Category: Gun Rights

There’s an article by Jennifer Collins of Concurring Opinions describing why she thinks tossing out the gun ban might have a tremendous impact on crime-fighting The District:

I think it’s worth acknowledging the primary functions of the law as it’s used by prosecutors in DC: the gun ban is both a preventive detention statute and an intelligence-gathering tool. At one time when I was a prosecutor, we were prohibited from extending a plea offer in gun cases unless the defendant agreed to come into the office (with his attorney, of course) and be “debriefed” about his knowledge of criminal activity in the city. The statute was also a mechanism for locking up individuals perceived as violent, but against whom other cases could not be brought for whatever reason. It’s pretty simple to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual was in possession of a gun without a license and a lot tougher to prove that he committed a violent crime.

I have issues with this method just from a civil liberties standpoint.  The question should not be, as a society, what makes life easier for prosecutors and the police.  After all, it would make life for prosecutors easier to allow door to door searches of homes in bad neighborhood for drugs and guns, but we would, quite properly, find that unconstitutional and reprehensible.  This law is also guaranteed to disproportionately affect the law abiding.  If I were to be caught transporting a firearm through DC (DC claims FOPA doesn’t apply to them, stupidly enough), I have nothing to offer a prosecutor in terms of information or a deal, so they will just charge me with the weapons violation.  Robb is correct to point out:

I want the government to catch and prosecute criminals. What I fear is that Uncle Sam keeps broadening the definition of criminal to make it impossible to not be one.

I think government has an obligation not to cast such a large net that they catch the good people along with the bad.

But as Dave Hardy points out:

Those seem rather doubtful objectives for a law of this type… but even so, could have been met with almost any other form of law, even permissive CCW licensing. Odds are that persons suspected of ongoing violence already have a criminal record that would disqualify them, or at the very least, wouldn’t care for the attention that would follow filing an application.

I agree with Dave, and I think Ms. Collins overestimates the impact this will have on crime fighting.  How often are people being caught in their homes with a firearm rather than being pulled off the streets with a concealed firearm?  How often are people who are caught not already persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms?  Before assessing how large the impact would be, one would have to know these things.

Here’s what I get for being behind.   I got the same e-mail that SayUncle and Joe Huffman got, but I was busy all weekend and didn’t get a chance to post it:

Based on concerns raised by NRA, the House Appropriations Committee report on the Commerce/Justice/Science appropriations bill (H.R. 3093) includes the following language: 

“The committee has heard reports that [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] has pursued license revocations and denials against firearms dealers based on violations that consist largely of recordkeeping errors of various types that are unlikely to impede tracing investigations or prosecution of individuals who use firearms in crime.  The Committee encourages ATF to consider lesser gradation of sanctions for recordkeeping errors.”

This is a continuation of NRA’s longstanding efforts to reform the BATFE, and to ensure that any penalties administered by BATFE against FFLs appropriately fit the transgression and that BATFE does not abuse its authority.  Last spring, NRA-ILA secured passage in the U.S. House of H.R. 5092 (http://www.nraila.org//News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=8224), a bill that included many reforms to the process by which BATFE punishes violations of federal law and regulations (more information on bill here: http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=205). These reforms would have provided a fairer process for FFLs accused of violations.  Passage of the bill followed on the heels of House hearings (also prompted by NRA’s efforts) on BATFE abuses with respect to FFL enforcement and gun show operations. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to consider the bill before adjourning for the year. 

Others in the pro-gun grassroots community have reported on this issue, including Ryan Horsley of Red’s Trading Post, and numerous other bloggers.  Working together, it is our hope that we can continue our mutual efforts to reform BATFE once and for all to reduce and eliminate unjust harassment of legitimate gun dealers.

It’s a good start.  It’ll be very very difficult to get any meaningful reform out of this Congress.  While they might be scared into inaction by the NRA, the anti-gun leaders in Congress aren’t going to bend over backwards to kiss our asses either.  At the very least, the ATF bureaucracy knows that Congress may be less than happy with some of their activities.  But they also know they probably don’t have much to fear from the people running Congress.  While I am not at all happy with the Republican Party being a bunch of corrupt and incompetent boobs, I’ll take incompetence over Hillary and Pelosi any day of the week.

