Category: Gun control

I hate being right…

I’ve explained before how ERPOs (Extreme Risk Protection Orders) can be abused to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. Here is one example:

Attentive student foiled possible school shooting, Vermont police say

In this case, two juveniles allegedly intended to take firearms from a relative’s home to use in a school shooting. The police used an ERPO to confiscate the firearms of the relative – someone who had committed no crime – even though they had noted that the firearms were secured in the home. In the words of Middlebury, VT Police Chief Tom Hanley:

“We executed what is called an ‘extreme risk order’ (Monday) night at a relative’s house who had all these firearms,” Hanley said. “They were locked up (in the home), but one of these kids said he had access to them and could get them. So we took advantage of that extreme risk order statute that was passed.”

So now if the police determine that a criminal is conspiring to steal your property, they confiscate your property instead of protecting it? Why did the police not simply advise the (innocent) relative to verify the security of their firearms while arresting the would-be robbers? Wouldn’t that have protected both the public and the constitutional rights of the property owner?

Seizing the property of a potential theft victim to prevent theft is, well… theft. Such actions by the state should be condemned in the harshest manner.

Juvenile Extreme Risk Protection Orders

I’m a little concerned about this new take on ERPOs (Extreme Risk Protection Orders) out of Washington state, which are used to seize the firearms of those individuals deemed by police or family members to be a danger to themselves or others.

‘Red flag’ gun law should include minors, Washington state prosecutors say

Since a juvenile does not have the right to own firearms, whose firearms are they going to seize? Those of the parents (even if securely locked in a safe)? How about those of siblings living in the same household who are not subject to the ERPO?

Where would we draw the line on if we extend ERPOs to people who are not legally allowed to have firearms, but who have contact with people who do? What if a fellow housemate is the subject of a ERPO? Does that mean the police can seize all firearms in the household, regardless of ownership, even if properly secured from unauthorized use? How about if an adult child is the subject of an ERPO, and has keys to his parents home for emergency purposes? Is it acceptable for the police to seize the guns of the parents in this case? How about those of the girlfriend/spouse?

Where would it end?

But they can vote?

From a Washington state voter-passed initiative to, in part, restrict the purchase of semi-automatic rifles to those 21 years of age or older:

“…studies show that eighteen to twenty year olds commit a
disproportionate number of firearm homicides in the United States

and research indicates that the brain does not fully mature until a later age. Raising the minimum age to purchase semiautomatic assault rifles to twenty-one is a commonsense step the people wish to take to increase public safety.” (emphasis mine)

OK – so we acknowledge that their brains are “…not fully mature…” and as a result they should not own semi-automatic firearms. But it’s OK for them to vote? On this initiative, no less? Really??

Now, to be fair, as a general rule I agree with restrictions banning semi-automatic firearms for those less than 21 years of age (as I have discussed before here and here). I just think that those under 21 should not be able to vote, either, based on the same “… not fully mature…” argument.

However,  I disagree with the position that we should restrict access to firearms for a particular group because they “…commit a disproportionate number of firearm homicides in the United States…”. Such claims are ripe for abuse, and can be used to punish or subdue a significant portion of the population for the actions of a very small minority. Why couldn’t it be argued that whites have committed a higher percentage of mass shootings in America than any other race (63%, according to Politifact, although that is less than their 72.4% share of the 2010 population) and use this statistic to disarm all whites? Think, too, about how this could be applied to other races for firearm-related crimes. Now do you see the problem with such restrictions? I hope so.

Gun laws = gun crime?

From NPR:

FACT CHECK: Is Chicago Proof That Gun Laws Don’t Work?

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is.

The article makes the claim that because Chicago doesn’t have the strictest guns laws in the country that this supposition is not supported. I disagree. Violence is driven by criminals, not gun laws.

Also, given the tough gun laws in Chicago guns should be hard to get – and yet gun crime is astoundingly high in Chicago. The article points toward nearby states which have lax gun laws as the reason for Chicago’s gun crime. However, that too is a poor assertion.

People who buy guns and transport them illegally to Chicago for sale are not selling to law-abiding citizens; by definition both the seller and buyer are criminals. But why are they in demand? It turns out that a firearm is more valuable to a criminal in a city of disarmed victims, as it gives the criminal an unbeatable advantage over his prey. Tough gun laws thus actually encourage criminal use of illegal firearms. As a result, Chicago gun laws have done nothing but disarm law-abiding citizens while encouraging criminals to obtain firearms.

