I wanna be a felon….

…because then gun laws won’t apply to me, and I’ll have a new Mercedes GLS450 to drive away from my shootings:

Gunman kills 1, injures 4 at Nashville coffee shop on Easter Sunday

Tell me again which gun law would have prevented this shooting? Because none of the current laws seemed to have any effect. After all, CRIMINALS BY DEFINITION DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW! Want proof? In this case the offender is alleged to be a felon and should not have had access to a firearm at all, let alone carry one – and yet he did so anyway.

Laws meant to reduce crime in which a firearm is used should be narrowly tailored towards criminals and their conduct, but have little to no impact on law-abiding citizens. Targeting guns or law-abiding citizens rather than criminals simply won’t work.

Laws that incarcerate criminals who have an ongoing history of violence might be a better way forward.  For instance, if a violent felon is subsequently convicted of firearms possession – a clear indicator of ongoing, violent tendencies – perhaps they should be removed from society permanently. I think such a law would have a much larger impact on so-called “gun violence” than a law requiring non-criminal citizens go through a background check to purchase ammunition – and probably have fewer Constitutional hurdles as well.

Common sense gun law: A law that incarcerates criminals rather than law-abiding gun owners.

“Dear criminals…”

Dear Criminals –

All law-abiding people in Albuquerque New Mexico will no longer be allowed to carry firearms for their defense or the defense of others. So no more crime in Albuquerque, OK?

Best regards,

Her Royal Highness,

Gov. Michelle Grisham

PS: Even though all the law-abiding citizens of this town are now disarmed, please don’t shoot them. 

Governor announces statewide enforcement plan for gun violence, fentanyl reduction – Plan includes 30-day suspension of concealed, open carry in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County

Let’s be serious: this is simply a thinly-veiled local attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment by the two-term Democrat Governor of New Mexico, conveniently disguised as a “public health” order. I wonder why she didn’t do this during her first term… oh, that’s right – she’s now term limited and doesn’t need to worry about the next election! Let’s also be serious on this decree’s possible impact: disarming law-abiding citizens (the only group likely to follow this decree by Grisham) will only get them killed by criminals now emboldened by the thought of defenseless victims.

Note, too that Grisham cited several shootings as justification for her unconstitutional ban, including this one (from a US News and World Report article):

Last month, 5-year-old Galilea Samaniego was fatally shot while asleep in a motor home. Four teens entered the mobile home community in two stolen vehicles early on Aug. 13 and opened fire on the trailer, according to police. The girl was struck in the head and later died at a hospital.

Now tell me: How is the decry by Grisham going to stop teenage hoodlums in stolen cars from shooting up a mobile home?

Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, had this to say about Grisham’s order:

“If it saves one life, then it’s worth doing,” Viscoli said.

But what if it costs a life, Miranda? What if a law abiding citizen, prevented from carrying their self-defense firearm as a result of Grisham’s order, is killed by a criminal perpetrator during the commission of a crime? Would it be worth that life to further your political agenda, Miranda?

Laws restricting concealed carry of firearms only impact law-abiding citizens who have already gone through a significant national background check. Criminals who want to carjack and murder people simply don’t care about such laws – they can’t legally carry firearms for criminal purposes anyway, so why should they worry about Grisham’s new order? And, really – do you think they are worried about a gun charge (in this case, a civil gun charge) when they are going out to murder or rob someone? Are you kidding?

Good luck, Albuquerque. You’re going to need it.

PS: I can’t understand the idea of disarming law-abiding citizens as a way to combat gun crime. It is more likely that gun crime will increase when citizens are disarmed. Think of it: prior to this “public health” order, using a gun in criminal activity against law-abiding citizens might get you shot; it was a risk. Now, however, using a gun while committing a crime  in Albuquerque is no longer a risk – it is instead a just a solid advantage over your prey. And even if a criminal is caught with a gun during the “no-carry” period proclaimed by Grisham, the law calls for a civil – not criminal – penalty. With this in mind, do you think that the use of guns by criminals will increase or decrease as a result of this “public health” order?

