Changing view of gun control: Changes in the law

Related articles

Gun Control: Washington lawmakers to propose

Manager's secret amendment finally public, abortion, gun checks out, CBO weighs in

The Fort Hood shooting - could it happen here?

Brady Campaign on Fort Hood shooting

The AP recently had an article about what they referred to a "loosening" of gun control laws this year. Even the title suggests some lack of objectivity on what is otherwise a reasonably accurate piece. I can't imagine an article about "loosening" of First, Fourth or Fifth Amendment laws.

The AP credits the NRA with the changes in the laws, but, as we'll explore later, there is more of a grass-roots interest in changing the laws. The NRA, alone, can't pass the laws themselves.

Changes to the law:

• Arizona, Florida, Louisiana and Utah have all passed laws making it legal for employees to keep their hunting rifle in the cars at work
  
  
  
  • Disney, however, citing an exemption to the Florida for businesses in which "the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials" does not allow its employees to have firearms anywhere on the premises. Bet you thought they were just about Mickey and Tinkerbell, didn't you.
  
  
  
  


• Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia have passed laws keeping the names and addresses of firearm permits holders private.
  
  
  
  • In Memphis, the Commercial Appeal printed the names and addresses of permit holders.
  
  
  • In Roanoke, Virginia, the Roanoke Times printed the names and addresses of permit holders in Virginia. The list was quickly removed after the name and address of the editorial writer was printed by a gun-rights group.
  
  
  • A similar law was defeated in Oregon.
  
  
  • Washington has had a privacy law for years.
  
  
  • It is interesting to note that when the names of Registered Sex Offenders are printed, only the block of residence is printed.
  
  
  
  


• Montana, Arizona and Kansas have included firearms possession in those civil rights returned to felons who have had their convictions expunged or otherwise had their civil rights restored.


• Montana and Tennessee, citing the Tenth Amendment rights, have passed legislation allowing their residents to purchase firearms produced in their state to be exempt from federal restrictions.
  
  
  
  • Federal control of firearms is allowed by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which empowers the federal government "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States"
  
  
  
  

This next year in Washington, there is already a discussion of an "Assault Weapon Ban", as was discussed recently.

Thoughts? Leave a COMMENT.

Gun Control: Washington State Legislators propose new "Assault Weapon Ban"

The Seattle Times is reporting that three state legislators will introduce legislation banning the sale of "military-style" semi-automatic firearms in Washington State at the start of the session in January.

The bill, not yet submitted, will be called the "Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill", and will prohibit the sale of "military style" semiautomatic weapons in the state, and require current owners to pass background checks.

The legislators, Representatives Kline and Kohl-Welles of Seattle, and Hunter or Medina, cite the murders of Aaron Sullivan, and Officer Timothy Brenton as the need for the bill.

While both murders are tragic, there is no evidence to support the idea that a Washington State version of an "Assault Weapon Ban" would have any effect on crime. A US Department of Justice study on the effect of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban in place from 1994-2004. Studies show that firearms restricted by the ban were only involved in 1-2% of crimes.

No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control. Washington Post
editorial September 15, 1994 addressing the Federal Assault Weapon Ban

Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman has addressed the myth that Officer Brenton was killed by a so-called "assault weapon."

The proposed legislation would ban certain firearms based on their cosmetics, identifying so-called "military style" firearms, and standard-capacity magazines.

To evaluate the proposed law, it is important to understand that, from a functional perspective, there is no difference between the AR-15 style rifle and a more traditional semi-automatic rifle. Each fires only one round each time the trigger is pulled. Fully automatic firearms, which fire more than one round with a trigger pull, are already illegal in Washington, and have nothing to do with the crimes.

The Washington State Constitution is pretty clear in its intent about firearms.

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. -- Washington Constitution

It is not logical to assume that the number of rounds that a firearm can carry would alter the intent of the criminal. Maurice Clemmons, the alleged murderer of the Lakewood Police officers, used a revolver to carry out his crime.

Requiring a background check for people who already own these types of firearms has far-reaching effects.

• First, it would establish an unprecedented firearms registration system if Washington, because owners would have to declare that they have the firearms. Legal owners would have to register their firearms based on cosmetics. Criminals, who don't follow laws, won't.


