True Stats: Gun Sales Up - Gun Crimes Down

Anti-Gun Jihadists would have you believe that GUN VIOLENCE is surging; that background checks are insufficient to stem the slaughter and, according to one Anti Gun hysteric, that America Continues to Sacrifice its Babies on the Altar of Guns!!!!

Actually what the data show is:

and 

Nuff said.

Oinks from Harvard Yard

David Hogg, a senior at Harvard University, recently tweeted that, after talking with "a lot" of history and law professors, he had concluded that the Second Amendment "was created to protect state militias like the national guard."

Hoggs tweet was immediately pounced upon the the likes of the NRA here and here, pointing out how erroneously informed he was.

I have nothing to add except to say that the Bill of Rights has always and uniformly been understood as a declaration of personal rights. If Gun Prohibitionists want to misundersand it that is their business, but their mental operations have no basis in reality.

What I find disturbing is that someone can study at the nation's top academic institution and bleat such fundamentally misinformed nonsense. I find it more disturbing if in fact he did indeed imbibe this intellectual swill from anyone in the university's faculty. If so, the standard of learning at Harvard has sunk to the level of Twitter.

©

The Power to Regulate Dangerous Tories and Mulattoes

In United States vs. Rahimi, the Fifth Circuit court recently invalidated a conviction for unlawfully possessing a fireram, based on the defendant being the subject of a civil domestic restraining order. The court ruled that while there were historical precedents preventing convicted felons from possessing firearms, there was no historical analogue for prohibiting firearms to people not convicted of a crime. The court rejected the Government's argument that there were many examples of legislatures prohibiting gun possession by slaves, Native Americans, Loyalists and free Blacks on the ground that there status made them dangerous. The court found such an argument to be "repugnant." A wave of schadenfreude swept through the Gun Rights Folk seeing how liberals were caught making "racist" arguments of their own.

-oOo-

Not so fast. The Government has a point. The perception that Blacks are per se "dangerous" is a racist stereotype; however the power of government to prohibit/preclude a danger is a distinct issue. The difference is shown by that law which prohibited Tories from having guns. That was hardly based on anti-Anglo-Saxon racism. It was based on the fact that the Tories were hostile to American independence. Playing the race card on this issue is a dead end. It is better to meet the issue head on and not try to escape through the rabbit hole of "isms"

All governments clearly have the power to seek to prevent harms from arising; i.e. to pass legislation based on calculated dangers. No one can dispute the legitimacy of laws prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms. Those laws are not based on the abstract fact of a conviction but on the probabilistic determination that a person who has committed a crime presents a risk that he will do so again and therefore that it is dangerous to allow him to possess a firearm.

Therefore the question becomes: does "shall not infringe" mean that the government can pass NO law prohibiting possession of a gun? I.e. that the Second Amendment prohibits prohibiting convicted felons from possessing them? That absolutist argument will not pull out of the station; I can guarantee that.

Accordingly, the argument that has to be made is (1) that there is an analog for prohibiting guns to "dangerous" people but (2) the XIV Amnd. and Equal Protection Clause require that the prohibition be based on demonstrable, tangible facts and not on "profiles" or "generalized propensities."

Alternatively, or in tandem, that argument can be made that EXCLUDING race-based prohibitions; the common law ONLY forbade weapons to convicted felons and/or lunatics. But just don't play the librul 'racism' card as much as it might be fun to do so.


©

Letter to House Speaker Opposing Assault Weapon Ban

I am opposed to this legislation because it barks up the wrong tree. It resorts to scare tactics instead of addressing the actual underlying causes of gun-related deaths. The legislative “findings” are speculative, ideological opinions without support in non-partisan data.

1. “[G]un violence is a threat to the public health and safety...” “Gun violence” is a vague, ambiguous and misleading term. “Violence” signifies an injury to a third person or object; however, the overwhelming number of gun-related deaths are suicides. Nationally, suicides account for 54% of all gun deaths. (Pew Research, “What the Data Says...” (2/22).) In Washington state the number is 70%. Since 1968, suicides have always outstripped murders. (Ibid). So-called “assault weapons” are not used to commit suicide; neither are high capacity magazines. In fact it is difficult to imagine how a person committing suicide could even get to triggering the eleventh round.

