Some Good News About Crime

Despite the best efforts of the NRA to get rid of all gun laws and arm criminals, there is research that suggests we are on track to having the lowest murder rate in 100 years. This is also reflected in data that just looks at gun crimes. Interestingly enough, the same study shows that Americans believe that gun crime has been going up. This doesn't come as a huge surprise. Media saturation of violent events probably leads many people to believe such events are commonplace. I am not going to speculate to why this has gone down. As Jay has said on more than one occasion, it is very difficult to pick out causal factors when you are dealing with something this complex.

Read more...

Deep Concealment

This is being submitted without comment.

Police say woman hid loaded gun inside her vagina

Read more...

Claims, No Take Backs

The video below is an example of what we discussed earlier.  If one side of the gun debate has to claim Dirty Fucking Hippies and no-guns-ever pacifists, then the other side has to claim this guy:



More fun here:



This guy is not helpful.  High comedy and a laugh-riot, for sure, but not helpful in the Great Gun Debate.

Read more...

Statistics

Considering the recent debates on gun laws and school safety in the United States, I looked up a few figures to aid us in our debates.  Feel free to use or abuse them as we move forward. 

Some of the data may surprise you.  For example, I expected accidental deaths to be a higher percentage of the totals among death of children due to firearms.

Number of Schools in the United States (2009-10 School Year)

Public: 98,817

Private: 33,366

Number of Teachers in the United States:

3.7 million full-time-equivalent (FTE) elementary and secondary school teachers in fall 2011

    This above information and additional data is available at the National Center for Educational Statistics.

Number of Gun-Related Deaths in the United States (2010 - excludes small percentage of deaths due to law enforcement)

All Ages

Total: 31,328. (Breakdown not provided at this source.)

Kids, Ages 1 to 14:                                      
Homicide: 208                    
Suicide: 81
Accidental Death: 62
Totals:* 369

Kids, Ages 15 to 19:
Homicide: 1,554
Suicide: 668
Accidental Death: 72
Totals:* 2,315

    The information above and additional data is available at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The data above came from a report compiling statistics on gun-related deaths from 1999 to 2010.

As you can see in the charts at the CDC link above, the rate of death by firearms relative to the population has overall been flat in the U.S., with the possible expception of the rates of death among teens (ages 15 to 19), which seems to have been dropping over the time period.


* Why the totals do not add up exactly, is not clear.

Read more...

Today in poorly timed PR...

Moments ago National Rifle Assoc. Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre (dickhead, liar, fucking wing-nut) held a press conference regarding the recent mass shootings. 

LaPierre made a couple suggestions for combating violence in our schools, including: improved mental health treatment (good idea) and putting a cop in every school (maybe an OK idea, but my estimated cost $9.88 billion annually). 

Shorter LaPierre:  Please protect American kids from my target membership.

He also proposed a great new slogan, soon to come to a pro-NRA bumper sticker near you: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,”

Effective immediately, the new slogan will replace:  "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

LaPierre video here.

Making this the most poorly timed presser ever, another seemingly random shooting took place while LaPierre was speaking. 3 are dead. Details unknown.

News story link here.

Read more...

My Slightly Informed Opinion on Gun Regulations

Where do we go from here? The regulations I propose below are what I think we should consider. I have not given much thought to what might already be in place or where it bumps up against the 2nd Amendment.

1) Personal Responsibility.
Having personally witnessed a great deal of stupidity when it comes to handling firearms, I have always thought we need strict penalties for irresponsible behavior. In the case of the Newtown shooting, the rifle used was purchased legally. As far as I know, there would be no penalties for the woman who owned it allowing her mentally ill kid access to the weapon. (Had she lived.) If your kid gets a hold of your gun, especially if someone is hurt because of it, you should serve time. Once a Michigan legislator had a handgun drop out of his pocket in the middle of a committee hearing. (If the urban legend is true.) There should have been a penalty for his stupidity as it endangered others. I have personally seen a parent hand rifles to their 10-year-old and let them run off and have fun. Maybe this one is already illegal?

