previous post next post  

Gun News.

By The Armorer on May 15, 2007 | | Comments (13)

Last Thursday the House Oversight & Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, chaired by out-there presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.), met, and was used by anti-gunners as a platform for pushing the same old shopworn list of desired anti-gun restrictions.

The hearing had the catchy title of "Lethal Loopholes." To anti-gunners, a "loophole" is the lack of any restriction they wish to impose, and they lived down to my low expectations of performance on the issue.

Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke used his testimony to promote the gun ban lobby’s agenda to include a gem which admittedly gores a personal ox of the Armorer. Mr. Helmke warned about the dangers of individuals buying or owning an "arsenal" of firearms. Mr. Helmke neglected to tell us how many firearms would constitute this "arsenal." His written testimony submitted for the record suggest in his mind the number could be... 10. Obviously, in Mr. Helmke's world, the Arsenal of Argghhh! (aptly named, I guess) is a Clear and Present Danger.

If you've been following the Brady Campaign for any time, you will recognize a carry-forward of the "Arsenal Licensing" language from their "Brady II" wishlist - which then would have imposed a $1000 per year fee for the privilege of maintaining the basement. This provision is *clearly* aimed at collectors. Leave aside the fact that my arsenal in fact means that there are 150+ weapons *not* on the street. The logic used is that people like the Branch Davidians had arsenals, therefore arsenals are bad. Use of the term in a pejorative sense is of course, intentional to conjure up scary images (though government held arsenals constitute no threat whatsoever).

The low number is intended to prevent people like the VA Tech shooter to amass an "arsenal" and go on rampages. As if the restriction would stop them. Not many people can actually carry more than two-three weapons, so why not just go and say more than one handgun, rifle, and shotgun per person equals an arsenal? Of course, people who amass the Branch Davidian kind of weapon stocks with bad intent are, of course, going to obey the law. Because we all know that passing a law means everybody will drop what they're doing and obey it. Wonder how many traffic tickets Mr. Helmke has... oh, I know, not really a fair comparison. Still.

When pressed on issues like that, they retreat to the defense that collectors are an indirect threat, because stealing collections becomes a source of weapons for criminal uses. While that might be true in theory and practice for people who collect significant numbers of modern firearms, someone stealing the Holdings of Argghhh! will have a real ammunition supply problem, and most gang-bangers and criminals won't like the selection.

If they were truly serious, they would advance security and alarm requirements, but they aren't serious about that, they want to make me sell off the collection, or, better yet, give it to LE for destruction and disposal.

Heh. He doesn't *really* want me to sell 'em, either. Mr. Helmke also averred that private sale of personal property is bad, asserting that 40% of firearm transactions are not recorded and that an unlicensed person "can sell a gun to a criminal or an escaped mental patient, no questions asked." He neglected to mention that if I were to do that, knowingly, gollee - I'm up for a 10 year prison sentence already. Plus, being a licensed collector, I have to do 4483 forms myself - and if the buyer lies, I have no way of knowing. This hearing was putatively about improvements to NICS system, especially at gun shows. Since most of the spectacular crimes Mr. Helmke is concerned about involve the mentally ill, perhaps more effort should be put to improving the handling and tracking of those people, rather than more hassles for the law-abiding (mentally ill people are not criminals per se, and I don't mean to imply that - but certain forms of mental illness do pose problems and public policy on that issue needs debate and rethinking). Mr. Helmke’s calls for California-style controls, where all firearms transactions must pass through a licensed dealer glosses over the fact that in California itself, they have a murder rate substantially higher than much of the rest of the country - which suggest that guns, while the preferred tool, aren't necessarily the problem. But focusing on the tool lets us ignore the underlying problems. Just ask the Brits.

Next comes two of my personal faves. Anti-gun "public health" researchers Daniel Webster and Susan Sorenson. They continued their long-running effort to prohibit more Americans from owning guns. In particular, Webster suggested that federal law should also deny guns to those with misdemeanor records (one should note it already does, in the form of misdemeanor "crimes of violence" a category very broadly defined - and that it was made retroactive, too, in a real miscarriage of justice). This is a juicy tidbit for them, no? Before long, these two will produce a study showing that having parking tickets shows such a disrespect for the law that people with violations should be prohibited from owning a weapon. One wonders, if their desires were made law, how many LEOs and military personnel would lose their jobs - given that the last round of misdemeanor disqualifications caused a wave of terminations and discharges.

For some more interesting general discussion on the topic - I offer up this post at The Smallest Minority.

It would appear the party holding the majority was not interested in hearing any countervailing voices from witnesses. The party in the minority noted that fact, in this letter to Chairman Kucinich. But, since I'll lose many of you at this point - I'll put the letter below the fold in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry. There is some concluding commentary down below the letter.

