Firearm Restrictions

The JG has an editorial on Saturday where they discuss the need to "close the gun show loophole". Here's what the JG says:

But because background checks don’t apply to many sellers at gun shows, dangerous criminals use the loophole to get their hands on guns.

The bill requires background checks for guns sold at gun shows, flea markets or swap meets. Completing the checks will make it harder for violent criminals, domestic-violence perpetrators and severely mentally ill people to buy guns at the local gun show.

Any private citizen can sell one of their guns to any other private citizen without a background check and it doesn't matter if they're at a gun show or not. All licensed dealers are required to do background checks no matter where they sell the firearm; it doesn't matter if it's their store or a gun show. Using the term "loophole" implies that private sellers are somehow skirting the law or exploiting a poorly written section of the law but this is not the case as private sellers are simply following the law as it was intended to work. Keep in mind that private sellers will still be able to sell guns without a background check - just not at a gun show.

The proposal would make it more difficult for criminals to get guns and yet, at the same time, do nothing to keep law-abiding citizens without histories of criminal activity or mental illness from having legal access to firearms.

Here's a scary thought - who decides what a "mental illness" is? That's the part gun control advocates don't want to talk about. Of course some cases are cut and dry but most aren't. Soldiers returning from battle that are diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? They'll probably be on the list despite the fact the we let them defend this country while using weaponry more sophisticated than the simple handgun in situations significantly more hostile than you'll find in your local neighborhood.

Supporters of the law claim you can petition to get your named removed, want to take a gander at how difficult that process is going to be? What this law would do is actually discourage people from seeking help from mental health professionals for fear the government would strip them of their constitutional right to bear arms. To recap this legislation:

1. Won't keep criminals from obtaining guns


2. Doesn't stop private sellers from selling guns without a background check - only at gun shows will they be required to do this


3. Will discourage people from seeking mental help

This is a pointless bill that will undoubtedly have more unintended consequences than beneficial ones...

Armed Citizen Saves The Day

I'm sure many of you have heard about the shooting at The New Life Church in Colorado Springs. I wanted to make sure that readers of this blog know that the woman responsible for taking the shooter down was an armed citizen and very likely saved several more innocent lives. As the pastor of the church said in the press conference:

Obviously yesterday if we had not had an armed person on our campus, fifty to a hundred people could have lost their lives.

Jeanne Assam was a parishioner that had a carry license and helped provide security for the church on a volunteer basis. Here's part of the video from the press conference where the pastor describes the volunteer security force and Assam gives a description of what happened:



This is the kind of safety that carry laws provide to citizens. Paul Helmke and the Brady Campaign can put up all the silly "Gun Free Zone" signs they want, and enact all kinds of gun regulations, but at the end of the day those feeble measures will not deter criminals from engaging in criminal behavior. Most gun control laws simply limit law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and others.

By the way, what does Paul Helmke's blog at the Brady Campaign website have to say about the incident in Colorado Springs? Bupkis of course. You see they don't want you to know that an armed citizenry can protect themselves and stop murderous criminals before they have a chance to complete their devastation. No, they would rather have you fall in line like sheep on the way to the slaughter. But don't worry, just find your Happy Place and convince yourself that the "Gun Free Zone" really will protect you...

Supreme Court Finally Takes Up the 2nd Amendment

I was glad to see the Supreme Court finally decide to take up a 2nd amendment case. I found this passage, from today's AP story on the Washington DC handgun ban, particularly amusing:

City officials said the law is designed to reduce gun violence, noting that four out of every five homicides this year were committed with a gun.

Let me offer up a little elementary analysis here. If you've had a ban on handguns for 31 years and you still have high levels of gun violence then obviously your ban is not working - this is simply not debatable. So why do these bans not work? Call it the theory of legislative physics:

Laws are only good at controlling the behavior of law-abiding citizens

Those that choose to murder people with handguns are not law-abiding citizens and thus they could care less that the city has a ban on handguns. It's like a Pink Floyd concert venue telling people that marijuana is banned - it just doesn't matter.

The debate hinges on whether or not the 2nd amendment is an individual or collective right. The Department of Justice has put together a thorough legal memo in response to this question and those that are interested can read it here. However, I took out one passage that I think effectively argues against the ridiculous notion of "collective rights" and is worth reading if you want to understand the DOJ position:

The Second Amendment’s recognition of a “right” that belongs to “the people” indicates a right of individuals. The word “right,” standing by itself in the Constitution, is clear. Although in some contexts entities other than individuals are said to have “rights,”37 the Constitution itself does not use the word “right” in this manner. Setting aside the Second Amendment, not once does the Constitution confer a “right” on any governmental entity, state or federal. Nor does it confer any “right” restricted to persons in governmental service, such as members of an organized military unit. In addition to its various references to a “right of the people” discussed below, the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment secures “right[s]” to an accused person, and in the Seventh secures a person’s “right” to a jury trial in civil cases.38 By contrast, governments, whether state or federal, have in the Constitution only “powers” or “authority.”39 It would be a marked anomaly if “right” in the Second Amendment departed from such uniform usage throughout the Constitution.

In any event, any possible doubt vanishes when “right” is conjoined with “the people,” as it is in the Second Amendment. Such a right belongs to individuals: The “people” are not a “State,” nor are they identical with the “Militia.” Indeed, the Second Amendment distinctly uses all three of these terms, yet it secures a “right” only to the “people.” The phrase “the right of the people” appears two other times in the Bill of Rights, and both times refers to a personal right, which belongs to individuals. The First Amendment secures “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” and the Fourth safeguards “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In addition, the Ninth Amendment refers to “rights . . . retained by the people.” We see no reason to read the phrase in the Second Amendment to mean something other than what it plainly means in these neighboring and contemporaneous amendments.

Jouranl Gazette Letter on Banning Guns

There was a letter to the editor in today's JG that commended Dr Crawford for pushing the smoking ban and asked that they next take up banning handguns within city limits:

Now let’s take on the gun problem. Make it illegal to possess a handgun within the city limits. Law enforcement personnel initially could be allowed to carry guns, but eventually even that would be unnecessary.

This is literally the stupidest idea I have heard in a long, long time. Does anyone actually believe that the police would never need guns? What kind of utopian fantasy world is this person living in and why would the JG print this ridiculous letter?

Let me help all the gun control advocates out there realize something about laws in general. Laws are only good at controlling the behavior of law abiding citizens. People that commit homicides do not care what the gun laws are and never will. To disarm the citizenry in response to a small number of lawbreakers is not only unconstitutional but futile as well.

This is a topic I could go on and on about and maybe in the future I'll discuss my opinion in more detail. For now, suffice to say that I strenuously object with the letter...