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…

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.

Dangerous morons with guns

Shooting blindly through the door – even at burglars – risks the lives of innocent neighbors. The video in this story shows the bullets hitting the apartment wall opposite the shooter’s front door. I wonder how many made it through the stucco finish and into the apartment? Hope no one was home:

Texas man fires at suspects posing as maintenance workers through front door

I’m a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, but this was just plain stupid. It’s a good argument for basic skills and knowledge training for firearm owners.

Or at least an IQ test…


UPDATE: It appears I was wrong. The original plea/diversion agreement specifically disallows Hunter Biden from owning firearms in the future. Thank dog!

If this doesn’t prove that the justice system is biased under the current administration, then you’re not paying attention:

Hunter Biden agrees to plead guilty in tax case and avoid prosecution on gun charge

Misdemeanor charges for tax evasion? With a maximum sentence of 12 months each? DIVERSION for the gun charge? Really?!?

The worst part is his diversion plea on the gun charge. Because Hunter is entering a “diversion” program for the FELONY gun charge (the same charge for which this woman will likely receive 18 – 24 months in prison), at the end of the process he will be able to have the charges dismissed. No felony conviction at all!

What does this mean? HE’LL STILL BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS!!!!

That’s right. Federal law prohibits someone from owning firearms if (this is just a partial list applicable to this case):

1) They are convicted of a crime – any crime – for which they COULD be sentenced to more than 1 year in prison (regardless of the actual sentence given). This plea deal allows Hunter to plead to a specific charge with a one year maximum sentence, preserving his right to own a firearm.

2) They are convicted of a felony – such as the gun charge here – which Biden will avoid with his “diversion” sentence when the charges are dismissed at the end of the process.

In the end, all Hunter has to do is claim that he is no longer a drug user or addict (provided there is no new laptop full of pictures to contradict him) and – Presto! Biden can once again own guns.

I repeat – RUFKM?!?

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


Wait a minute…

According the the report below, the MSU shooter had a prior weapons conviction:

Michigan State University gunman had felony weapon charge dropped in 2019

Even though he was not convicted of a felony (due to “racial inequity”; see the report), the report alleges that he was convicted of a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of two years. But federal rules prohibit someone from possessing firearms if they have been:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year [1]

Note that it does not matter whether or not they were sentenced to more than one year, but only if the crime was punishable by a term exceeding one year.

So two questions arise:

1) How did he purchase the firearm. if purchased after his conviciton?
2) If the firearm was purchased prior to his firearms conviction, then why did the state not investigate and seize his remaining firearms based on his criminal conviction?

This shooting event was NOT a failure of gun laws – it was a failure of the state to properly enforce existing law. More gun laws will not help, particularly when existing gun laws work if properly enforced.

[1] Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “Identify Prohibited Persons.” Accessed February 14, 2023. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons.


Perhaps our priorities are wrong?

In 2021, ~20,000 people died by homicide via firearm (another 26,000 died by by suicide via firearm, but that’s a completely different story…). The numbers have been rising dramatically since 2020, and even though the story linked above cites “systemic inequities” as a cause the solution the left proposes is – as usual – more gun laws. Because that, of course, fixes “systemic inequities”. In reality, the solution is to educate and elevate people so that they don’t want to kill each other, but hey – I guess making it harder for a law abiding citizen to protect themselves helps, too.

But I was surprised by another statistic – and by the response of the same left-leaning media pundits. In 2021 more than 106,000 people died of drug overdoses. The solution there, however, is not to make drugs harder to obtain; no, instead the solution is to make shooting up easier. Does this mean if we decriminalize gun possession and use by criminals that gun crime will drop, too?

In any event, 5 times more people died from drugs than homicide by firearm. Shouldn’t that help us prioritize our efforts onto the larger problem? Or is that just not politically correct these days?