness. Were she attached to a polygraph, it’d explode the moment she opened her mouth. Rumor has it she and Cher recently tussled on the floor of their plastic surgeon’s office over the last bottles of collagen, Botox, and a Styrofoam cooler of baby’s skin for grafting.
In Part 1, I observed writing on race and crime was akin to crossing a mine-infested no-man’s land. On one side is a race hurting from wounds inflicted through discrimination and hatred. They search for acceptance leading to healing. On the other is a race who, to some degree, exacerbate the crisis by indifference. It’s expressed through attitudes like; “Crime ain’t happening in my neighborhood, why should I care?” Or “I had nothing to do with racism, it all happened in the past, so, why are these people still so angry?” And worse; “It’s a black thing.” They relate to blacks as if the latter are recent immigrants rather than having been in America, almost from the start, as American as the white man.
Ah, but perched like vultures in burned out trees overlooking the no-man’s land of racial division are today’s young Neo-Marxists, ready to swoop down on anyone daring to address race and crime in a fair and honest way. Blacks willing to do so are chastised as “traitors, Uncle-Toms,” and “racial-sellouts.” For whites willing to address the sources of the problem come shrill high pitched harridan shrieks of “racist” from the twisted fever spittled lips of Left-wingers. White flimsy-bodied Kulak-haters in black unitards regret none of the mayhem, destruction, and death they’ve unleashed in minority communities by stoking the flames of mistrust and animosity. They need it. Social disorder is vital to the Left’s strategy to realize their great project; subordinating the individual to the all-powerful state. Their route to power has never been the ballot box. It’s riding the crest of a wave of mass social unrest and violence as they did in Russia, China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Palo Alto. Racial division is a tool useful for the left in breaking down social order. Their technique is to whip up anger among blacks, goad them into acts of civil disobedience, and provoke overreaction by police like the 1960s, and then the revolution is on. Unless issues of race are addressed honestly, reconciliation remains a pipedream. If you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer. As painful as it might be, the starting point is facing reality.
In 1999, Walter E. Williams, black Professor of Economics (George Mason University) wrote that “most violent crime in America, in our country, is committed by blacks.” They commit 54 percent of all murders, 42 percent of rapes, and almost 60 percent of robberies. With respect to interracial crime, “blacks are fifty times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites that whites against blacks.” Most of the violence is intra-racial with 93 percent of black homicide victims killed by other blacks.3 What the Left fails to mention is less than a hundred years after the end of slavery, a higher percentage of black children grew up in two-parent homes than white kids.4 In addition, the current crime problem in the black community was unheard of in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s. They didn’t have to shut their windows and lock their doors like they did in white neighborhoods, and could stroll their streets after dark without fear. Poverty and high school dropout rates were on par, often less, than white communities as well.5 Crime, poverty, unemployment, and poor education in the black community, accepted as the norm today, is in fact not and never was. A direct correlation can be drawn between this monumental change and liberal government social welfare programs, starting in the 1960s, and decline of the black family.6 They were making it on their own when the government pulled the rug out from under them.
What went wrong? Who is responsible? How can we begin to fix this? Those are the questions that should be asked. Blacks didn’t do this to themselves. But these questions won’t be asked because white liberals stoking racial division today are ideologically the same ones responsible for what has been done to the black community in the first place through their social engineering. Compounding the problem are “black” groups misidentifying those who stabbed them in the back and, asking the wrong questions, choose the wrong solutions.
Today Black Lives Matter (BLM) and the New Black Panthers (NBP) are joined by white Crypto-Marxists promoting revolution in America. Since the 1960s, they’ve demonized America’s founding conservative institutions, religion and family, until they’ve become epithets for hatred and racism. They corrupted public education harnessing it as a transmission belt for ideological indoctrination of each generation. Next they set their sights on other conservative institutions, the Boy Scouts and U.S. Military and, through insidious feminization and homosexualization, they too fell. Finally, deploying a fictitious narrative cooked up in the rotting fetid swamps of their brains, they went after the last man standing, the police, claiming they’re the tip of the white man’s spear in a war to destroy the black race. It is them they blame for violence in black communities. Is any of this true? Have circumstances changed since Williams wrote about race twenty years ago?
Twenty-three percent of New York City’s population is black (only 33% is white) yet blacks account for 75 percent of the City’s shootings compared to 2 percent by whites. Its black population commit 70 percent of all robberies and blacks and Hispanics account for 98 percent of illegal gunfire in the city. Most of the victims are black and Hispanic. Redacted by the liberal media is the fact most legal gun purchases in the Five Burroughs are made by whites but only a miniscule percentage are used in crimes.7 Blacks and Hispanics commit violent crimes in numbers disproportionate to their percentage of the population as a whole. But Liberal whites, who typically don’t live in or near minority neighborhoods, insist crime rates are the same, proportionate, for all races. They contend no race commits violent crime at a higher rate than any other, therefore, New York’s crime and arrest rates should mirror those percentages. If 23 percent of the city’s residents are black and 33 percent white, then 23 percent of crime should be committed by blacks and 33 percent by whites. But that’s not what’s happening. Black crime is way out of proportion to their percentage of the City’s population. What then accounts for the disparity? According to the white liberal media, it’s the result of racism.8 The Left would have you believe cops protect families in communities where they often live, arresting black suspects for assault, robbery, rape, and murder but look the other way when the same crimes are committed by whites. Yeah, right. I served and worked with police departments on the East and West Coasts and never met a police officer who wasn’t more than happy to put the habeas grabbus on the scrotes and dirt-bags of society irrespective of race.
