Tag Archives: Gun Control

Muslim Registration

 

It would appear it is upon on – a Trump presidency is mere weeks away.  And with it the specter of a registration based on religion.

Truly a heinous idea.  And dangerous.  And horribly unAmerican.

I am, of course, against any such registration.  First because it’s chilling and second, the constitution protects religion.

 

But for those of you on the left that agree with me I ask you to justify your position in light of your likely support of the registration of people exercising their 2nd amendment rights – owning a gun.

Put another way – why is it okay to restrict firearm ownership or speech but not the practice of religion?

ABC News Defense Of Gun Rights

Guns

A little old to be sure.  And maybe beside the point now that the moment has passed, but I found this defense of gun rights by ABC News to be very interesting:

  • Few prosecutions of denied gun buyers.

  • There are already enough gun laws.

  • They’re an invasion of privacy.

  • They might be too broad.

  • Criminals don’t submit to background checks.

Go read.

Gun Control Gone Crazy

Guns

Reasonable restrictions on guns isn’t wrong.

Unreasonable restrictions on guns is:

SUFFOLK, Va. — Two Suffolk second graders have been suspended for making shooting noises while pointing pencils at each other.

Media outlets report the 7-year-old boys were suspended for two days for a violation of the Suffolk school system’s zero-tolerance policy on weapons. They were playing with one another in class Friday at Driver Elementary.

“When I asked him about it, he said, ‘Well I was being a Marine and the other guy was being a bad guy,’” said Paul Marshall, one of the boys’ fathers. “It’s as simple as that.”

Conflict is part of us; part of who we are.  Teaching kids about the best ways to resolve conflict is fine.

This zero tolerance is a policy driven out of management fear.

Wherein Pino Proposes Make Sense Gun Legislation

Guns

In Minnesota DUI offenders can be mandated to carry what are referred to as “Whiskey Plates” on their cars.  These license plates begin with letters reserved in Minnesota for just such a reason; W, X and Z.  The idea is that any on duty officer, for any reason that should move him under the canopy of heaven, can pull over the driver of the car and subject him to a breathalyzer.

Perhaps we need to profile gun criminals.  For example, a quick look at anecdotal evidence from a single bust in North Carolina:

The police department worked in concert with  the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to identify the men, all known felons. The men and their charges are as follows:

Lorenza Dickens, 28, of Rocky Mount;
possession of a stolen firearm, aid and abetting

Tron Davis, 31, of Rocky Mount;
possession of a firearm by a felon; possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance; possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime

James Taylor Jr., 30, of Rocky Mount;
possession of a firearm by a felon; dealing firearms without a license

Morgan Terrell, 25, of Rocky Mount;
receive/possess a sawed-off shotgun; possession of stolen firearm

Henry Purvis, 59, Rocky Mount;
possession of a firearm by felon

Johnny Darden, 51 of Pinetops;
possession of a firearm by a felon

Benjamin Mcpherson, 30, Rocky Mount;
dealing firearms without a license; receive/ship/transport of a firearm with an obliterated serial number; possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance; receive/possess a sawed-off shotgun; possession of a stolen firearm; conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S. government

Andrick Johnson, 35, of Rocky Mount;
Dealing firearms without a license; possession of a firearm by a felon

William Cherry, 24, of Rocky Mount;
possession of a firearm by a felon; possession of a sawed-off shotgun

Mark Bishop, 37, of Rocky Mount;
possession of a firearm by a felon; possession of a stolen firearm

Donald Harrison, 47, of Rocky Mount;
arson/attempted arson

Darryel Hill, 23, of Rocky Mount;
possession of a firearm by a felon

Wendell Lloyd, 29, of Rocky Mount;
possession of a firearm by a felon; possession of firearm during a drug trafficking crime; possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance; maintaining a place for a controlled substance; receive/ship/transport of a firearm with an obliterated serial number

Jamie Bryant, 35, of Rocky Mount;
possession of a firearm by a felon

Jimmy Hunter, 36, of Rocky Mount
possession a firearm by a felon

Ozay Richardson, 41, of Rocky Mount
possession of a firearm by a felon; possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime; possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance

James Woodley, 28, of Rocky Mount
possession of a firearm by a felon

  • 100% men
  • 100% known felons
  • 76% between the ages of 15 and 40

I’m just saying that maybe before we get all worked up about checking the backgrounds of people willing to submit to background checks, we should admit who commits crimes with guns and work to remove the guns from them.