2. “Assault weapons have been used in the deadliest mass shootings in the last decade...” This is a rhetorical teaser masquerading as a fact. Yes, so-called assault weapon(s) “have been used”... but what are the numbers? The data show that, in 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non- negligent manslaughters (Pew, op. cit., 2/22) So-called assault weapons “were involved in a mere 3% of firearm murders.” (Ibid.) I would challenge whoever compiled these legislative findings to produce data showing that ordinary crimes (non-suicide, non-mass shooting) are committed with semi-automatic “assault” rifles.

3. As for “mass shootings” the FBI "Active Shooter Incidents 2021," lists zero such incidents for Washington. The overwhelming majority of such incidents were in California which already banned assault weapons. The FBI's description of the 61 incidents at pp. 21-28 of its report indicates that 54 of the incidents were committed with handguns; six with a “rifle” and one (#23) with a “semi-automatic rifle.” One.

4. The U.S. Secret Service, National Threat Assessment, recently released a report analyzing the 173 “targeted [mass] attacks” in the period 2016-2020. Of the 73% of incidents in which firearms were used, 74% used handguns and 32% used long guns, of which 26% (n=33 of 126) were semi-automatic. Only one firearm was fully automatic (i.e. a “military style” weapon.) The task force recommended multiple behavioral assessment interventions (Id., pp. iii-v, 50-51) but not one of its recommendation involved outlawing so-called “assault rifles” or for that matter any weapon at all.

Thus Bill 1240 seeks to ban a lawful weapon that is not or that is negligibly used in “mass-attack violence” situations and which haven't taken place in the state at all, while ignoring the weapon (handguns) that is used in 70% of all gun-related deaths. A more useless feel-good exercise of pointless legislation could not be imagined. The Legislative findings are nothing but factually empty, ideologically motivated conclusory statements swimming in ambiguous terminology and fear mongering insinuations.

I am assuming that the proponents of this bill will be unswayed by the Supreme Court's definitive interpretation of the Second Amendment. Gov. Hochul of New York enunciated the attitude well enough. Therefore I will not address any constitutional issues. Suffice to say, that given its own stated goals, the proposed legislation is useless and is not rationally related to its avowed ends. The proponents would better use their energies addressing the economic, medical and psychological factors resulting in an astonishingly high rate of suicide in this state.

As a person who both in and out of uniform was sworn to uphold the Constitution, the fundamental principles enunciated in the Bill of Rights (all of it), trump all other considerations of policy. “Progressive” as I might generally be, I cannot and will not vote for anyone who derogates or infringes on any of the fundamental rights that had defined our nation's political character since its inception.

Sincerely,


Letter to Representatives Opposing Permit to Purchase Law

I am opposed to House Bill 1143, and its companion bill in the Senate, because (1) they are constitutionally violative in their present form and (2) that there are better and more constitutionally friendly ways to achieve the bill's stated objectives.

(1)

The Bill of Rights set out a sequence of carefully structured rights that together reflect a certain and fundamental conception of society. They are not ad hoc benefits but rather establish the essential political nature of our country; not simply the balance between governors and governed but the relationship between the people themselves.

The right to speak is not simply the right to sound off in a closet but to converse, dispute and agree with others. The right to a jury trial is likewise the right to have, not some authority, but untrained fellow citizens make the decision as to whether to forfeit a person's freedom. Both these rights entail well known risks of which the Framers were well aware. But they explicitly rejected the notion that an attendant risk should qualify or negate the right. It is constitutionally inconceivable that a permit or training should be required for jury duty or to exercise free speech, even if it is granted that well-trained, well-informed people would make better jurors and betters talkers in general.

The same considerations apply to the Second Amendment. Both England and Colonial America were freely armed societies. The army, the militias and the constabularies were drawn *from* people who were self armed. For both political and personal purposes the Framer's insured the right to keep and bear arms. To be hostile to that provision is to be hostile to the conception behind the Bill or Rights as a whole.

(2)

It is undeniable that, in all things, a trained person is better than an untrained one. I have no objection to promoting training in firearms. My objection is to making it mandatory and (worse yet) to using it as a means to discourage the exercise of fundamental right.

If the Legislature is genuinely interested in promoting firearm safety training, the way to do that is to incorporate firearm training in high school curricula. When this country was rural there was not a boy or girl who did not learn how to shoot. There is no reason why that instruction should not be undertaken now by schools. Likewise county sheriff's offices could offer training programs to adults, for a very minimal fee and/or encouraged by a tax credit. Programs such as these would achieve the *avowed* objective of the proposed legislation without being punitive in character or constitutionally obnoxious.

Sincerely...