In my experience people have acted as if the rights provided by the 2nd Amendment means freedom from responsibility. If we do nothing else, we need to change that mindset. That is definitely not how I was raised around firearms.

2) Capacity.
I would support a strict limit on magazine capacity. Capacity should be limited to the single digits. Since I have limited knowledge of firearms, I think of hunting shotguns with a four-shell magazine and handguns with something more reasonable than a 10 + magazine capacity. In a recent editorial in the LA Times, a judge who sentenced Congresswomen Gabby Gifford’s assailant and the killer of 6 others said: “Bystanders got to Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 31-round magazine and was trying to load another.”

3) Ownership limitations
I would support a limit on the number of weapons you own. Sorry if it infringes on your hobby or fun collection, but your arsenal is unnecessary in a civilized society. Take up stamp collecting. Let’s debate this one.

4) Certain weapons banned.
There should be a ban on certain weapons based on their technical performance. As Smitty says: guns are killing machines. We have a constitutional right to a certain level of killing machine. I am not sure you could argue we have the right a mass-killing machine. I have little doubt we could come up with a list of impermissible characteristics based on their technical performance.


5) Call me a gun-grabber.
Banned firearms, clips, etc. should be bought back by the government at a higher than market price. I don’t support grandfathering existing weapons from restrictions as was done previously. It sounds like Australia has a model for this program. I would like to learn more about it.

6) Ammunition Sales Ammunition sales should be limited.
I am betting this one would be difficult to enforce. I recently read that once you obtain a gun permit in Israel, you are issued your only supply of ammunition. Interesting concept. Liquor sales are controlled by state government. Why not other items?

7) Better and more widely used background checks.
I need to better understand private sale regulations, but this is what I think... Background checks should be instantaneous, reliable, applicable to all guns sales, and include the private sales of weapons. You should need to obtain a purchase permit with your background check before you buy a weapon in a private sale. If you sell a weapon privately without obtaining a copy of said check, you should see a penalty. This would also require a better involvement from mental health providers and would require a discussion about mental illness and confidentiality. I know people can still obtain weapons illegally, but that is no excuse for handing weapons to the mentally ill or to those with a violent background.

Read more...

Oy.

We once laughed at ideas now advocated by Congressmen.

Read more...

Faculty in Colorado Told to Allow Concealed Carry

In many states, college campuses are still a no-go for lawful carry. Michigan makes in unlawful to carry in a college classroom or dormitory. Most campuses ban carry for students and employees. There are some states, such as Utah, that allow it. Well, now Colorado joins them. The Supreme Court of Colorado said that campuses can't prohibit concealed carry. Despite this, some professors said they would cancel class if some permit holder had a concealed gun. The chancellor responded by telling them they could not do this. Personally, I have no problem with university carry. In Michigan, most college students are under 21, so the majority of students would not be able to carry anyway.

Read more...

Stand Your Ground And The Trayvon Martin Incident

There are plenty of great discussions on this tragic event and a whole lot of speculation. I want to focus on an area that I actually know something about, self-defense laws. The media, as is typical, seems to be asking the wrong questions and doing very little in terms of research. One question that has popped up deals with Florida's "stand your ground law" and asks if the law goes too far. The simple answer is No, but I will get more into the details later. The other obvious question is whether this law would allow someone to chase down an unarmed person and kill them. Again, the simple answer is No.

From what I can tell, Florida's self-defense laws are very similar to those in Michigan. That being said, I am not familiar with Florida law and Case law. I will mostly discuss Michigan law and try to generalize. Fortunately, for our discussion, self-defense laws are very similar across the 50 states.

So, when can a person use lethal force? Basically, if it is necessary to prevent an imminent attack that could cause death or serious injury, or a sexual assault. This is the common law rule that has mostly stayed the same for hundreds of years. Most states kept this and never bothered to codify it. A small minority of states also had a duty to retreat in a narrow set of circumstances. This said that if a person reasonably believes that they are facing an imminent threat of death, serious bodily injury, rape, kidnapping, or, in many states robbery and some other crimes from another person, and:
1. they can escape this threat with complete safety,
2. by leaving the altercation,
3. except when they are in their own home (or, in some states, workplace),
4. a person does not have the right to engage in lethal self-defense because such lethal self-defense is no longer necessary given the availability of a safe retreat.

