![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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?
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.
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....?
"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.
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."
no subject
OK, read through the amendment again. Yeah, I still don't support it. The wording of the amendment says that Law Enforcement can only access the data in this database in the course of an active criminal investigation, and then only to data relevant to their own jurisdiction. This, in my opinion, is a classic flaw in the amendment, and is applicable to the District of Columbia where guns cannot even be purchased. Under this amendment, if a gun used to commit a crime in DC was purchased say in VA, the trace data would be inadmissible in a court of law.
I don't own a gun myself, but if I did (and I have considered it on occasion) I would feel exactly the same way. The reason I have never owned a gun is that I feel no compelling reason to do so, and feel there are several reasons not to own one.
Anyway, we're never going to agree since we clearly do not agree on how this amendment is to be accurately interpreted.
no subject
Now, if Ocean City PD were to discover that prior to its use in the crime, the gun had been stolen — or perhaps fenced — in DC, then DC Police would have jurisdiction and access to trace data to investigate the theft. However, they still wouldn't have jurisdiction over the crime committed in Ocean City.
Thus your objection appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the law.
no subject
no subject
For that matter, the mere fact that a firearm is in the trace data does not mean it has ever been used in a crime or illegally traded. But anti-gun organizations blithely assume that any gun on which trace data exists is automatically somehow criminal in some way.
I really completely fail to see what you're driving at here. So I'll repeat: the Tiahrt Amendment basically does two things:
1. It forbids the BATF from assembling a firearm owners database or keeping NICS records indefinitely, both of which are already illegal, and
2. It prevents people who have no legitimate legal need for trace information from going on open-ended fishing expeditions through the trace data.
Do you have a problem with either of those? Can you actually come up with any convincing example of a legitimate, plausible scenario in which some agency that needs the data for a legitimate purpose (as distinct from "wants it for political ends") is prevented by the Tiahrt Amendment from getting it?
no subject
no subject
no subject
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".
no subject
no subject
2a. Heller explicitly ensconces a Second Amendment right to armed self defense. There is nothing implicit about it, nor is it in any penumbra. See Holding 1: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
3. Hotly contested. Armies of statisticians are arguing over this. All that can be said concretely is the wild claims of turning traffic stops into Old West shootouts have failed to come to pass. If you ask me, that's vindication enough, but hey.
4. Most violent crime is impulsive, poorly planned, and the product of a violent personality with little in the way of impulse control. These are not the sorts of people who rationally think "hey, this gun-free zone would be a great place to go on a rampage." Highly organized violent predators are an extraordinary statistical anomaly, for which we should all be grateful. (The Virginia Tech shooter was one such anomaly.)
5. "Most" is a hard road to hoe, given the sheer number of gun control laws out there, and the fact it's phrased universally. For instance, gun control laws in the UK were originally enacted not out of racist tendencies, but to attempt to suppress the IRA. Didn't work out too well for them. It would be more accurate to say that "many early gun control laws were overtly racist in nature."
7. The Guard has existed for a few centuries. In the era of the Framers, civilians who were fully trained for military duties and could be called up by the monarch on demand to serve as an army were known as members of "select corps", or "elite corps". This also goes to argue against the National Guard-style interpretation of the Second Amendment: if the Framers meant the Guard, they would have said "a well-regulated select corps...".
10. Not true. The Second Amendment has been raised in other cases before Heller, just not directly. Miller was also not dead, he was in hiding. It is true that his case was not pleaded before the Court, due to some spectacularly ... unusual ... hijinks.
no subject
Jack Miller was not dead at the time his case was argued in March 1939. He was, however, in hiding.
He was murdered in April of 1939, the victim of an apparent homicide.
The decision was rendered in May.
I imagine you were remembering Miller as being dead before the opinion was given, and I remembered him as being alive but strangely not present for his own case during the hearing.
no subject
no subject
Miller's lawyer was so broke, and was so underpaid for his services, and had such short notice, that he allowed the prosecutor's brief to go uncontested. He did not file a reply brief on behalf of Miller.
That's what I meant by "his case was not pleaded." He didn't have anyone in SCOTUS making his case for him, not in any way that mattered.
no subject
5. I'll accept the correction, though I will still posit that much of America's gun control laws have roots in racism.
10. To my knowledge, US v Miller is the only two-party case heard before SCOTUS without both parties represented (I'm ignoring Ex Parte considerations right now).
no subject
#5. I have no disagreement with this.
#10. I wasn't talking about Miller. I was talking about ... crap, blanking on the name of it. SCOTUS case from a few years ago which revolved around whether using a firearm as an instrument of commerce in a drug transaction (drugs for guns) counted as "use of a firearm" for purposes of sentence enhancement; Scalia wrote a great dissent. One of the issues raised in it was a Second Amendment claim, which the Court basically wrote off. The Second Amendment has been presented to the Court a few times over the years, but never as the central issue of a case, and SCOTUS has always shrugged off those claims.
no subject
no subject
no subject
The Framers were very familiar with National Guard units, just under a different name. King George had a habit of using select corps to oppress his subjects, though, and so the Framers were in no way fond of the idea of a select corps.
no subject
Also, see Federalist no. 29, which talks about the problems with select corps:
The phrase “a militia in the hands of the federal government” -- sounds quite a lot like the Guard, doesn’t it? Nominally they belong to the states, but they are subject to federalization at any time. The National Guard is pretty much exactly what Federalist no. 29 warns us about.