Lies, damned lies, and political promises

[unixronin]

Remember how Barack Obama promised during his campaign that he supported the Second Amendment, and only wanted "reasonable restrictions" and "common-sense measures"?

Well, he's been President-elect for three days, and his change.gov site has this to say on the subject:

Address Gun Violence in Cities:  As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.  Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them.  They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof.  They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

We knew it was coming ... and here it comes.  Bend over.

Let's take those points in order, shall we?

1. The Tiahrt Amendment

   What the gun control lobby says:  The Tiahrt Amendment hampers local law enforcement by denying them access to BATF gun trace data.

   The truth:  The Tiahrt Amendment does nothing to deny gun trace information to law enforcement agencies.  It does deny NON-law-enforcement parties the ability to go on "fishing expeditions" through BATF trace data for political ends.  (Most firearms traces performed by the BATF are not related to criminal use of the firearm in any case — one of the most common reasons for BATF traces is to find the legal owners of recovered stolen firearms.  Many persons are named on BATF trace forms merely because they were witnesses to a crime involving a firearm.)  It also enforces a pre-existing provision that National Instant Check System records be promptly destroyed as already required by law, restricts disclosure to third parties of Federal records of lawful gun purchases, and forbids (again) the BATF from creating a computerized Federal gun-owner registry (again, something that has been illegal since 1986).

   An interesting and telling detail:  The gun control lobby's "point man" against the Tiahrt Amendment has been New York City Mayor Bloomberg.  But when Kansas Representative Tiahrt offered to negotiate technical modifications to the language of the Tiahrt Amendment to the extent necessary to address legitimate law-enforcement needs, Bloomberg broke off negotiations.  He wasn't interested.  Because Bloomberg doesn't care about law enforcement needs; he wants to use the data in his quest to be able to sue firearms manufacturers for criminal misuse of legally purchased, non-defective firearms.  The City of Chicago wasn't interested in law enforcement either; they wanted a list of every person in the US (not "in Chicago", note, or even "in Illinois") who owned more than one handgun.

2. Closing the gun show loophole

   What the gun control lobby says:  Criminals can go to gun shows and buy guns without having to pass a background check.

   The truth:  Two kinds of gun sales occur at gun shows — dealer business sales, and private person-to-person sales.  A buyer purchasing a gun from a dealer at a gun show must pass a NICS check and fill out a Federal form 4473 exactly as though they had walked into the dealer's store, and the dealer must report that sale to the BATF and must retain the Form 4473 for twenty years exactly as for an in-store purchase.  A buyer and seller making a private person-to-person sale must still comply with all applicable state laws regarding person-to-person transfers.  That means that it is legal to make private person-to-person sales at a gun show if and only if private person-to-person sales are already legal in that state, and while no Federal paperwork is required for person-to-person transfers, buyer and seller must still comply with any applicable state laws.

   In short, there is no gun-show loophole.

   Interesting detail:  Recently a Boston yellow journalist attempted to "prove" the existence of the "gun show loophole" by travelling to New Hampshire to buy a gun at a gun show there.  The dealer wouldn't sell to him because he wasn't a New Hampshire resident.  So he had a friend who lives in New Hampshire purchase a gun for him.  The gun never actually left the friend's possession; if the friend had then given the gun to said journalist, it would have been an illegal straw-man purchase.  The journo then bragged in print about how he'd shown how flawed the law was and proven the existence of the loophole, although the truth was he didn't actually understand the straw-man law well enough to understand he hadn't actually broken it.

   But he had the intent to violate the straw-man law, and the BATF has a poor sense of humor about that.  End result:  Journo and friend are both under BATF investigation on Federal firearms charges.

   So, just where was this loophole, exactly....?

3. "Childproof" guns

   California currently has a bill in the legislature that would mandate that all handguns sole in California be "smart guns" that can only be fired by their authorized owner.  This is what's usually meant when gun control advocates talk about "childproofing" guns.

   There turn out to be a few problems with the idea, though.  You see, the technology to do it doesn't exist.  The one company that's backing the legislation knows that the technology doesn't exist, but they're hoping to get the letgislature to pay for them to develop such a technology which they can then market for other purposes.  In short, they want the State of California to fund their R&D.  Law enforcement agencies hate the idea and have been uniformly opposed to it, because no mechanism has been proposed which (a) cannot be defeated, (b) will work reliably, especially under adverse conditions, and (c) "fails safe".  In fact, it's not possible even to define what "failing safe" is with such a technology.  If the "fail-safe state" leaves the gun fireable, then it can't prevent unauthorized use; all a gun thief need do is break the sensor or remove the battery.  If the "fail-safe state" leaves the gun unfirable, citizens or police officers with "smart guns" could end up dead because their sidearm wouldn't go off when they desperately needed it to.