It may well be that the Democrats want more gun crime, and know that this will occur as a result of their disarming the law-abiding population. More gun crime might garner support among democrats for their argument that the 2nd Amendment must be abolished altogether to bring peace to the streets of America (since gun laws – well, Democrat gun laws, anyway – will not have worked).

But it’s not that gun laws don’t work; it’s that gun laws passed by Democrats disproportionately impact law abiding citizens rather than criminals. If we want gun laws to work, such laws must disproportionately impact criminals instead. For instance, instead of a a ban on concealed carry for the next 30 days levied against law-abiding citizens, how about for the next 30 days we add 10 years of prison to the sentence of any criminal convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime? Which of these two options is more likely to reduce crime-related gun use in Albuquerque?

Only when gun laws punish criminals – rather than law-abiding citizens – will our streets be safe.

PPS: A day after this story broke, I searched both NPR and MSNBC web sites for any mention of this story. Guess what? I could not find a single one. I’ll let you figure out what that means…

Of course they are

I mean, why blame the criminals? It’s not their fault that cars are easy to steal. It’s entrapment – yeah, that’s the ticket! Entrapment, I tell you!

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson sues automakers as car theft ‘crisis’ gets worse

While we’re at it, why not blame car manufacturers for all car thefts? I mean, surely they can DNA-code cars to their owners and eliminate auto theft entirely? Isn’t their failure to develop and make standard such technology the reason for car thefts? And why not blame banks for bank robberies? Or retail stores for shoplifting? Or guns for gun crimes? Oh, wait; they’re already trying that last one

I mean, it’s not like locking up the criminals would do any good, right? Not in Chicago, anyway… that wouldn’t be fair to criminals!

But cops are special…

… since they are commonly granted a right to own and carry firearms when retired – even in states that otherwise forbid or heavily restrict the same rights for their citizens. Unfortunately, police have been found to be more likely to commit criminal acts than the average Joe/Jane with a concealed carry permit. Case in point – a mass shooting by a retired cop:

Retired police sergeant targeted estranged wife in deadly mass shooting at California biker bar: sheriff

If a state restricts access to firearms or concealed carry permits for its citizens, those same rules should be applied to everyone – including retired police officers. Alternatively, if retired cops are allowed to carry firearms then so should be the rest of the population.

Hunter Biden plea/diversion agreement

The rejected Hunter Biden plea/diversion deal did do one good thing: it would have prevented Hunter Biden from ever owning firearms again. However, this does not offset the “walk” he received on all the other possible pending charges as a result of what some perceive is an improper application of the diversion agreement.

A diversion agreement typically prevents the government, upon the defendant’s completion of the diversion requirements, from prosecuting the defendant for actions admitted in the diversion agreement “statement of facts”. Basically, if you admit your guilt as part of your diversion plea, such admissions can’t be used against you future proceedings (unless you violate the diversion agreement) and you can’t be additionally charged for the crimes admitted.

Hunter Biden’s diversion agreement included such a “statement of facts” related to the accusations against him (drug use, firearms possession, etc.). However, the diversion agreement also made reference to the “statement of facts” provided by Hunter in the tax plea deal (which was NOT a diversion agreement).  The result is that any admissions in the “statement of facts” for the separate tax plea deal would also be protected from prosecution – including admissions that may relate to his failure to register as a foreign agent. This is inappropriate, since the tax plea deal is NOT part of the diversion agreement – only the gun charges apply there.

While I’m glad that – if the plea/diversion agreements ever go through – Hunter Biden will never again own firearms, the diversion agreement should not provide him with an “escape clause” for all the other things he’s done. If that’s what the government wants to do – and I think they do, for political reasons –  then they should have to admit that openly in the plea agreement. Hiding it in the separate diversion agreement is an act of cowards.

What they didn’t say…

This is why I seldom read NPR; sometimes their coverage tends to leave out critical information disparaging to their position. For example, their take on this mass shooting:

A suspect has been charged with murder in a Philadelphia shooting that killed 5

As of July 8th 2023 the NPR story makes no mention that the suspect is allegedly a cross-dressing BLM supporter, per this New York Post story:

Gunman arrested for Philadelphia mass shooting that left 5 dead is BLM activist who wore women’s clothes: sources

Interesting how the affirmative-action and transgender supporting NPR failed to report on THAT little tidbit of information, isn’t it?