It is important to note that this was only the rule in a handful of states. Most had rejected this prior to the 'stand your ground' laws or had limited to very specific situations.

There is also another principle that may be relevant. Florida has what is called an aggressor exception to self-defense. It states that self defense is not available to a person that:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

So, if it turns out that Zimmerman was chasing Martin or trying to detain him, then lethal force would be highly questionable and he would have had a duty to retreat from Martin. I found this information with a minimal amount of searching and wonder why it has been absent from any media coverage. I caught part of the Diane Rehm Show on NPR. She is typically pretty biased when it comes to guns and self-defense, so it wasn't a complete surprise that the discussion omitted much of the reality of what the law says when it comes to self-defense.

I can't make any guesses as to what will happen in this case because many of the facts are in dispute, but I can say that it does not appear that Florida law or case law encouraged or allowed this to happen. On the contrary, almost every watch group discourages confrontation and trains people to be good observers. Every reputable firearms instructor emphasizes that a gun is a tool of last resort and that you don't look for trouble or knowingly put yourself in situations where you need to defend yourself.

My concern is that groups will use this to push for changes in laws that are completely unnecessary.

Read more...

Oregon SWAT take man into custody after he commits no crimes

In the Minority Report, technology exists that allows authorities to arrest someone before they commit a crime. Oregon Police took a man into custody that was recently placed on administrative leave and lawfully purchased 3 guns. He was disgruntled, which I suppose most people would be after they were placed on administrative leave. According to the article he bought:

Heckler & Koch .45-caliber universal self-loading handgun, a Walther .380-caliber handgun and an AK-47 assault rifle

Ok, he bought an overpriced trendy German pistol, James Bond's gun, and a cheap semi-auto. I doubt it was a real AK-47, which has been banned from import and, by it's definition, would be a machine gun.

It is quite possible that this man may have intended to go on a shooting spree. Before I get totally pissed off, I would like to know more about what prompted:

Medford police watched the man's home overnight, starting at about 9 p.m. Sunday, Hansen said.

Because he was known to have weapons, police wanted to defuse the situation and ensure the man wasn't a danger to himself or others before the neighborhood awakened and people started their daily activities, Hansen said.

Medford's hostage negotiators and SWAT team were called in at 3 a.m. Monday and arrived on the scene at about 5:45 a.m., he said.

About a dozen officers responded. They closed the street for about an hour and evacuated three homes to protect neighbors and prevent bystanders from gathering, he said.

What kinds of statements did he make to co-workers? Did he threaten anyone. He has purchased guns in the past, so it may not have been all that unusual for him to buy stuff like he did. Does he have a history of violence? Is there anything more than buying 3 guns and being "disgruntled"?

It appears he was taken into protective custody and involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility for an evaluation. I have participated in these (though not in Oregon) and have worked at several facilities. While not as bad as jail, this is not a pleasant experience. He also had all of his guns confiscated. In my experience, it is very unlikely he will get them back unless he is willing to spend probably more than they are worth in legal fees to get them back.

I guess the thing that bothers me is that it appears all of this happened to someone based on several legal purchases and no actual threats or actions.

Read more...

Interesting Poll Regarding Concelaed Carry

A recent Zogby Poll says that:

An overwhelming majority of Americans (83 percent) support concealed-carry laws, while only 11 percent oppose them. A majority of Independent voters (86 percent), Democrats (80 percent), young voters age 18-29 (83 percent), Hispanic voters (80 percent), and those who voted for President Obama (80 percent) support the right to carry a firearm.

I was fairly surprised. While I believe that most people are supportive of some type of lawful carry, I would have guessed that number be around 50-60%. I share Eugene Volokh's questions regarding the way the question was asked:

Currently, 39 states have laws that allow residents to carry firearms to protect themselves, only if they pass a background check and pay a fee to cover administrative costs. Most of those states also require applicants to have firearms safety training. Do you support or oppose this law?