4. The assault weapons ban

   What the gun control lobby says:  "These weapons belong on foreign battlefields."  "The preferred weapon of criminals and drug gang members."

   The truth:  What the gun control lobby calls an "assault weapon" actually refers mostly to a set of cosmetic features that have no significant effect upon the actual functioning of the gun.  Some, like pistol grips on rifles, have no functional effect other than to make a rifle more comfortable to hold.  Ventilated barrel shrouds, another feature frequently spoken of in tones of fear and hysteria, are a totally cosmetic feature on anything but a fully-automatic weapon (that's "machine gun" to you).  Manufacturers of cheap guns put ventilated barrel shrouds on them to increase their appeal to the Rambo-wannabe set.  "High-capacity magazines"?  How is a pistol with a 12-round magazine more deadly than one with a 10-round magazine?  Is there some natural repulsive force between magazines that makes it impossible for a criminal to carry, say, three ten-round magazines instead of two fifteen-round ones?

   Or how about flash hiders?  The fear-and-loathing story is that flash hiders conceal a shooter's location.  They do no such thing.  What they actually do is help to prevent the muzzle flash of a rifle from dazzling the shooter at night, particularly in automatic fire.  That might become relevant when there are midnight gun-battles with fully-automatic weapons in the streets of L.A.

   Now, a muzzle brake?  A muzzle brake looks almost identical to a flash hider, and reduces recoil forces by redirecting gases at the muzzle.  So, in simplistic terms, it makes it easier to shoot a more powerful rifle.  But a flash hider is on the list of features that make a rifle an "assault weapon", while a muzzle brake isn't.  Go figure, huh?  Still think there's any actual logic behind this "assault weapon" stuff?

   And what's this about "fully automatic"?

   Well, you see, the gun control lobby would like you to think that any ugly black gun is a machinegun that will fire indefinitely as long as the trigger is held down.  But it just ain't so.  A civilian-legal AR15 works just like a Browning or H&K semi-automatic hunting rifle:  You pull the trigger once, you get one shot.  Pull it again, you get another shot.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  "But doesn't that mean you can just spray bullets like a firehose?" you ask.  Well, sure, you can just point in the general direction of the target and yank on the trigger as fast as you can.  We shooters call that "spray and pray".  Because divine intervention is about the only factor that's going to put your rounds on target.  In the words of Major John C. Pilaster, "Two hundred misses per minute isn't firepower.  One hit is firepower."

   The fact is, ever since 1934 it has been illegal to buy, sell or transfer an automatic weapon in the United States without paying a BATF transfer tax, and you must have a Federal Class III license from the BATF in order to do so.  Only one murder has ever been committed in the US with a full-automatic weapon legally purchased after 1934; and that was a police officer who murdered his wife with a Thompson submachinegun that he purchased for police use.  All of the rare crimes committed since then with automatic weapons have one thing in common:  the weapons were already illegal in the first place.  What is making them even more illegal going to do?  Criminals don't obey laws.  That's why we call them criminals.

   "The preferred weapon of criminals and drug gang members"?  Oh, please.  When was the last time you saw a gang member standing on a street corner with an AK47 stuffed down his pants?

   The "assault weapons ban" is bullshit, pure and simple.  Many politicians who support banning "assault weapons" can't even explain what they think one is.  It's an attempt to separate out a group of guns, demonize them, and ban them — then move on to the next group.  That's a process that won't end until every type of gun actually useful for hunting or self-defense has been banned.  At which point the gun control lobby will say, "Well, the guns you have left aren't any use for defense or hunting anyway, so what do you need them for?"  And if you think I'm kidding, that the gun control lobby would never take your deer rifle — hey, if it could penetrate a bulletproof vest (which something like 99.9% of centerfire rifle rounds will) and has even a low-power a telescopic sight (which, at this point, over 90% of hunting rifles do), it's "a deadly sniper rifle".  Hand it over, bud.

Why can't the Democratic Party learn from experience?  The last time the Democratic Party lost control of Congress, it was largely because of voter backlash against one gun control law after another after another.  But here we go again, not even in office yet, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden are already starting to talk up the new gun-control laws they're going to pass.  When they say "common-sense measures", they mean keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them ... and they don't think anyone should have them.  It's like a knee-jerk reflex — "Hey, we're in power!  BAN TEH GUNZ0RZ!"