• It ignores the fact that the vast majority of legal owners of the firearms underwent criminal background checks at the time of purchase. Remember, criminals buying stolen guns don't do background checks.


• It would probably violate Washington Constitution's Section 23, which prohibits Ex Post Facto laws. The law places a restriction on an already-completed legal transaction. Criminals, of course, don't follow laws at the time of purchase, and won't follow them after the purchase.

Representative Hunter has said, "We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction."

Of course, this argument is specious, and Hunter knows it. Trying to draw an analogy between a civilian firearm to a tank or bazooka is patently absurd.

Representative Kohl-Welles asked, "did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" when addressing the Constitutionality of the proposed ban.

Again, a specious argument, and she knows it.

When writing the First Amendment, the framers didn't anticipate the computer you are reading this on, nor the Internet you used to get it. The framers did not anticipate electronic wiretaps when writing the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

The proposed legislation is nothing other than another attempt to restrict the legal activities of law-abiding citizens. If the supporters of the legislation don't know that criminals who shoot police officer don't follow laws, they should wake up.

The Fort Hood shooting - could it happen here?

From my Examiner.com piece:

There is an ongoing discussion of the detection, motives and profile of Major Hasan, the accused gunman in the Fort Hood shooting. As often happens, once the person has been identified, a look into his or her background shows many indicators that might have pointed to their future actions. E-mail, blogs and chat rooms postings all make sense now....if only......

What rarely gets discussed is that the victims were made defenseless in "Gun Free Zones."

There's a history of mass murder in "Gun Free Zones".

Now at first glance, the concept of a gun-free zone makes sense -- put up a sign and people will heed.

For the concept to make sense, you'd have to accept that someone bent on mass destruction is going to be stopped by a "No Trespassing" sign.

For the concept to make sense, you'd have to accept that someone bent on mass destruction is going to be stopped by a "No Trespassing" sign. Not surprsingly, this hasn't worked out well.

The shooter at Fort Hood elected to use the Soldier Readiness Center for his attack rather than the rifle range, the police or headquarters building. Is it surprising that the Readiness Center is a place where firearms are not allowed and the rifle range or headquarters buildings involve soldiers with guns? Shouldn't be.

There's a history of mass murder in "Gun Free Zones".

• In 1987, at the Luby's Cafeteria in Texas, a gentleman drove his truck into the window of the cafeteria and proceeded to kill 23 people. At the time, restaurants in Texas were Gun Free Zones.


• Columbine High School was a Gun Free Zone.


• Virginia Tech was a Gun Free Zone.

Gun Free Zones just don't work.

Fort Hood, like the bases in the Puget Sound, Fort Lewis, McChord Air Force Base, do not allow people to be armed. What better people to allow themselves to be armed to protect themselves. Soldiers in the field are armed around the clock. They litteraly live with their guns, yet when at home they aren't allowed to have them.

Despite the futility of "Gun Free Zones", Seattle Mayor Nickels is establishing them in parks in the city. He is doing this despite the State Attorney General's opinion that he does not have the authority under Washington States preemption law.

This is a policy that needs to be eliminated not only on military bases other public buildings, and **gasp** colleges and university. It will make us all safer.

Brady Campaign on Fort Hood shooting

From my column in Examiner.com

Never missing an opportunity to turn tragedy into a press release, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly Handgun Control, Inc., said the following:

"

When I heard of the tragedy yesterday, we were in the midst of planning a
response to the latest dangerous legislative proposal from the gun lobby in the
United States Senate - language to automatically restore access to guns to
veterans designated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice
Department as ‘mentally incapacitated' or ‘mentally incompetent.' In light of
what happened yesterday - a violent attack by an emotionally unstable soldier -
it is even clearer that the proposal being pushed by Senator Richard Burr of
North Carolina should be rejected.

Of course, the shooting at Fort Hood has nothing to do with Senator Burr's bill and the Brady Campaign knows it. They are referring to S. 669, the "Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act". We'll discuss Burr's bill in another installment.

Major Hasan, the alleged shooter at the Fort Hood massacre, is an active-duty soldier. His mental status is not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veteran's Affairs, which is what S. 669 addresses.

...make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal. -- Handgun Control's, Incorporated's Pete Shields

None of that stops the Brady Campaign from again turning a tragedy into a Press Release. As always, they play from Rham Emanuel's playbook and not let "a serious crisis go to waste."