From the article:

“All of this might suggest that criminals will just go to whatever lengths necessary get their hands on guns, regardless of whatever laws are in place.”

(They argue against this statement in the next paragraph, but it is unconvincing).

Finally, a statement with which I can agree. To eliminate gun crime in Chicago we need to eliminate the criminals from the city, not the guns from law-abiding citizens.

Does Citibank oppose the 2nd amendment?

I wonder what the fallout would be if they decided to oppose the 1st, 4th or 5th amendments? Or perhaps the 14th? But it’s OK if they trash the 2nd…

Announcing Our U.S. Commercial Firearms Policy

I’ve made sure I am no longer doing business with Citibank. They don’t need to worry about my minor potential contribution to their bottom line any more. I urge all of you to divest yourself of Citibank holdings and financial instruments.

School shootings and gun control

It seems like the gun control movement will do nothing to prevent school shootings until they have achieved the level of gun control they desire. This can be seen in the aftermath of the latest school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas as gun control advocates call for more restrictive firearms laws rather than for additional school security and mental health funding.

When irresponsible people killed thousands each year in alcohol-related traffic accidents, cities developed specialized DUI task forces and increased DUI criminal penalties to reduce the death toll; no one blamed the cars. When terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings killing thousands, additional security along with metal detectors were placed in airports around the globe to protect travelers; no one blamed the planes. When schools were recognized as soft targets to be exploited by deranged gunman, no additional security or student mental health scrutiny was mandated for all schools; people instead blamed guns because the political goal of gun control is more important to some than the goal of protecting students lives.

It makes no sense to blame guns for these tragedies. The cat is out of the bag: schools are soft targets that offer no resistance to shooters and a high levels of publicity for those seeking notoriety. We only have to look to the latest shooter to see examples of these driving factors; for instance, according to police “he did not shoot students he did like so he could have his story told”. So long as the schools are unprotected and provide sufficient publicity for shooters, they will remain vulnerable. In truth, leaving the schools unprotected to achieve a political objective is the real crime here. Students continue to suffer, not because law-abiding citizens can own firearms but instead because no protection is being offered for the schools.

Banning firearms because of school shootings is like banning cars because of alcohol-related automobile deaths (which killed more people in 2016 than firearm-related homicides), or banning planes as a result of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks. Instead of attempting to limit the rights of law abiding citizens (in violation of the constitution), a better approach to preventing school violence is to provide greater security at schools while developing a focus on the mental health of our students.

Data compiled from FBI UCR information shows that on average in the U.S. there is one police officer per approximately every 500 people. Why, then, are not some of these assigned to every school, where several hundred or thousands of students amass each weekday? If a school as 2000 students, why are there not 4 officers there to protect them? Also, why are there no metal detectors at the school entrances, like we have for courthouses, jails, airports, and other targets of deranged or terroristic people? All visitors to our nation’s capital are required to go through a security screening; why not at schools?

The 2nd amendment exists because the founders felt it important to ensure that the people could fend for themselves, against criminal elements as well as a rogue government; its inclusion in the Constitution allows the power to truly remain with the people. It is important to note, too, that the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not the only example of a right to bear arms; 44 states also have a constitution that incorporates this very same right. Perhaps before we call for additional firearms restrictions on law abiding citizens maybe we should take a moment to consider why the U.S. and the majority of the states felt it important enough to enumerate a right to bear arms in their respective constitutions.

Gun control via corporate pressure

Citigroup has decided that they will no longer do business with companies that do not follow Citigroup guidelines/restrictions regarding gun sales.

I don’t like the idea of a necessary business function – in this case banking – being used to pressure businesses to comply with one-sided political demands (perhaps even at the behest of a political party or group). However, it is within their rights. It is also within our rights to vote with our feet.

Citibank believes that these new rules will have little effect on their bottom line, since so few of their business customers are involved in firearms production, distribution or sales. They have miscalculated; they have forgotten those who use Citigroup personal banking products. I would encourage all who appreciate their second amendment rights to let Citibank/Citigroup know of their dissatisfaction with this new policy by finding another bank. If they want to take political sides, then maybe they should be left with their voter base as customers and no other.