This, by you, is "change"?  From here, it looks like "Democratic Party Business As Usual."

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I'd rather local law enforcement have the tools it needs to prevent crime rather than prosecute it once it has occurred.

Two things come to mind here. The first is prior restraint, which has been repeatedly held illegal. The second is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the police not only cannot be held responsible for failing to prevent a crime, but they have no legal duty or responsibility to do so. It's not their job. Their job is to enforce the laws and catch offenders. Until a crime has been committed, they have no jurisdiction. Do you propose to change that? Do you propose that law enforcement should act proactively to prevent people from possessing the means to commit a crime? I really hope you're not suggesting we dive headlong down THAT greased slope.

[larvatus.livejournal.com]

My contribution to Of the People, By the People (http://change.gov/page/s/ofthepeople):

I am disappointed to find an expression of support for making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. On 26 June 2008, U.S. Supreme Court recognized the right of individuals to bear arms as an “enumerated constitutional right”. In accordance with this ruling, U.S. citizens have the right to keep and bear any “weapons that belong on foreign battlefields”. In the course of his campaign, President-Elect Barack Obama promised to uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners. His advocacy of banning militia weapons belies this promise.

I urge other readers to submit their feedback. The more of us sound off, the greater the strain on black helicopters.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

An excellent idea. My contribution:

The first responsibility of the President, sworn in his oath of office, is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the Unites States. That Constitution includes the Second Amendment. On June 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court confirmed in DC v. Heller that the inalienable right recognized — not granted, *recognized* — in the Second Amendment is an enumerated individual Constitutional right. In the wake of that ruling, President-elect Barack Obama publicly declared his support for the Second Amendment, and during the course of his campaign promised to uphold the Constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners.

The Supreme Court had already previously ruled, in US v. Miller, that not only does the Second Amendment apply to arms of miltary utility, it applies *specifically and explicitly* to such arms. I am therefore extremely disappointed to find that, less than 72 hours after winning the election, President-Elect Obama's change.org website contains a declaration of his intent to resurrect the ill-conceived, expired Federal "assault weapons" ban and make it permanent, banning exactly the kind of weapons which the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment most specifically protects.

Are we to assume that President Barack Obama intends to hold the rest of the Constitution in similar complete cavalier disregard during his term in office? If so, it promises to be a grim four years.

[larvatus.livejournal.com]

Ironically, Obama’s latitudinarian take on an “enumerated constitutional right” affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller, U.S. Supreme Court 554 U.S.     (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller), contrasts radically with his rigid affirmation (http://larvatus.livejournal.com/198466.html) of the right to privacy, conjured from penumbral emanations in Griswold v. Connecticut, U.S. Supreme Court 381 U.S. 479 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut). I would be hard pressed to conceive of a more opportunistic reading of our Constitution.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Only two years. It will be hard to carry on with a republican senate and house.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

This should be a surprise to no one. Senator Biden as a running mate made this type of policy direction inevitable. With three potential SCOTUS picks coming soon, we may not have that to backstop this end run around the Constitution. With support for H1B visas to "fix" our technology sector, and assigning the AG to help prosecute "piracy" (like ripping a CD to your hard drive), the next few years could be intense.

[http://users.livejournal.com/crossfire_/]

I checked, and it is indeed.

At this point it's simple supply/demand economics rather than the doings of the Democrats, but I think the future is pretty clear here.

[ossuarian.livejournal.com]

I think this would be a good thing to write to your senators and congresspeople, to newspaper editors and whatnot. I found the post convincing, and as I've at least implied, I could give a rat's ass about your second amendment rights. I don't find gun control evil, but you've convinced me these particular measures are foolish and useless.

I'd go for a wider audience if you haven't already. Democrats worry about public opinion, and if there's a public uproar over what these policy statements imply, that might cut this off before it comes into law.

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Demand is going up in anticipation of supply being eliminated.

[rosencrantz23.livejournal.com]

The fact is, ever since 1934 it has been illegal to buy, sell or transfer an automatic weapon in the United States without paying a BATF transfer tax, and you must have a Federal Class III license from the BATF in order to do so.

And as anyone with even a faint knowledge of the issues will state, the Miller decision is one of the weakest and flawed issued by SCOTUS in its history.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

… the [F]irst [A]mendment [is] still in force in this country. My right to state my opinion is as valid as yours.