The Brady Campaign's predecessor, Handgun Control's, Incorporated's Pete Shields told the New Yorker Magazine in 1976,

"... the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."

The Brady Campaign has become more subtle in their rhetoric, but no different in their direction. It is just too bad they have to rely on tragedy to misdirect the public's eye.

And Now McDonald

No, not the place with the Golden Arches.

The next piece of litigation that will be critical in continuing to protect our right to protect ourselves will be McDonald v Chicago. But first, a little background.

On June 26, 2008, in the Heller decision, the Supreme Court

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess
a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm
for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Prior to this ruling, the District of Columbia had a prohibition to handgun ownership. From the text of the Heller ruling:

The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possessionof handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. See D. C. Code §§7–2501.01(12), 7–2502.01(a), 7–2502.02(a)(4) (2001). Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for 1-year periods. See §§22–4504(a), 22–4506. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, “unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device” unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities. See §7–2507.02.1

So as far as the DC was concerned, no handguns, and no working long guns anyhow. Parenthetically, they did not even allow law enforcement officers from surrounding jurisdictions to carry firearms off duty.

This ruling, however, only applied to the District of Columbia; this is where Mr. Heller lives and the District was named in the suit. The District of Culumbia is a Federal District (it is outside of the states of Virginia and Maryland from which it was carved).

Self protection activists have known that the next step was to return to the Supreme Court and have the Court rule through the 14th Amendment that the Second Amendment is incorporated, or applies, to the rest of the States.

On September 30th, the Supreme Court granted a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which asks them to consider the question:

Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as
against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities or Due
Process Clauses.

Representing McDonald and the Second Amendment Foundation is Alan Gura, who successfully argued Heller before the Court.

Let us hope and pray that the Court incorporates the Second amendment through this litigation so that some of the legal impediments to our ability to protect ourselves and our families are removed.

In addition to prayer, I'm sure the Second Amendment Foundation would appreciate some financial help in their ongoing work. The Second Amendment Foundation is at http://saf.org/.

Let's Create New Criminals!

California, a great bastion of gun control and safe streets, has now come up with another absurd law that is an affront to all of us who are law-abiding gun owners, and can create criminals out of someone making what would be a legal purchase anywhere else.

Under the lovely name of the Anti-Gang Neighborhood Protection act of 2009, AB 962 makes the following requirements:

• 
  
  Ammunition may not be sold on shelving that is open to the public. The purchaser must be helped by a clerk to get the ammunition.


• 
  
  There must be a record of the following:


• 
  
  Date of sale


• 
  
  Purchaser's drivers license or other ID number


• 
  
  Brand, type, and amount sold


• 
  
  Purchaser's signature


• 
  
  Name of the salesperson


• 
  
  Right thumbprint of purchaser


• 
  
  Purchaser's full residential address and telephone number


• 
  
  Purchaser's date of birth

Now if the vendor does not follow this, they are subject to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000.

Now can anyone really expect to see a Blood, Crypt, or MS-13 member doing all that?

This is just another version of gun control. Kinda like dad saying you can buy a car, but I get to keep the keys.

If you live in California and you are interested, you might give the Govenator a call or drop him a note with your feelings about yet another attempt to leave you defenseless (remember that the police are not obligated to protect you -- Castle Rock v Gonzales).

Mr. Schwarzenegger is at:

Phone: 916-445-2841

Fax: 916-558-3160

E-mail: http://gov.ca.gov/interact

Arthur Frommer Boycotts Arizona Until Civil Rights are Restricted

In his travel blog, writer and travel guru Arthur Frommer is boycotting the State of Arizona until it is more restrictive of Civil Rights.

Frommer says, "I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest."

Of course, what he is referring to is a few people doing open carry while they were at a political protest near (but not in) President Obama's visit with the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Whether or not the people carrying openly was meant as a "means of political protest" or just how these people, like many others, choose to protect themselves is not clear.

"The continued tolerance of extremists carrying guns is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate," Frommer contends.

Acceptance of people exercising their First Amendment rights to petition the government and their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms does, indeed, strike at the heart of the political process. It is the heart of the political process. Frommer and others' hoplophobia should not be allowed to shape the debate.