Gun Control In America – A Solution Looking For A Problem

Gun

I like to think that I fix a lot of problems.  In my job I’m responsible for fixing things that are broken.  And, when all broken things are fixed and I’m waiting for t them to break again, I try and look for patterns, trends and other data that will help me in future situations.

Normally, when we see a trend in a specific condition getting worse, we investigate it, see if the trend is legit, and if so, work to mitigate it.  Understand it.  Fix it.

And then, after we think that we have put in place corrections, we watch it to make sure that what we did is really working.

And if it is…we leave it alone and just let it keep getting better:

Gun violence in America has fallen dramatically over the past two decades, and the number of murders committed with a firearm is down too, though guns are still by far the leading type of crime weapon, according to a new report from the Justice Department.

Gun violence is down.

As for where crime guns came from, the study notes that less than two percent of convicted inmates reported buying their weapons at gun shows or flea markets.

Any talk of this mythical “Gun Show Loophole” is bullshit.

Murders committed with a gun dropped 39 percent to 11,101 in 2011, from a high of 18,253 in 1993, according to the report.

Other crimes committed with guns were down even more sharply — from 1.53 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011, a drop of 70 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

What we’re doing is working.  There may be no need to take any further action.

Gun Control: Obama Fail?

Barack Obama

Obama lost the gun debate recently.  Now, there is some discussion as to whether he was playing politics or really trying to pass new regulations concerning the purchase of guns.

In either case, it’s hard to argue that he won or scored points.

And yeah, Obama smarted.  He was visibly upset and even took offense to the notion that he used the Newtown families as props.  “As if” he claimed.

But he did:

If you believe that politics were at play, that the plan was to pass the bill in the senate and then have it fail in house only to pin the republicans as killers, he failed.  The senate is under democrat control and he couldn’t even get all of THEM to vote with him.

However, if you are less cynical and think that Obama was really trying to pass legislation that would impact guns and how they are bought and sold, well, again, he failed.  Not one new regulation even moved out of the upper chamber for consideration by the house.

Why?

Well, Reid and Obama didn’t want debate:

A word, first, about that Senate “minority.” Majority Leader Harry Reid was free to bring the deal struck by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey to the floor for an up-or-down vote, and this background-checks amendment might have passed. It did convince 54 Senators, including four Republicans.

But under Senate rules, a simple majority vote would have opened the measure to up to 30 hours of debate, which would have meant inspecting the details. The White House demanded, and Mr. Reid agreed, that Congress should try to pass the amendment without such a debate.

No debate – no up-or-down vote.

Oh yeah, there is a ton of talk about the filibuster being used to defeat any gun legislation, but every time democrats bring that argument into play, it’s important to point out that Reid doesn’t allow amendments to bills he DOES bring to the floor:

Majority rules would have also opened the bill to pro-gun amendments that were likely to pass. That would have boxed Mr. Reid into the embarrassing spectacle of having to later scotch a final bill because it also contained provisions that the White House loathes. So Mr. Reid moved under “unanimous consent” to allow nine amendments, each with a 60-vote threshold.

The White House was right to worry. An amendment from John Cornyn of Texas that would have required all states to recognize every other state’s concealed-carry permits earned 57 votes, 13 Democrats among them. The nearby table has the list. On Thursday, Wyoming’s John Barrasso offered an amendment to protect gun ownership privacy that passed 67-30.

Obama didn’t want amendments.

And while the bill has language that prohibits the creation of a national registration, there was language that didn’t demonstrate intent:

Manchin-Toomey was rushed together on a political timetable, and a thorough scrub would have revealed that its finer legal points aren’t as modest as liberals claim. Tellingly, the White House blew up earlier negotiations with Tom Coburn on background checks. The Oklahoma Republican favored more and better checks across secondary firearms markets like gun shows and online, but liberals insisted that federally licensed dealers had to keep records.

But did the GOP do nothing but resist?

The Senate GOP offered an alternative background-checks amendment that failed 52-48. Nine Democrats were in favor, but their colleagues voted en masse to block it from moving forward. How’s that for incoherent?