And with that, it's time to Rerun the Notices® before sending you to the letter.

May 10, 2007

The Honorable Dennis Kucinich
Chairman
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy,
Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform
2445 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for taking the initiative to examine the failures of the National Instant Check System (NICS) which recently allowed an individual to obtain two firearms despite his adjudicated status as mentally ill resulting in the tragic loss of 32 lives. We join with you in expressing our deepest sorrow and sympathy for the victims and their families. We hope that our combined efforts will protect other families from experiencing any similar tragedy in the future.

Though we share your view that there are serious implementation failures and inconsistencies in the state by state operation of NICS which must be examined and addressed if appropriate by the Congress, we are concerned about the tone which the majority has set for the May 11, 2007 Hearing of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee titled "Loopholes and Deficiencies in State and Federal Gun Purchase and Possession Laws." The tragedy at Virginia Tech, which is the ostensible impetus for this hearing, was clearly enabled by the failure to adequately implement the system envisaged by federal law which would prevent mentally ill individuals from obtaining firearms. This would suggest to us that rather than opening a debate on the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that it would have instead been more productive to have limited the scope of this hearing to the oversight of the operation and implementation of NICS.

By inviting 6 named witnesses, only one of whom may be qualified to address the failures of the NICS system, it seems clear that the majority intends to proceed with an agenda which does not focus on the very failures which impelled this hearing but one designed to reinforce the known views of the majority in general with regard to placing restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

By not conducting oversight into the essential failure of the system that gave rise to this tragedy, and instead choosing to engage in a debate about further limiting the rights of American citizens it may be reasonably inferred therefore that the majority intends to conduct this hearing without the intention to address the stated purpose for the hearing. It may also be reasonably inferred that the majority has no intention whatsoever of a considered debate on the subject of gun-rights, and further intends to silence entirely the view of Second Amendment supporters by denying them the ability to present even a single witness which may lend support to that view.

As your committee continues to open the debate on the Second Amendment, we urge you to avoid the appearance of, and in fact intolerance of, points of view in opposition to those of the majority. It is, after all, our charge to examine all reasonable points of view in order that we might all have access to the necessary information to make an informed and considered decision on the important questions before us.

Sincerely,

Darrell Issa
Member of Congress

Dan Burton
Member of Congress

Chris Cannon
Member of Congress

John Mica
Member of Congress

Mark Souder
Member of Congress

Patrick McHenry
Member of Congress

Sigh. In addition to the war, I'm going to have to be a gadfly again on issues like this.

There's room for improvement in NICS, and the issue of the mentally ill and firearms needs an open and frank hearing.

Of course, if we make some tweaks on the issues of mental health, watch for the Usual Suspects in the gun-grabbing debate to propose a whole slew of new "mental illnesses" which, oddly enough, will be focused on behaviors noted in the gun-owning population.

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

13 Comments

By fdcol63 on May 15, 2007 8:57 AM
" ... Since most of the spectacular crimes Mr. Helmke is concerned about involve the mentally ill, perhaps more effort should be put to improving the handling and tracking of those people, rather than more hassles for the law-abiding ... " There's a lot of irony in this whole issue, as you well know, John, but this one really poses a problem for many liberals who support gun control. Because they are the same type of people who often fetishize "personal rights" at the expense of the common good, and because they also, rightly in my opinion, wish to reduce the stigma associated with mental illness. They may wish to "handle" the mentally ill better, as in providing better treatment, psychotherapy, medications (but damn those rich Big Pharmaceutical companies!), and housing / employment, etc. But "tracking" will be a deal breaker for many because this raises the specter of an evil "Big Brother" government closely watching over individuals, and will perpetuate the stigma associated with mental illness because it inherently creates a differentiation between "normal" people and those who are "mentally ill". Those who are now blaming VA's system because of the loophole that allowed the VT murderer to evade stricter controls because he was not "involuntarily" ordered into counseling should ask themselves this: How likely is it that ANYONE will voluntarily seek mental health assistance in the future if they know that doing so will push them into a system where they will be "monitored" and "tracked" permanently from that point forward, and where they will lose all future ability to purchase a firearm for self-defense even if their mental health status is returned to "normal" through counseling, medication, or other therapy?
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 15, 2007 9:14 AM
Exactly. So, look for finding more picayune ways, such as misdemeanor encounters, down to and including traffic tickets, as a way around that problem. Certainly, I'm overstating the case, but then I've talked to these people face-to-face before, and I can just see the wheels turning.
 