The debate that the people were engaging in was about health care reform and what shape it would take.

The debate that Frommer and others want to have is about restriction of Civil Rights.

If Frommer feels that extortion of a State until it restricts its citizens Civil Rights is appropriate, it says more about Frommer than those carrying the guns.

Gun Control, Health Care Control, and Crowd Control

John Longenecker, who writes the LA Gun Rights Examiner, has been writing a series entitled Socialized Medicine and the Loss of the Second Amendment. Like most of Longenecker's writing, it is very centered on libertarian thought and its relationship to the Second Amendment. Like most of his writing, it is very provocative.

Now intertwined with the health care debate we have a debate about the Second Amendment. As I wrote about recently, a New Hampshire resident recently was at a peaceful political gathering (still protected by the First Amendment, I think) carrying his handgun holstered, but open. This is all legal in New Hampshire.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC "interviewed" the gentleman (really just swore, yelled at, berated and belittled, but you can do that if you have your own network program). That interview is available on my previous post.

Now Matthews is the same person who thought that the Navy Seals shooting of the Somali Pirates was just "luck".....3 "lucky" shots....

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now comes Gail Collins writing in the New York Times "Gunning for Health Care" in which she not only vilifies gun owners, but feels that, perhaps New Hampshire law should be changed to her liking.

This is under the theory that as long as you know that the strange-looking guy waving the big protest sign is packing heat, you can take steps to protect yourself, perhaps such as purchasing a bulletproof vest from a nearby street vendor.

The Huffington Post, in reviewing the Matthews interview, refers to Kostric, the gentleman carrying the gun as "unrepentant". So I'm guessing that if we do or say something that Matthews or Huffington doesn't agree with we are now expected to "repent" -- to them? Does it not matter at all that, though they may not agree with it, Kostric did nothing illegal? No, not at all.

Joan Walsh in Salon.com has, in only 24 hours, has produced a number of pieces of "evidence" that portray Kostric as a right-wing revolutionary. Walsh opens her piece by saying that Kostric, "brought a loaded gun to the town hall meeting".

Accuracy is such an annoying thing. Kostric wasn't at the town hall meeting. I think we all would question the judgment of a mere citizen showing up to a meeting with the President armed. He was on the street some distance away from the meeting. Again, what he did was perfectly legal, but it is much more fun to pillory him.

So what's the point?

Simple. Portray anyone with a gun as a nut case. Make it look like they belong to some right-wing group of crazies. Marginalize them.

It is much easier to disarm people if we can spin them as crazy and, undoubtedly, dangerous.

Clearly, in the eyes of these media writers, the First Amendment only covers freedom of the press, but it is a little more expansive than that. (Caution - the following is revolutionary in tone -- children, leave the room)

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yes, it covers freedom of the press, but it also addresses the right of the people (that's you and me) to peaceably assemble and petition the Government, exactly what Mr. Kostric was doing. He's allowed to have political opinions different from others. Sadly, most of the media has forgotten that. More sadly, if one reads the comments of people on the sites of the articles I've referenced, many of the readers have forgotten that, too.

Chris Matthews and the "God Damn Gun"

One of the many news stories about the Town Hall meetings regarding the health care debate showed a picture of a protester open carrying. This took place in New Hampshire, where open carry is legal. The protester was quietly carrying a sign, was standing on private property, and had a holstered gun carried open at his side.

He was guilty of exercising his First Amendment right to petition the government and his Second Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Seems this doesn't sit well with Mr. Matthews.

Makes one wonder which Constitutionally-protected rights we can exercise without checking with Mr. Matthews.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

A Little Mexican Drug War History

Here's a piece from Time Magazine in November of 2008. Seems at that time, the problem with the drug wars in Mexico was the widespread corruption of the police and military (which in Mexico are essentially interchagable).

Now, of course, the problem is the Americans and our guns. After all, 17% of those seized were from the US. Guess the historical widespread corruption disappeared?

In Mexico's Drug War, Bad Cops Are a Mounting Problem
Saturday, Nov. 22, 2008

By Tim Padgett with Dolly Mascarenas / Mexico City

Few rituals are more futile than the "housecleaning" of Mexico's police forces. So deep, broad and brazen is cop corruption south of the border that removing it makes eradicating rats from landfills look easy. Mexico stages quasi-annual purges of officers high and low — last year it was 284 federal police commanders — and yet every year the nation seems to find itself with an even more criminal constabulary. This year's scandals, however, are especially appalling.