This is a common misconception. The First Amendment recognizes your right to be free from the government attempting to suppress your speech. America has historically encouraged private citizens suppressing each other. E.g., at the Republican National Convention, some Code Pink protesters attempted to interrupt McCain’s speech with heckling. The crowd had already been briefed on what to do, and the entire stadium was drowned by every attendee shouting, in unison, “USA! USA! USA”

It was a classy and legal way to deny hecklers the opportunity to disrupt the Republican Convention.

There is no First Amendment issue here on unixronin’s little corner of the internet. While I certainly agree that luxobscura is being rude to you, you’re not doing yourself many favors, either, by asserting rights you do not and have never possessed.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

While it certainly appears that you are being treated rudely here, I would offer the observation that rude people are rarely swayed by sarcasm.

I am interested in your reasoning for supporting the repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment. I’d quite enjoy hearing it.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

And most police officers of my acquaintance will tell you, flat out, they can't do much to prevent crime. They can, sometimes, stop a crime in the act, by being on the scene. Mostly, they catch criminals after the fact. The stupid ones.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yup. Of course, it was moot for Miller by then anyway.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately there's no point my writing to my Senator until after January 20, as he lost his seat. I've already learned that my Congresswoman's principal strength lies in dismissing the concerns of her constituents and assuring them that Congress knows best.

I can try the newspapers. The nearest large-circulation paper would be the Concord Monitor, which happens to be based in the state capital....

[rosencrantz23.livejournal.com]

very true.

Reminds me, I ought to go by the Uni's law library and read the actual decision one of these days, while I'm still a student with free access to it.

[databeast.livejournal.com]

I agree. Only slighter lower on my facepalm scale than people who actively seek to overturn the constitution, are invocations of the constitution in a wholly inaccurate context.

The first amendment protects you against government suppression of your speech, but not private suppression on private grounds.

Similarly, the second guarantees my right to own firearms, however; on private property, you have the right to deny me entry with my guns, and any gun owner worth his salt will respect that right. The constitution has no bearing on private dealings between individuals, and any attempt to amend it to do so, in any fashion, should be crushed immediately by all right-thinking people.

"When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it"

"There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order"

Apology

[ossuarian.livejournal.com]

By the way, I'm sorry I was so harsh about how I gave my position. I care about gun control rights like I do about property rights. I'm just saying that when you talk to me, you're not preaching to the converted, and I'm persuaded.

[rosencrantz23.livejournal.com]

the Supreme Court has already ruled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales) that the police are not obligated to prevent crimes. The only obligation police are under is to investigate and collect evidence to allow for prosecution of crimes that have already been committed.

Let's see.

1) SCOTUS has ruled that police are not required to defend you from a crime.
2) SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual citizens.
2a) The Heller ruling implies that the 2A implies a right to self-defense (thank you Roe v Wade for the "penumbra" doctrine...)
3) Studies have shown that increased access to LEGAL weapons produces a DECREASE in crime. (cf. Florida and Michigan)
4) "Gun-free zones" translate to "Unarmed victims ahead" in most violent criminal's minds.
5) Most gun-control laws were based on racist laws.
6) The First Amendment doesn't simply apply to lead type in wooden presses, so why the fark should the Second only apply to militiamen with cap-and-ball muskets?
7) How could the 2A apply to the National Guard (as state militia), when the Guard wasn't enacted till the 20th Century?
8) 10 USC 311 defines organized and unorganized militias. Every fucking adult in the US is a member of the unorganized milita.
9) Do you really think that "telling the rapist you have a disease" will keep a woman safe? or making herself vomit? Both are advocated saftey procedures in City of Chicago self-defense classes. Wanna guess what Chicago's gun policy is?
10) The last case to go before SCOTUS before Heller was one of the weakest legal precedents EVER. Miller died before his case was called to court, and his public defender didn't have the time or money to give arguments for a dead client.
11) Without the ability to stand up to our government, to revolt if necessary, all our other rights become worthless.
12) Ballistics profiling is bullshit.
13) It's easier and cheaper to acquire a license for a car, a privilige not guaranteed by any governmental document, than it is to beg permission for a right our founding fathers said "shall not be infringed".

[rosencrantz23.livejournal.com]

gah. Penumbras stem from Griswold v Connecticut, not Roe. My mistake.

Re: Apology

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

No apology necessary; no offense taken. :) I took it as a simple statement of your position with no malice intended.