Read more...

The Renewed 2nd Amendment

This is my third and final installment in a series of blog entries on guns and the second amendment. I promise no more, for the foreseeable future. I was planning on blogging about how the anti-gun movement has lost some steam since the Heller decision and wanted to discuss some aspects of that. I was in the middle of writing a response to Andy's comment on the previous entry, when I decided to include it in this post.

As is evident by the responses on this blog, I think the gun rights movement owes a fair amount to the intellectual honesty of most liberals. An article called, Liberals, Guns, and the Constitution makes this point very well. I wrote a paper on the 2nd Amendment for a Con Law seminar 4 or so years ago. The collective rights theory was definitely in the minority, but there were some prominent advocates. This isn't the case any more and that position seems to be on its way to history books and out of public policy and modern scholarship. The article mentions an excellent article by Sanford Levinson, called The Embarrassing Second Amendment. Levinson is, by no definition, a conservative.

I don't think this means that we are about to see AK47's being given to children on every corner, but I am hoping that we can see a more reasoned discussion. I would also like to see the laws regarding guns to respect liberty and the Constitution and protect rights while also ensuring the safety of the public.

Andy raised many points in his response to my previous post. I thought it should be included here, since it touches a great deal on rights:

I don't understand why anyone needs to own an assault weapon unless they are in the military.

This goes back to my original point. Individual liberties are not subject to the individual first demonstrating a need. This is just not the way it is done in a free society. Never has and never should be. I can think of a variety of reasons...some compelling, some not compelling. This makes no difference.

Can't use them for hunting.

The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. It isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, nor is it mentioned in any commentary published it at that time. I doesn't appear anywhere in the Federalist papers. As much as I enjoy hunting, I understand that the legislature can regulate it in any way it wants, including an outright ban.

Hand guns or even semi-automatics will do for burglars and protection.

I am confused here. An "assault rifle", as defined by the AWB, is a semi-auto. If you are thinking machine gun, they are already highly regulated and out of reach of most people, in terms of how much they cost. What do you think and assault rifle is?

All things are basic rights, but Congress has the right to decide what the basic rights are.

No.they.don't.

All things aren't basic rights. The Bill of Rights lists certain rights, but fundamental rights don't owe their existence to the gov't, they are inherent to a free people. A religious person would say they come from God. A non-religious person would say they are inherent to all humans by our nature.

The gov't certainly has the ability to pass laws and regulate a variety of acts, but they cannot infinge upon basic liberties except for rare circumstances and under very narrow means.

I think the 2nd amendment allows for freedom to bear arms, but not the freedom to bear assault weapons.

I think the 1st Amendment allows for media outlets to publish unpopular views, but unless you are an employee of them, people should be arrested for speaking out against the government. This is a silly example, but you are saying the same thing. An assault weapon is an 'arm'.

The Brady bill was put in to ensure safety of the people.

1. It didn't lower crime or improve safety. There have been several studies that have proven this.

2. We need to be careful as to what we do in the name of safety. Some Asian country (IIRC, North Korea) instituted a curfew for everyone which had the effect of dramatically lowering crime. Do you think this is a good idea. I can guarantee if we allowed warrantless, random searches, we would catch many criminals and seize a great deal of contraband. Should we negate the 4th Amendment.

I think that it should be re-enacted. So do most Americans

Irrelevent, if we are talking about a fundamental liberty.

It only expired because the radical right in Congress let it.

This not how I remembered it. There was certainly support amond anti-gun groups and some in Congress, but most were content to let it die.

And there was an uproar.

More like a whimper.

Read more...

AG Calls For New Assault Weapons Ban

Maybe I was too quick to praise Obama's gun stance. AG Eric Holder says that the Administration will seek to reinstitute the 90's era Assault Weapons Ban. He is making an interesting justification by saying that one of the reasons is the increased frequency of Mexican Drug Cartels using these kinds of weapons in Mexico. He believes that they are getting them from US gun shops.