The “Huggy Bear” plan?

I was listening to the radio the other day and heard a story regarding a self-proclaimed mediator who is working to stop violent crime (in particular, shootings) in Chicago. It was weird, to say the least.

The focus of the story was a man who sounded quite a bit like Huggy Bear from the old 70’s TV series, “Starsky and Hutch“.  An example of his work that he chose to share for the radio show was simply bizarre. I’ll repeat it below in my own words, as best I can remember (any tone or snarkiness is mine, not original).

So a violent drug-dealing criminal was recently release from jail. He was mad that the crew who took over his drug territory didn’t send him any money while he was in prison. To express his rage, upon his release he went through the neighborhood shooting up houses (cause that’s what people do when they’re upset …?).

Anyway, the mediator got involved when a local woman called to tell him that her sons were in their bedroom loading guns to go take this guy out (cause that’s what people do when they’re upset…?). The mediator then contacts the recently released criminal to discuss the problem.

He explains to the criminal that shooting up the neighborhood is just going to get him killed. He also talks to the drug dealers who took over his territory, and they claim that they did give money – to the criminal’s brother and girlfriend, who apparently kept it (we don’t hear about their fate – because, you know, the just-released criminal still has a gun…). Finally, he explains the drama to the to kids who were going to hunt the criminal down for shooting up the neighborhood, and all agreed to not shoot each other (for a while, anyway).

The self-proclaimed mediator spoke proudly of his accomplishment, and I don’t want to take away from his success. But the words, “Are you fucking kidding me?!?” come quickly to mind.

The solution isn’t to come through after-the-fact and ask people to stop shooting; the solution is to put career criminals who are willing to shoot up neighborhoods back in prison – forever. Clearly such individuals will not respond to laws, only threats to their own well being – and in the process endanger anyone who comes across their path. While I appreciate the efforts of “Huggy Bear”, it’s a little too late (the neighborhood has already been decimated by the criminal’s activities). The only true solution is to remove such individuals from society forever once they’ve proven their danger to the rest of the law-abiding citizenry.

Sometimes I think that the solution from the movie, “Escape from New York” was actually not too bad.  If you recall, they took all the criminals and placed them on the island of Manhattan, which had become a lawless, isolated wasteland. If you were sentenced there and tried to escape, you were shot. Either way, your impact on society is eliminated.

If you won’t live by the laws of civilization, then live without them in isolation or die. It’s that simple.

Where’d they get the guns?

Six teens have been arresting with regards to the April 15th Dadeville, Alabama shooting at a sweet-sixteen party. Three are under the age of 18. So… where’d they get the guns?

Six people – including four teenagers – have been arrested and now face murder charges in connection with the deadly rampage at a weekend Sweet 16 birthday party in Dadeville, Alabama, authorities say.

President Biden immediately called for more gun control, without acknowledging how these murderers obtained their weapons or if his proposed gun controls would have had any impact on these shootings:

In response to the shooting, President Joe Biden reiterated his calls for Congress to enact laws requiring safe storage of firearms and universal background checks, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability.

Interestingly, the Vox article cited above includes a link to a firearms study by the NIH. It claims that higher firearm death rates are related to higher gun ownership rates. What I find interesting is the other correlations that they mentioned but did not emphasize in their report regarding race, crime rates and incarceration. Read about them in Tables 2 & 3 of the report (they are VERY interesting):

The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010


Yeah… that’s the ticket… an accident… yeah…

That’s why she allegedly recovered some stolen merchandise after shooting the Home Depot employee before leaving the store. No sense letting an “accident” go to waste, yes? Alameda County DA Pamela Price – a supposedly Soros-funded politician – will probably let them off with a citation… if she still has the manpower to even write the ticket:

California woman accused of killing Home Depot employee says gun accidentally fired

Here’s the best part: the alleged shooter/shoplifter was a licensed security guard with a criminal history. You can’t make this sh*t up!