Contrary to what white liberal pantywaists at the New York Times claim, police killings of blacks are actually extremely rare. They comprise a “minute fraction of black homicide deaths.” Approximately 25 percent of those shot and killed by the police are black meaning 75 percent are not.9 An arithmetic exercise is in order to put this into perspective. Yeah, I know, I went to public schools too.
Blacks comprise 13% of the U.S. population. They commit 57%+ of all murders, 45% of assaults, and 62% or robberies in America’s seventy-five largest counties.10 Of that 13%, approximately 47% are male.11 Approximately 49% of that 47% are between ages 18 to 34, the cohort committing the overwhelming majority of violent crimes.12 The 49% of the black population that is male represents 6.20% of the total U.S. population. The 47.7% of that 6.02%, ages 18-34, represents only 3.03% of the total U.S. population. When roughly 3% of a race commits 60% of the nation’s murders, and most of its rapes, robberies, and assaults, is it any wonder that cops profile, and people black and white, fear them? To be politically correct, should people equally fear Japanese, Indian-Americans, or Jewish Deli-owners? Wait a minute, professor, the Washington Post (marching orders for Bolshevik Millennials) claims “unarmed black men are seven times more likely than whites to die by police gunfire.”13 What do you say about that? If 60%+ of violent criminals are black, isn’t it far more likely the police will have encounters with them than whites? But let’s take a closer look at the paper serving the Kremlin on the Potomac.
Of the 987 people shot by police in 2015, 35 were unarmed black men, 2 unarmed black women, and 31 unarmed white men. Leftwing mouthpieces like the Post typically refer to unarmed suspects shot by the police as “victims.” What they dishonestly left out of this reporting is that of the 36 unarmed blacks, 5 tried to grab the officer’s gun and shoot him or her, several more had the officer down on the ground beating him or her senseless with the cop’s service equipment, (what would’ve happened once the officer went under), and 2 were killed by stray bullets fired from guns aimed at someone else. Black males are far more likely than white males to violently resist arrest, make a grab for the officer’s gun, and physically assault officers. In arresting suspects, no requirement exists for officers to first determine who is the better boxer, wrestler, or martial artist.14 Police officers are commissioned to enforce the law, keep the peace, and arrest those for whom probable cause exists to believe they’ve committed a crime. They’re not required to take a beating in performance of their duties.
Big surprise, the Pravda Post forgot to mention in cases they referenced that the suspects had gained control of non-firearm pieces of the officer’s equipment, including nightsticks, which are potentially lethal weapons especially when the officer is pinned to the ground, on his or her back. Detectives were beat bloody with their own portable radios while others under arrest, possibly on drugs, shrugged off night sticks, chemical sprays, and TASERS and were beating the cop senseless. Most people can only last a few minutes in an all-out struggle. But bad guys on drugs, like PCP,15 with the strength of Hercules, can go a lot longer. Officers often face suspects who are larger, stronger, and more physically fit. As a policeman, I took a class taught by a Captain from San Quentin, Marin County, California. Convicts behind bars practice escaping police holds, (feet apart and spread them, hands interlaced behind your head, and so forth), disarming cops, and killing them with their own service weapons. It was a chilling class. Once a cop is down, scumbags don’t need a gun to kill him or her. Kicks to the head, throat, ribs, and so forth will quickly incapacitate and kill a victim,16 one reason white-supremacist gnat-zies and ex-con thug-bikers wear steel-toed boots. If cops wait until they’re going under before grabbing the Smith & Wesson, it’s too late. Reality check; “Police officers are at a greater risk from blacks than unarmed blacks are from police officers. The per capita rate of officers being feloniously killed is 45 times higher than the rate at which unarmed black males are killed by cops.” And “An officer’s chance of getting killed by a black assailant is 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop.”17 But this is not what is explained in black communities or the liberal media.
Because some blacks target non-police random whites for “pay-back” assaults and the conflict between blacks and whites in general, talk of a “race-war” appears on social media. Regrettably, some blacks, including Economist Thomas Sowell and conservative former black Congressman Allen West believe the U.S. is already in the midst of a race-war. Random attacks on whites are justified as revenge for past injustices. Anyone with a white skin is fair game.18 Justification for race war are promoted by white liberal males tying to purge feelings of “white-guilt” guilt implanted into their skulls by public education, pop-culture, and university professors. To prove they’re not racists, they make common cause with BLM and NBP referring to the police as an “occupying force” and treat violent criminals as “victims.” Cop-killers are toasted as heroes within black communities and by white liberals19 who refuse to face the truth that crime in minority communities is black on black, not cop on black.20 St. Louis, Missouri, which makes Forbe’s Top Ten List of most dangerous cities in America like clockwork, is a black majority city in which 95% of homicide victims are black as are the killers.21 Kansas City, Missouri, called Kanshago in some circles (Kansas + Chicago) mecca for connoisseurs of abandoned boarded-up crumbling brick buildings, is 29% black and ranks as more dangerous than 94% of other communities in the state with an extremely high murder-rate, almost all black on black.22 Considering the municipal governments, school districts, and police departments of these cities are typically run by blacks, how can white millennial liberals continue to blame white cops? In addition, is it “white-guilt” that cripples their credulity or slavish adherence to ideology that causes them to stoop to or fall for race-hoaxes?