By NevadaDailySteve on May 15, 2007 9:31 AM
I have an arsenal? If you count black powder rifles I have an even dozen firearms; four pistols, seven rifles and one shotgun (and a 45 lb. pull bow and a crossbow). I've been thinking I need to get a couple of different shotguns to go with the single shot 12 gauge I now have, a double barreled one and a pump. One of the rifles, a Turkish Mauser is currently in several pieces as I still haven't gotten the cosmoline out of the wood and I need to get the front sight put on the barrel. I own a rifle I've never fired, a Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka that has been sporterized (not by me.) I tried to find some ammo for it once and nearly went into a coma when I saw the price. A single box of ammo for it cost nearly twice what the gun cost me (what can I say? When someone lowers the price enough I'll buy just about any kind of a rifle.) I have no desire to get more weapons so I can someday go on a shooting spree and the vast, vast, vast majority of gun owners feel the same way. Personally I like to buy military weapons that have some history to them. I not only get to take them apart and see what makes them tick, I get to delve into their history and (once I get them back together) I get to go out and see if I can hit what I aim at with them. Not an easy proposition with iron sights, nearsightedness and advancing age (Not that advanced but AARP does annoy the hell out of me by sending me invitations to join. I may be over 50, but just barely. Someone tell those vultures to stop hovering, I'm not retired yet.) In conclusion, don't let nutters have guns and leave the rest of the population alone.
 
By fdcol63 on May 15, 2007 9:47 AM
But Steve, gun control advocates think YOU are nuts because you like guns and are not afraid of them. LOL
 
By Barb on May 15, 2007 10:28 AM
... gun control advocates think YOU are nuts because you like guns ... That's the crux of it, right there. Since they can't comprehend wanting to fire, much less own, a weapon for personal sport and pleasure, then we must all be wackos waiting to go violently postal. And the more you own, the more violent they figure you will become, I think. Oh - and the AARP pi$$es me off as well. Vultures indeed. Helk, my invite arrived On.My.Birthday. They are entirely too organized ;-)
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 15, 2007 10:34 AM
My problem, Barb, is I can't go berserk - if I go downstairs, I simply can't *choose*, so I go into stasis and vibrate for a while, caught in the feedback loop. Then SWWBO comes down and knocks me on the head and everything is okay again. Heh.
 
By kat-missouri on May 15, 2007 11:05 AM
I guess I am an originalist because all I keep thinking about are the small arsenals private owners obtained, including field artillery pieces, up to, during and after the Revolutionary war in order to provide for privately raised or community militias. Most of which that was not secured by any form of central government, state or national. Was life so much more violent then? Not according to these folks and their studies, yet, it seems perfectly acceptable to have had a cannon in the barn. The real issue here, is whether we are going to let some commonly held social misconception be the guide post by which we decide what rights we will give up or whether we will insist that they are left to us. I am an originalist because I think that our founders created two rights in the Bill of Rights that address this issue and no other laws are required: 2nd Amendment 9th amendment Everyone knows what the second amendment says if they read here. The 9th amendment says that congress will make no laws abridging the rights of the people either indicated on the Bill of Rights or those not otherwise specified, but held to be inherently true. Every time there is a law requiring registration and keeping any citizen from a gun, it is a violation of the 9th and 2nd amendment. When we are required to wait 5 days, it is a violation of those amendments. When it restricts the number of weapons, it is a violation of these amendments. When it restricts the type of guns, it is a violation of these amendments. I also believe that violation of those amednments and rights are simply symptoms of a greater problem within the nation: the suspension of rights, even if it is largely an action that does not affect everyone. We don't even care. People believe that it is fine as long as the bulk of them can go about their business without any undue hassle and maybe only slight pain, all in the name of "good society". Good society has become highly misunderstood and misrepresented as some utopia we are supposed to reach by enacting written laws that restrict citizens as opposed to a society that requires few written laws, but understands its responsibilities towards one another implicity. Including respect for the property and person of another. This good society is a product of our socialization, not of written laws. In the past, written laws reflected already well understood, unwritten social laws that had created good society. Now people try to make good society by writing laws. It simply does not work that way. Good society must come first or no amount of written law can make it "good". It is not that I demand the ability to own an arsenal or plan to own one. It is, in fact, the problem of diminishing rights across the board. I find it disturbing that we are moving to the point where the rights and privileges of an upstanding citizen are nearly equivalent to those of a criminal. That is not "good society". In order to balance the acts of criminals against the safety of the general populace, we are taking rights away from the general populace. At the same time, because we have embued the "sanctity of life" with the idea that all people, regardless of their crimes, have the right to life (except unwanted, unborn children), we have given the criminal more rights than the victim. And, if we say, give me my gun and execute or imprison for many years the man that murders with one, we are considered some sort of extremist who might be the next to go on a rampage. The simple truth is, when we speak of such ideas, it is not because we do not have compassion, but for whom we feel compassion. It is not because we want to kill people, but because real prevention of murder can only come by keeping murderers off the street, not by making everyone else a criminal. The criminal has broken the law, both written and unwritten. we have turned the criminal into the victim of the law instead of the breaker of the law. We have made them the recipient of our compassion instead of commiserating with the victim of a crime. In most cases, the actual victim becomes superfluous to the trial, an inanimate object that had no feelings or meaning beyond the act the criminal committed. Some view this as appropriate objective judiciary. But, I believe that this takes away, not just the emotionalism that may impair judgement, but the value of the victim. We have provided the criminal with the gift of our understanding at the expense of our own safety and rights. Placing an emphasis on prevention of crime instead of the punishment of crime has put the onus for the actions of criminals upon the would be victims and general, law abiding citizens; placing us behind bars for years with these sorts of laws while a murderer can walk in two after plea bargaining. we have, in fact, turned the entire premis of "good society" on its head. Through these actions, we have also taken away our ability to insure that our good society is defended against by the inroads of the government upon our rights. every inroad being that much smaller a box we can operate in without potentially becoming a criminal ourselves. HOw long before every action, whether the food you eat (transfats), the air we breath (pollution and emission controls on cars), or the very act of living (euthanasia) becomes a crime? The whole issue of the 2nd amendment has a much wider connotation to me than simply whether we can own a weapon or not. It is a bellweather for how our society and its views on law and "good society" are changing the very essence of our Republic that has made us strong enough to last over 200 years. And no one seems to give a d@mn except gun owners that the rest of society thinks are just shy of a screw loose.
 