DEMON GUN

Another shooting and once again another assault on our eardrums from all the usual suspects. Without any information on the incident, except that a shooting had occurred in an Asian venue, a chorus of Gun Prohibition furies immediately pounced on the opportunity to denounce "another act of gun violence."

The Democrats in particular jumped at the chance to be proactive about an issue that does not involve redistribution of wealth from their donor class or their uppper middle class base.

Not to be outdone, self-avowed "community leaders" joined in bewaling another "hate crime" that afflicted a "community" already under "assault." Hours after this denunciation sheriffs disclosed that the prime suspect was himself Asian.

After the usual denunciations Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan concluded by saying "Let’s wrap our arms around the community and put in the work to prevent these senseless acts of violence."

Yessss!!! Hear, Hear!! Enough is Enough !!!! BAN GUN

OK... but how does one prevent a "senseless" act?

The word "senseless" means "Destitute of, deficient in, or contrary to, sense ... foolish; unwise; unreasonable, absurd, ilogical, irrational, pointless."

The idea of prevention is to take logical and practical steps which are reasonably calculated to prevent a knowable occurrence; for example, using a condom, covering windows with plywood, and so on.

But something that is "senseless" is unknowable until it takes place. Before it takes place it exists in the universe of randommness. How is it possible to prevent a randomn occurrence? It is like trying to predict chaos.

The inane hysteria that emits from Gun Prohibitionists is reflected in the term "gun violence" which has convinced them that the "thing" at issue - violence - is something done by guns; that the gun is in someway the cause of the violence. That's the way adjectival nouns work.

To attribute to an object -- a cut piece of stone or a tree perhaps -- the ability to cause something is the core of all fetish totems and taboos. But that is precisely what Gun Prohbitionists have done, just the way their erstwhile predecessors attributed all evil in society to demon rum.

So now we have Demon Gun.

Guns don't act senselessly; people do. If people are acting senselessly the remediative efforts must be directed at the psychological, social and economic causes. Banning guns is to chase after a chimeral solution.

As to chimeral solutions, Sheriff Luna stated, "California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country... let's look across our nation and see what works and what doesn’t. I can tell you this - the status quo's not working."

And what precisely is the "status quo"? California has among the strictest gun laws in the country. Simply the list (not the text) of statutes prohibiting gun use, possession and regulation is three pages long. The state's "Assault Weapons Identification Guide" goes on for 96 pages. What more is left?

California's gun control regime has obviousely failed. It will continue to fail because it is blaming the stone for the hand that threw it.

CNN reports that "The gun wrestled away from the man in Alhambra was a Cobray M11 9mm semi-automatic weapon according to a law enforcement official." What can be said is that the gun is not listed in 96 page Identification Guide.

The Cobray M11 is designed to take 30-round magazines which are now illegal in California. (Penal Code 32310(c)) For some reason law enforcement had yet to clarify, as of this writing, whether the gunman had an illegal magazine or whether he used a legal 10 round magazine.

But it really makes no difference. If the gun or the magazine were illegal, it just goes to show how laws do not prevent crime. Laws can punish crimes, but why anyone in his or her right mind would think that laws prevent crime is beyond me.

If the gun or the magazine was not prohibited it just goes to show that California will have to ban all guns outright. "Mass shootings" are defined as those involving three or more persons. Anyone who thinks that a mass shooting cannot be accomplished with shotguns, revolvers or bolt action rifles doesn't know weapons. That it is easier to kill with a semi-automatic does not mean gun violence cannot be accomplished with non automatics.

Banning all guns outright which is what Gun Prohibitionists are really after and what they will have to do if they continue to pursue their Total Safety in Senselessness agenda.

Since when has prohibition worked? In the lead up to the 18th Amendment, ardent, monomaniacal prohibitionists traced all evil to Demon Rum. They assured us that once alcohol was banned "there will be world peace." I'm not kidding, I saw the film footage with my own eyes. The day after the amendment was pased the mafia was born in this country. And, speaking of crime, how's the war on drug working?

We laugh at primitive people who make a taboo of some Byanyang Tree, but gun-controllers are no different. They have a fear infused gun fetish. They are convinced that if they abolish guns they will have cured the psychological and socio-economic causes of senseless acts. Like all primitive fanatics they will trample on everything and anything in pursuit of their ghostly solution, including the Constitution.

Democrats have become the party of subversive insanity.

© 2A Zone

EIGHT POINTS ON GUN PROHIBITION LEGISLATION

1.    The Bill of Rights established Principles not Policies.

The Bill of Rights establishes existential principles that govern the whole framework of our social, political and economic life. It is to politics what axioms are to geometry. The Bill of Rights sets limits on what policies the government can enact. That's what “no law” and “shall not infringe” mean. As to the principles established, it is a "No Trespassing" sign.