Over the summer, President Felipe Calderón's antidrug czar, Noe Ramirez, resigned abruptly. The likely reason became apparent this week after Ramirez was detained by federal officials and accused of taking $450,000 to keep Mexico's most powerful narco mafia, the Sinaloa Cartel, informed about police antidrug operations. He is the highest-ranking government official to be nabbed in this year's anticorruption sweep. (See pictures of crime-fighting in Mexico City.)

But not the only one. Last month five top officials at the federal organized-crime task
force were collared for the same crime after being fingered by an informant who,
astonishingly, worked for both the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and the Sinaloa narcos. Days later federal police chief Gerardo Garay — whose predecessor, Edgar Millan, was murdered by narco hit men last May, allegedly with the aid of a federal cop — resigned after being linked to a Sinaloa capo. Mario Velarde, a top boss of the federal police force's antidrug unit and a former private secretary to Garcia Luna, was also detained this week, for leaking info to the narcos. Ramirez and all the accused deny the charges.

But as one federal security analyst says, it's no longer strange in Mexico's police purges "to see today's butchers become tomorrow's cows."

Mexico's real carnage, meanwhile, gets ghastlier by the day.

This year the nation has logged some 4,300 drug-related murders, and analysts fear that Mexico could double last year's record of 2,500. The spike in killing is largely
due to the war Calderón declared last year on the drug cartels. He has deployed
more than 25,000 federal army troops in the campaign, but the narcos have lashed
out with insurrection-style violence against a harrowing number of law-enforcement officials, from beat cops to top cops like Millan, as well as prosecutors and judges. The cartels, whose homicidal repertoire includes an orgy of beheadings, upped the terrorist ante in September when they allegedly threw grenades into a crowded plaza in Michoacán, killing eight people.

The cartels, which run a $25 billion-a-year trafficking industry in Mexico, have also intensified their campaign of co-opting police. Not that Mexico's woefully undertrained and underpaid cops are that hard a mark. But the relentless revelations of the breadth of the corruption — including allegations that officers under Mexico's Public Security Minister, Genaro Garcia Luna, were involved in high-profile kidnappings — seem to make a mockery of Calderón's efforts to stamp it out. "This is Calderón's Iraq," says Sergio Aguayo, a security expert at the Colegio de Mexico in Mexico City. "He declared war against the cartels, but he wasn't prepared for the size of the threat the cartels turned out to represent." Many cases in the latest purge, which is indeed called Operation Housecleaning, are based on the testimony of an unidentified cartel informant in U.S. custody. Still, Calderón faces critics who worry the arrests are an attempt by the Mexican President to find scapegoats for his antidrug quagmire and secure U.S. antidrug aid.

The cartels' ability to infiltrate officialdom has grown so convincing that many Mexicans have trouble believing the government's assertion that a fiery Learjet crash this month on a busy Mexico City avenue — which killed Calderón's Interior Minister and de facto Vice President, Juan Camilo Mourino, and top security adviser Jose Luis Santiago Vasconcelos — was an accident and not narco sabotage. That dwindling public confidence has done nothing to help the Calderón administration fend off the effects of the global economic crisis. This year the Mexican peso has lost about a fifth of its value against the U.S. dollar.

That is all the more reason why the U.S. and the incoming Obama Administration need to lend Mexico, America's third largest trading partner, a more serious hand in reforming and professionalizing its police forces. This year Washington approved $400 million for Mexico's antidrug fight in 2009, part of a three-year aid package known as the Merida Initiative. But critics say the plan focuses too much on interdiction hardware like helicopters and not enough on software like an overhaul of Mexico's police and judiciary — especially higher pay for cops, many of whom earn a measly $5,000 a year, and the creation of more modern investigative units. Without it, Calderón will continue to rely on his army in this fight, but in the long run, armies make for lousy drug-interdiction forces.

The police woes should also prompt the U.S. to take its own culpability for Mexico's narco-calamity more seriously. Even U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza this week took issue with Washington's complacency about curbing gringo demand for cocaine and the smuggling of Yanqui guns to Mexican drug gangs. "The truth is, Mexico would not be at the center of cartel activity, or be experiencing this level of violence," Garza said in San Antonio, "were the U.S. not the largest consumer of illicit drugs and the main supplier of weapons to cartels."