By KCSteve on May 15, 2007 12:44 PM
Darn! While I've got an 'arsenal' the ever-indulgent wife is a couple items short. Oh well, the stupid Jim Crow "Mommy, May I?" Permit To Acquire repeal just passed so starting August 29th there's no hassle in adding some more to her side of the safe.
 
By fdcol63 on May 15, 2007 12:48 PM
" ... In the past, written laws reflected already well understood, unwritten social laws that had created good society. Now people try to make good society by writing laws. It simply does not work that way. Good society must come first or no amount of written law can make it "good". ..." I blame the lawyers! LOL In the past, those "unwritten" social laws were based on common sense and "right" sense - doing what a good society deemed was right and just. Because of legal and judicial activism, we've been forced to try to codify, or write, EVERYTHING in the most minute detail to avoid legal loopholes and technicalities. This, of course, has resulted in a perpetual cycle of codifying more clarifications and more addenda to the ever multiplying written laws. Quite frankly, it's a legal and political system designed by lawyers, for the benefit and perpetuation of lawyers. At our expense.
 
By Barb on May 15, 2007 2:05 PM
John - Analysis Paralysis is a terrible condition. Heh.
 
By NevadaDailySteve on May 15, 2007 2:58 PM
Quite frankly, it's a legal and political system designed by lawyers, for the benefit and perpetuation of lawyers.
As Billy Unsteadypointything said: "Kill all the lawyers!"
 
By Robin on May 15, 2007 11:29 PM
Up here in Canada rather than use the word arsenal the government simply called anyone with 10 or more firearms a collector. Collectors can have their houses and records searched by the CFC/RCMP at any time the chief firearms officer wants. We're slowly gaining back our rights while you guys lose yours.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 16, 2007 6:45 AM
Robin - another odd dichotomy between the two of us is... you can own a fully-functional mortar, pretty much anywhere in Canada, and get it mail-order. Same thing is true for an RPG-7. Or a 25 pounder howitzer. But you better not have a Luger, unless it's the Artillery model. Here, I can have all the Lugers I want, bought via the mails (because I have a license to do so, my neighbor, he's got to go through a dealer), across the river I can own a functional mortar or artillery piece, if it's over 50 years old *and* on the National Firearms Register, but I can't get any ammo for it. On my side of the river, I can own it if it's been demilled, and I can get it via mail-order, unless, of course, even though it has a bore-sized hole in the tube and rods blocking the tube - if it has a trigger mechanism, like say, the Brit WWII 2-inch mortar - well, *then* I have to buy it like a longarm, with a 4483 and a NICS check. And I have to keep all this straight - and I know that many LEO's do *not* keep it straight, and will bust me in a minute. I'll walk, but only after having been through the grinder proving to them that they are ignorant of the law. Which they, of course, don't like. I should note - the flavor of LEO depends mightily on where you live. In my town and county, it's not a problem. One county south of here, it's a problem.