2. The Bill of Rights does not need to be subject to any “Balancing Test.”

In law, “balancing tests” are used to factor in competing interests in forming legislation or arriving at judicial decisions. But the Bill of Rights is not a collection of legislative policies. The balancing struck by the Framers was the Bill of Rights itself. The convention debates and the Federalist Papers show, the Framers were very atuned to the benefits and risks of each and every provision of the Bill of Rights.

3. The Second Amendment is not about Guns.

The Bill of Rights was not concerned with objects but with human behavior in the social and political context. The Second Amendment is part of a triad of rights designed to insure raw popular participation in public affairs.  The Framers understood the risks of liberties and the dangers of tyranny and it was with those risks that they were concerned. They reserved three fundamental non-legislative, non-judicial, non-military popular rights:

(a) the popular right to assemble, to speak and to incite (as Justice Douglas wrote “all speech is incitement”)

(b) the right of a non-professional, popular and independent jury (as Justice Scalia wrote: “the jury serves as a circuit breaker.”)
(c) the popular right of individuals to keep and bear arms. (as Madison wrote, the right of people to be armed is the ultimate bulwark against tyranny.)

4. The Second Amendment's Purposes included Self-Defense.

At the time of ratification English and American law recognized the natural “right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” (“1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England § 144 (1765) Of the Absolute Right of Individuals”). The existence of modern police forces does not abrogate that right because as a matter of law the police have no duty to respond and cannot be sued if they fail to. If the State cannot guarantee a person's safety it has no interest or business in taking away his or her means of self defense.

5. The Right to Keep & Bear Arms is not Dependent on Militia Service.

The argument that the right to keep and bear arms is "connected only to service in the militia" is patently absurd.  Do those who advance this rationale mean to say that Framers felt it important to protect the right of recruits to be issued arms upon enlistment in a militia?  Those who advance this argument have got it upside down, in England and in Colonial America, the army or the militia and policing all presupposed the existence of an armed citizenry. And it is precisely an armed citizenry that the Second Amendment insures.

6. It is not Relevant that the Framers did not “envision” Assault Rifles.

It makes no more sense to say that the Second Amendment should be revised because assault weapons were not envisioned that it would be to say that the First Amendment can be “modified” because the the Framers did not envision that propaganda power of modern mass media. What the Framers understood was that weapons of any sort can be used to inflict great injury against unarmed people, especially if taken by surprise. The Staute of Northampton, which was known to all colonists, prohibited riding with force and arms into a crowd in order to terrorize the people. At the time the statute was enacted a military style sword was a hardened steel razor blade that was capable of slicing through a neck or arm like a knife through butter. (That's why they wore steel armor.) In a crowded place it could kill several people in a matter of seconds. Did the Framers envision such a sword attached to a spinning rotary device? Who knows; but they understood the risks of armed anti-social behavior, including the killing of three or more people, which is the current definition of a so-called “mass” killing.

7. The Proposed Bills will not Address and Underlying Social Problems

“Gun violence”is an ambiguous noun-adjective that creates a rhetorical shibboleth which suggest that “guns” do harm to people. Actually guns do not do anything. They are inanimate objects. It is humans who do violence with, among other things, guns. Attributing causality to an inanimate object is to indulge in a primitive, fetishistic taboo. Cold, unemotional statistics show that most gun-related deaths are committed in crimes by minorities in their mid teens and twenties and in suicides by white men over age 65 which account for 55% to 70% of all gun related deaths. Suicides are not committed with assault rifles or high capacity magazines (unless it takes eleven rounds to blow one's brain out). The country has an elder suicide problem, and legislative efforts are better addressed at solving that problem.

8. The Legislation is a Dishonest Subterfuge that Discredits the Law

If Gun Prohibitionists want to repeal the Second Amendment, the Constitution provides them with the means to do so. The Framers made amendments difficult precisely because at issue are principles and not mere policies. Failing the ability to amend, and having their arguments rejected by the supreme judicial authority under the Constitution, the bills' proponents seek repeal by subterfuge, enacting regulatory measures that are so onerous and burdensome as to make compliance practically impossible. A parent who sets tasks or goals that are designed to insure a child's failure is guilty of abuse. So too when the power to regulate is used to destroy. Such clever subterfuges bring the law into contempt and will deepen political cynicism.


©2023, Justin Law