Traveling in Chile this week, Calderón insisted that his government "is strongly committed to fighting against not only organized crime but the corruption that organized crime generates and that has become entrenched over years and perhaps decades in the structures of power." It would seem that he made good headway this week. But as those years and decades have all too often shown in Mexico, the corruption usually gets generated at a far greater rate than any government can keep up with.

Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1861296,00.html
Copyright © 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in
part without permission is prohibited.

Gun Control for the Sake of Liberty

From the Cato Institute

Gun Control for the Sake of Mexico: The Meme That Wouldn’t Die

Posted By David Rittgers On April 15, 2009 @ 5:37 pm In Foreign Policy and National Security, Law and Civil Liberties

Fox News already debunked [1] the claim that 90% of the guns involved in Mexico’s drug war come from the United States. Facts aside, the press onslaught continues in a new push for gun control.

The fact is that out of 29,000 firearms picked up in Mexico over the last two-year period for which data is available, 5,114 of the 6,000 traced guns came from the United States. While that is 90% of traced guns, it means that only 17% of recovered guns come from the United States civilian market.

Where did the rest come from? A number of places. To begin with, over 150,000 Mexican soldiers have deserted in the last six years for the better pay and benefits of cartel life, some taking their issued M-16 rifles with them.

Surprisingly, a significant number of the arms are coming to the cartels via legitimate transactions. They are produced and exported legally every year, regulated by the State Department as Direct Commercial Sales. FY 2007 figures for the full exports are available here [2], and State’s report on end-use is available here [3], alleging widespread fraud and use of front companies to funnel the weapons into the black market. (H/T to Narcosphere [4]) This doesn’t even take into account the thousands of weapons floating around Latin America from previous wars of liberation. This Los Angeles Times article [5] also shows how the cartels are getting hand grenades, rocket launchers, and other devices you can’t pick up at your local sporting goods store.

Perhaps this is why law enforcement officials did not ask for new gun laws to combat Mexican drug violence at recent hearings [6] in front of Congress.

Never mind those pesky facts. The story at the New York Times [7] recycles the 90% claim. The associated video [8] is just as bad. Narrator: “The weapons that are arming the drug war in Juarez are illegal to purchase and possess in Mexico.” They’re also illegal in the United States. As the narrator says these words, the Mexican officer is handling an M-16 variant with a barrel less than sixteen inches long. This rifle would be illegal [9] to possess in the United States without prior approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE). As the video mentions the expired “Assault” Weapons Ban, the submachine gun in frame would also be classified as a short-barreled rifle and require BATFE approval. Ditto for many of the rifles shown in the video. The restrictions on barrel length would not apply to weapons exported as Direct Commercial Sales. Law enforcement folks call this a “clue.”

The language of gun control advocates is changing subtly to demonize “military style” weapons. “Military style” weapons is a new and undefined term that means either (1) automatic weapons, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and destructive devices already heavily regulated by federal law; or (2) a term inclusive of all modern firearms in a back-door attempt to enact a new gun control scheme.

Yes, ALL modern firearms. Grandpa’s hunting rifle? Basis for the system [10] used by military snipers. The pump-action shotgun you use to hunt ducks and quail? Basis for the modular shotgun [11] produced for the military. The handgun you bought for self-defense, a constitutionally protected right [12]? Used by every [13] modern [14] military [15].

This is not a new tactic. The Violence Policy Center [16] has previously tried to fool people by portraying ordinary rifles as machine guns with the term “assault” weapons: “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Making our domestic policies based on the preferences of other countries is unacceptable, especially in an activity protected by the Constitution. One of Canada’s Human Rights Commissioners is on record [17] saying that “[f]reedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.” (Apparently, it makes the folks at the Department of Homeland Security nervous [18] too) In a similar vein, the United Nations says [19] “[w]e especially encourage the debate on the issue of reinstating the 1994 U.S. ban on assault rifles that expired in 2004.”

It’s not theirs to say, and we shouldn’t listen to an argument based on lies. Related posts here [20] and here [21].