University of Missouri’s black president of the Missouri Student Association claimed “rednecks” in pickups screamed “nigger” at him warning that black students were going to be assaulted. He claimed the KKK had a presence on campus. Ultimately he, like black students at the University of Alabama and other colleges, confessed their stories of racial attacks were hoaxes. They made it all up.23 They painted the Swastikas and white supremacist symbols on buildings and dorm doors themselves. Further damage was done to the University of Missouri, negatively affecting enrollment and athlete recruitment, when black football players went on strike refusing to practice or play until graduate student Jonathan Butler ended his hunger strike.24 Butler, a self-described black “activist,” was protesting what happened in Ferguson, Missouri and demanding University President Tim Wolfe and Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin resign for doing nothing about alleged anti-black racism at the University. Regrettably, vertebral atrophy won the day and these administrators were forced to resign over faux racism and racial hoaxing as leftists learned to use race to flex political muscle.25 Perhaps worse, in a massive display of cowardice and gonadectimization, Board of Curators Chairman (a charitable sex-designation) Donald Cupps apologized to black students for the faux racial incidents, political race “stunting,” and hoaxing committed by black students that also destroyed the careers of lifelong educators and administrators.26 My contacts out in Missouri, advise enrollment at Missouri’s flagship university has plummeted, hundreds of professors have been laid off, and so many dorms closed, the university is renting them out like apartments and hotel rooms. And the most tragic consequences of these false narratives and lies?
From Baton Rouge to Dallas, 2015-2016 saw an “extreme spike” of 56% in ambushes on cops over 2014. This spike began following well-orchestrated and publicized protests and riots coupled with the Left’s calculated inflammatory rhetoric (aided and abetted by former president Obama).27 Another consequence is the “Ferguson Effect.” Afraid of being accused of and punished for racism, police officers scaled back aggressive proactive policing and anything that smacks of profiling. As a result, violent crime has spiked with cities like Baltimore experiencing a blood bath. Street cops know that, like the University of Missouri’s Board of Curators, the powers-that-be will shamelessly throw them under the bus in a heartbeat to placate the violent mob.28 Who suffers the most? Blacks living in the inner-city. Way to go Lefties.
Thomas Sowell
1 Teachers are forced into retirement for various reasons. My crime was engaging in Unprotected Education. I dared to teach the “other side” as opposed to liberal dictum being indoctrinated into the minds of students and was targeted by a coven-like cabal of leftist teachers for expurgation. They were relentless. What makes me so dangerous now that I’m out? Because I was on the INSIDE for 25 years, I know what really goes on, and I’m going to tell. Watch for future articles.
22 I don’t refer to Hamilton as “black.” His father is Caribbean, of African ancestry, and his mum is a blonde Englishwoman. Lewis was born and raised in England. Formula 1 drivers represent their nation, their team, and the sport, not a race. The world, not me, describes Lewis as black. Naturally blacks claim him as he may go down in history as the greatest F1 driver of all time. Although half-white, some whites see him as a “black guy who is part white.” Born with a natural tan, I was forced to “defend” my racial composition as a teacher. Colleagues mocked my suspected racial composition, yes, teachers, and students made up songs whose lyrics were full of speculative mockery. It seems, unless one is 100% white, even if 80%+, they’re not accepted as white but as representatives for their tiny non-white part. Yes, racism exists in America.
33 Walter E. Williams, More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well (Stanford, California, Hoover Institution Press, 1999), 20-21.
1010 IBID. 38. See also: Taleeb Starkes, Black Lies Matter: Why Lies Matter to the Race Grievance Industry (North Charleston, South Carolina, Createspace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016), 23.
1414 IBID., 74-76. Citizens seem to think the local cop knows and represents every cop anywhere in America. If one does something wrong, all cops are guilty. I was asked often why cops used mace, nightsticks, and even guns on bad guys instead of using martial arts like William Shatner on the television show, T. J. Hooker. You know, Kung-Fu kick the bad guy’s gun from his hand. They said; Instead of shooting and killing bad guys shooting at you, why don’t you “wing” him instead? You can’t make up this kind of idiocy.
1515 PCP: Phencyclidine. Street name is “Angel-Dust.” Some people cook PCP in water and then, using a spray bottle, spray it on Marijuana cigarettes. They smoke it when dry. PCP, formerly a horse-tranquilizer, is a mind-altering drug than can cause extreme paranoia, violence, hallucinogenic episodes, psychosis, and gives the user incredible strength. How do I know? Whaddaya mean how do I know? I had to arrest these junkies and more than a few told me “how it was done.”