As I said in my comments on the previous gun related thread, I think that law abiding citizens have a liberty interest in being able to own and use firearms. If the government seeks to infringe upon this interest, there should be a compelling interest and it should be done in the most narrow way possible. Given that "assault weapons" are rarely used in crimes (they account for less than 1% of national homicides and in some states, less that .1%), I fail to see how a ban can be justified. I also see this as being a bad political move. Surprising to me, Pelosi isn't interested in passing a ban.

Read more...

Obama takes a (kinda) pro-gun position

To say that supporters of the 2nd Amendment were unexcited about Obama is a huge understatement. He has an abysmal record when it came to supporting gun rights, but considering he was representing the very anti-gun state (for the most part) of Illinois. He campaigned as somewhat of a centrist and while I didn't think he would rescind a bunch of strict gun laws, I thought he would be neutral on the issue and not really pursue a gun control agenda.

His first gun-related action is surprisingly positive on several levels. One, he is taking a pro-gun stance in an area that is not all that likely to have garnered a lot of attention. In other words, he could have said no and there wouldn't have been a whole lot of opposition. Two, he is supporting one of Bush's last minute regulations.

According to the Denver Post, officials from Obama's Justice Department defended a regulation that allows concealed carry in National Parks. Several groups had filed a suit and requested an injunction that would prevent the regulation from taking effect. The Administration is arguing against the injunction. I haven't seen the complaint, but the Denver Post article says that the groups are arguing that the government didn't conduct an adequate study into the environmental impact of this regulation. I am curious as to what the impact would be. I suppose that concealed carriers wouldn't be able to resist the impulse to whip it out and start blasting away at wildlife and trees. The groups also contend that visitors, such as school groups, wouldn't want to visit parks.

Some conservatives are wodering if this is just some ploy or are otherwise downplaying the action. Personally, I see it as evidence that Obama is trying to be a centrist and take an intelligent view of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Read more...

Supreme Court Affirms Right to Bear Arm

The Supreme Court released their decision in the matter of the District of Columbia et al . v. Heller. This case was a challenge as to the constitutionality of several gun laws in the District of Columbia. Those being a ban on possessing a handgun and a requirement that all other guns be stored so that they are non-functional, therefore making them useless for self-defense purposes. I am in the process of a through reading of the case (another long one), but I wanted to give some initial impressions.

There isn't a whole lot of jurisprudence in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Most Con Law classes don't cover it at all and only the 3rd Amendment (quartering soldiers in your home) probably has less case law. Throughout most of our history, this was never an issue. Prior to 1934 there were very few gun laws. A child could order a belt-fed machine gun through the mail. Since that time, there has been a great deal of legislation regulating use, possession, and purchasing of firearms. For the most part, these laws have been upheld, despite numerous challenges. I was very surprised when the Supreme Court decided to hear this case.

What does it say and what does it mean?

1. They affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. This has been the majority opinion of most legal scholars and hopefully puts to rest the notion that this right is a collective one that belongs to the states or to people that are members of an orgainized militia.

2. They nullified the two provisions of DC law that were previously mentioned.

They were less clear in some other areas.

1. They rejected the rational basis standard of scrutiny and hinted at a higher level, though didn't say what kind of test it would require.

2. They didn't say if this applied to the states. Under the doctrine of selective incorporation, the second amendment, along with several other provisions from the BOR, has not been held to be binding on the States. Several commentations have suggested that the Court hinted that the 2nd does apply to the States, but I will have to see if I can find that.

3. They didn't say how this would apply to other federal laws.


For the most part, I am pleased with this decision. It didn't go as far as I would have wanted and still left the door open for plenty of other laws, such as licensing and bans on carry, but it is a step in the right direction. I understand that this is an emotional issue for many and I have never hid where my bias stands. I am interested to see how the candidates react. McCain has always been pretty luke warm towards gun rights and has backed many gun laws in the past. Obama has supported gun control, but hasn't made it an issue in this election. I sincerely hope he doesn't start.

Read more...