Article printed from Cato @ Liberty: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org

URL to article: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/15/gun-control-for-the-sake-of-mexico-the-meme-that-wouldnt-die/

URLs in this post:

[1] debunked: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

[2] here: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/userfiles/70/**State_Dept_rpt655_FY07.pdf

[3] here: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/reports/documents/End_Use_FY2007.doc

[4] Narcosphere: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2009/03/legal-us-arms-exports-may-be-source-narco-syndicates-rising-firepower

[5] article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story

[6] recent hearings: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3718

[7] New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/us/15guns.html?pagewanted=1

[8] video: http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/04/14/world/1194747029246/american-guns-in-juarez.html

[9] illegal: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html

[10] system: http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/m24sws.htm

[11] modular shotgun: http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/870mcs.htm

[12] constitutionally protected right: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/

[13] every: http://ruger-firearms.com/News/2004-12-23.jsp?P=F

[14] modern: http://www.sigsauer.com/AboutUs/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsId=4

[15] military: http://www.berettadefence.com/index.aspx?m=53&did=80

[16] Violence Policy Center: http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

[17] on record: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-jihad-of-the-word/

[18] nervous: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/

[19] says: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/opinion/15iht-edcosta.html?_r=1

[20] here: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org../../../../../2009/03/03/holders-assault-weapons-folly/

[21] here: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org../../../../../2009/03/05/good-coverage-of-ag-holders-war-on-guns/

Click here to print.

Copyright © 2009 Cato-at-liberty. All rights reserved.

Ted Nugent of the Personal Responsibility

FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE IN THE FREE WORLD

How many of those do you get a day? Amongst shooters in the current administration, they are getting popular. Here are a couple:

Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It may require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.

This bill was introduced on Feb.. 24. This bill will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all.

Sounds scary, except it doesn't actually exist. There is no SB-2009 in this Congress. You can search on bills at Thomas, which is the Library of Congress website where bills are registered.

Another is HR 45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act.

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House.

This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009. Also go to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

I've written about that in the past. Still no co-sponsors, it is sitting in Committee going nowhere.

Here's a Civics lesson:

Steps In Making a Law

1. Write your bill
2. Submit it
3. Get it assigned to the appropriate committee
4. Go get a bunch of co-sponsors
5. Have hearings
6. Get a financial impact statement from the Congressional Budget Office
   
7. Pray it gets out of committee
8. See if you can pass it on your side (Senate or House)
9. Send it to the other side
10. See if they pass it
11. Have a Conference Committee to reconcile the Senate and House versions
12. Both sides pass it again
13. Send it to the White House and see if it gets signed

Most bills die at step 3.

Paying attention to things is good, though......

Of Bad Guys and Good

There was a recent murder at a WalMart. In this crime, one of the criminals walked up to a armored-car guard, pulled out a gun, shot the man in the face, killing him and injuring another innocent bystander, stole the guard's money bag, and calmly walked out the store to his waiting car. http://www.thenewstribune.com/311/story/764728.html

In a recent piece (http://firearmslegislation.blogspot.com/2009/04/self-protection-is-not-vigilantism.html), I discussed the fact that honest people legally arming themselves is a rational thing to do. There are just people in the world that are not nice (to say the least). http://firearmslegislation.blogspot.com/2009/04/disarmament-as-public-policy.html

I certainly don't think that any legally-armed person could have done much of anything to stop this crime. By the time this felon had drawn his gun and shot the guard, it was all over. One could argue that it is more likely that more innocents would have been hurt had someone shot back.

What strikes me about this crime is not only the level of violence, but the absolute disregard for life shown by the criminals both in their action and their comments during the subsequent interrogation. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/06/04/2009302279.pdf

Turpin initially denied any involvement, even claiming it wasn’t him on the
video. Eventually Turpin admitted he was involved and it was him on the video. A
detective asked if there was anything he would like to say to the family of the
dead guard if he had the opportunity.

He hung his head and said softly, “Sorry, I guess.”

The detective said, “You guess you’re sorry? A man was shot dead for money.”

“I wouldn’t apologize. What would that do. He’s already gone.”

“If you would have gotten away with this,” the detective asked, “how would you have felt?”

“Bad, but, but I would have gotten over it because of the money.”

What those who don't believe in personal protection just don't get is that there are some very, very bad people out there. They just don't care about the rest of us.

And that's why I carry.