Hardly.

Whatever Obama’s agenda was, political brinksmanship or honest to goodness legislating, he failed.  And gun regulation is a biggie.  Or was.

This Guy, The Incredulity

Barack Obama

Tonight Obama loses.  The rest of us…?  Mixed bag.  There were good things in the gun bill that was defeated, but there were others not so good.

But Obama?

After the vote, a defiant Obama appeared in the White House Rose Garden with former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), Vice President Biden and family members of victims in last year’s Newtown, Conn., shooting rampage, which killed 20 children.

A visibly irritated Obama ripped the GOP and groups that opposed the Manchin-Toomey amendment, saying they “willfully lied” about the contents of the background-check bill. He added that the vote represented a “pretty shameful day for Washington.”

Having lied his way through the Obamacare debate, I find it ironic that The Barackness Monster would feel shocked, just SHOCKED I tell you, that someone lied.

As if.

Interesting Thought Experiment Combined With Legal Process

scales of justice

So, this story is interesting:

WASHINGTON — Worried the Internal Revenue Service might target you for an audit? You probably should be if you own a small business in one of the wealthy suburbs of Los Angeles.

You might also be wary if you’re a small-business owner in one of dozens of communities near San Francisco, Houston, Atlanta or the District of Columbia.

A new study by the National Taxpayer Advocate used confidential IRS data to show large clusters of potential tax cheats in these five metropolitan areas. The IRS uses the information to target taxpayers for audits.

The taxpayer advocate, Nina Olsen, runs an independent office within the IRS. She got access to the data as part of an effort to learn more about why some taxpayers are more likely to cheat than others.

The study also looked at tax compliance in different industries, and found that people who own construction companies or real estate rental firms may be more likely to fudge their taxes than business owners in other fields.

This whole concept resonates with me.  In my line of work I’m pretty aggressive in trying to sift through data to find root causes and trends.  I get this idea.  On the other hand, is it legal?  Can certain citizens face increased scrutiny, based only on what might be arbitrary profiling?

What is the difference between profiling wealthy citizens in certain industries that live in certain regions with, say, profiling certain people by age, race, nationality and religion?

Or, for a more pertinent subject, profiling citizens in order to reduce gun violence?

How The Old North State Feels About Gun Regulation

Gun Control.Elon.2013.02.24

I live in North Carolina and this surprised me.  I would have thought the banning of weapons would have polled lower.  The waiting periods and background checks…?  I’m less surprised by.  They are good ideas.

See the poll here.

Outside Federal Jurisdiction

Government Control

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We’re seeing more and more of this:

With gun rights coming under fire across the border in New York State, the Susquehanna County commissioners spoke out by resolution Wednesday in favor of the Second Amendment.

Republican Commissioner Michael Giangrieco said the issues in New York prompted him to address the matter on a county level.

He proposed a resolution stating that “any federal act, bill, law, rule or executive order that in any way infringes on our Second Amendment rights by attempting to reduce the private ownership of any firearm, magazine or ammunition shall be unenforceable in Susquehanna County.”

So, it occurred to me, “Can the federal government regulate guns at all?  And if so, how does it derive that power?”

I couldn’t find anything that expressly authorized the federal government to regulate guns but had a sneaking suspicion I would find the authority somewhere else.  And then I found this:

Congress derives its power to regulate firearms in the Commerce Clause, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate commercial activity between the states and commerce with foreign countries. In reviewing federal legislation enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has given Congress tremendous leeway. Congress may enact criminal statutes regarding firearms if the activity at issue relates to interstate transactions, affects interstate commerce, or is such that control is necessary and proper to carry out the intent of the Commerce Clause.

Ahh yes, the Commerce Clause.  The Clause that effectively ended state’s rights and allowed the federal government massive power over those states.  In fact, the landmark case establishing such leeway seems to make Montana’s effort to try and skirt federal gun regulations by manufacturing and selling guns within the state outside federal control.  Remember, that case found that a farmer didn’t have the right to grow and use wheat on his own farm as he saw fit.

My feel is that it was never meant that the federal government could regulate firearms in general, that it be left to the states.  But that the states and local governments COULD regulate those weapons as THEY saw fit.