[mzmadmike.livejournal.com]

Part of me wants to line up every cocksucker who voted for this shitbag and smash their knees with ballbats.

But then we'd either have to pay disability or smell the rotting corpses after they starved to death.

Bush was by no means our best...but he wasn't even a contender for the ten worst. And ANY excesses of the HSA pale in comparison to the police state FDR had, not to mention the 110,000 Asians in concentration camps.

Obama is not only not best, he very likely will be in the ten worst, considering his energy "policy" to start with: Bankrupt coal-burning plants, prohibit nuclear plants and tax oil. Does Zero (0 looks like O. It's my name for him) really believe this country will need LESS power than it needs now?

I've got enough food and bullion I'm not worried about a repeat of the Carter Debacle. However, when gas is $8 a gallon, I WILL laugh at the whining Obamanites.

Hey, you vote for a bullshit artist from the Shicago machine, you GET a bullshit artist from the Shicago machine. Who, incidentally, has ZERO executive experience, no grasp of economics or international relations and apparently was a lazy sack of shit while a fourth rate legislator.

The other amusing part is going to be watching him flail. Does anyone with a brain (this rules out his base) imagine that Teddy Kennedy, Pelosi, Clinton, et al will give him the time of day? "Hey, Teddy, I have this idea..." "Shut up, Barry, I've been doing this since you were in diapers and give less than a shit what you think."

Far from being the end of the Republican Party, I think we're witnessing the fratricide of the Dummycraps. The south and middle rural and union Dems are just NOT going to support the power-drunk fratboy excesses of the loony left, and his base is too stupid to grasp the larger picture behind the pending economic crunch.

He's going to be a whipping boy for 60 years of bloated, failed social programs and 100 years of unsound banking.

And in this case, I think the scapegoat deserves it and more.

Let's just hope two years is enough time for the Republicans to get their act together...preferably after telling the Religious Blight to eat shit and die.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Bankrupt coal-burning plants, prohibit nuclear plants and tax oil.

Waitafuckinminute ... I knew about the provisions that'd likely bankrupt coal power plants ... and taxing oil doesn't surprise me, he'll likely tax everything else (hey, lower-income Democrat voters, how do you like your home heating oil bill this winter?), but the "pro science-and-technology" candidate wants to ban nuclear plants? WTF does he think we're going to do for power?

By some pretty solid estimates, 35% of the currently-feasibly-exploitable wind and solar resources in the US are already being exploited, and we're actually demolishing some smaller western hydro dams because of environmental damage. Renewables ain't gonna make up the shortfall. Nuclear is the smart option, and it's cleaner than coal.

You know what? I keep seeing things happening that make me think we're going into Heinlein's Crazy Years.

Let's just hope two years is enough time for the Republicans to get their act together...preferably after telling the Religious Blight to eat shit and die.

I've seen several different Reps saying, "Eight years of spending money like a drunken sailor have killed us, we need to get back to our small-government roots."

[databeast.livejournal.com]

We can but hope so, I'd love to vote for the Republicans I grew up reading about, but they've been gone for quite some time now.

If Obama has *ANY* goddam sense, he'll drop all talk about gun laws immediately, and start talking about returning Habeaus Corpus, ending illegal wiretaps, raising standards and cutting funding for the TSA.

But knowing politicos, instead of doing a damn thing to correct the injustices of the past, he'll get right onto creating some of his own.

Frankly, I find /any/ kind of *CHANGE!* interesting, even if its not necessarily the good kind.

Stability is for the retired.

[databeast.livejournal.com]

woof, please..

Get religion out of government, get the Reps back to their pseudo-libertarian roots, small government, left-of-center social authoritarianism, right-of-center economic policies, some small amount of realistic chokepoints on unbridled international 'free trade'

Hrm, actually, I'm going to chip in on my angle on the pros and cons of 'free trade' (I got put on the spot about this recently)

My solution to making Internation Free Trade a non-exploitative force.

Let american companies outsource as much labor oversees as they wish, on the condition that the products they make overseas, be offered back to those markets at a price commensurate with the local economy.

Simple put, if IBM opens an assembly plant in Malaysia, paying its workers $1/hr, it would be required to sell laptops in malaysia for $100.

I have always been troubled by the notion of workers building consumer goods that they themselves could never possibly afford to purchase. Making those same goods available to developing nations according to their equivalent purchasing power is my answer to the whole world peace/ending hunger/educating the masses dilemma