Megan McArdle has a must read post that reflects a lot of the things I’ve been trying to say here in regards to gun rights. She uses a different context, but it applies to what we do:

First, most grassroots action never achieves anything, because most grassroots action is at odds with what the majority wants. You can wave your polls about the environment until you’re blue in the face, but I maintain that the public gets a lot angrier about rising gas prices than about climate change, which tells me where their actual priorities lie. People look at the civil rights movement and think “Yeah! That’s the way to do it!” but it was preceeded by decades of slow, painful work preparing for it. Likewise, it took decades to get women the vote. Most major political change occurs at a glacial pace.

Bold text emphasis mine. I think gun folks are often in need of understanding this; we’re not getting rid of most gun control laws any time soon, and the reason is because the majority of the population doesn’t want to get rid of them. Whether it’s because they support them, or just don’t care, isn’t really material. If we are to roll this back, it will take great care, and a lot of time. The no-compromise groups are selling a snake oil solution, that promises a quick cure. As much as I wish it were true, it’s not going to work. We must be no-compromise in spirit, but in the political process, it’s pragmatism that wins. She goes on:

The other thing I would emphasize is that protesting minorities generally succeed when their letters, marches, etc. emphasize their role as part of a larger culture. This is why the breast cancer lobby is overwhelmingly more successful than, say, the antiwar movement.

But on a lot of issues, the grassroots culture really emphasizes alienation rather than connection. Antiwar protests might not have stopped the war no matter what, but it’s a safe bet they’d have garnered more sympathy and respect for their views had more of the protesters shown up dressed for the Elks Lodge Annual Dinner Dance rather than Sunday afternoon in the Village. Undoubtedly, in an ideal world conformity to restrictive social norms would not be a prerequisite for activist success, but you’re stuck with the primate tribe you got born into, where it largely is. The boomers got away with it because they were the largest generation in American history, and had recently been given the vote. No one else will get to repeat that feat.

This gets back to what SayUncle says about not scaring the white folk, and why I’m such an advocate about keeping this movement in the main stream, and advocate using language and tactics that ordinary Americans, many of whom own guns, but few of whom are gun nuts, can relate to.  There’s no surer way to failure than for the gun rights movement to become a lunatic fringe.

So there, Megan McArdle agrees with me :)  So if you didn’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe her :)

Ryan took a look at the 2008 appropriations bill and found this:

The Committee has heard reports that ATF has pursued violation revocations and denials against firearms dealers based on violations that consist largely of record keeping errors of various types that are unlikely to impede tracing investigations or prosecution of individuals who use firearms in crime. The Committee encourages ATF to consider lesser gradation of sanctions for record keeping errors.

The Congress Critters are aware of the problem, so why don’t they actually do something about it beyond talk? In 2006, before the Democrats retook Congress, we had H.R. 5092, the “BATFE Modernization and Reform Act of 2006.”  If the Democrats want to do something for us, other than lip service, they could reintroduce this bill, and move it forward.

From Jacob:

… I don’t see the Governor spending a lot of time on this issue. I don’t see the legislature spending a lot of time on this issue either …

Read the whole thing. I think Spitzer’s dodgey answers on this issue is a good sign that closing the “musket loophole” probably isn’t going anywhere. No doubt Spitzer is no friend of gun owners, but it seems from what he’s saying he’s hoping this issue just goes away. We can only hope.

New York Governor Elliot Spitzer promises to at least look at the possibility.  Remember folks, they just want reasonable gun laws.

Clayton Cramer has another letter, this time from the University of Kentucky.  It lacks the PSH of U of FL, but it does close with this:

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that UK is a “deadly weapons free” campus.

Because I’m sure that anyone who goes postal is going to care.  I’m glad to see students standing up for their rights.  If there’s any hope for getting restrictions removed from concealed carry license holders from carrying on universities, it’ll only happen because university students who carry demand it.

Eric from Classical Values takes the Philadelphia Inquirer to task and details some history a lot of people on the left would rather forget about.

Ahab has an interview with Shirley Katz, the Oregon teacher who’s asserting her right-to-carry on her school’s campus in court. There’s some good info there that the main stream media wouldn’t bother to seek out. I think Ahab did a pretty good job here. Also, I’d like to compliment Ms. Katz on her choice of side arm.