Automatic suspension of 2nd Amendment Rights

Connecticut has made it less likely people will seek mental health treatment (emphasis added):

On October 1st the Connecticut State Legislature’s reactionary response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary school went into effect. Public Act No. 13-3 requires all people that voluntarily admit to a hospital for mental health reasons (not solely for drug or alcohol treatment) have their names placed in a database administered by the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services – for the purpose of automatic suspension of Second Amendment rights. This database will link with a database held by the state police that includes all gun permit holders, registered gun owners and anyone who has applied for a gun permit. If there is a “match” between the two databases a letter will go out informing the individual that their Second Amendment rights have been suspended (letter below). Although you will not receive a letter from the state police, if you are not a “match” you will be notified of your name being put in the database and of the suspension of Second Amendment rights sometime after voluntary admission. The law does not require notice be given to people prior to admitting themselves into a hospital.

Police-Letter-2_thumb.jpg

Second Amendment rights are not granted by the state of Connecticut. It is not within their enumerated power to suspend them without due process. They can no more legally suspend Second Amendment rights than they can First, Third, Fourth, or Fifth Amendment rights. These people should be prosecuted.

H/T To Andrew T. from the gun email list at work.

Random thought of the day

Good intentions are not a valid defense at most trials. They may help in the sentencing phase but not so much in the determining of innocence or guilt.

The creators of Obamacare and oppressive gun laws should take note.

Daniel Webster has some thoughts on good intentions as well.

No one wants to take your guns

I was doing a little looking around on my blog for more posts to add to the “No one wants to take your guns” category and found links to these sites:

Handgun-Free America is down but Ban Handguns Now is still up.

Also this is a great quote from CSGV.

And if CSGV says they haven’t wanted to ban guns recently take a look at this post.

That’s not what I would call it

I’m “reading” (listening to actually) Emily Gets Her Gun: …But Obama Wants to Take Yours. Today I learned that after spending four months, numerous hours off work, and hundreds of dollars in fees trying to exercise her 2nd Amendment rights the District of D.C. required her to have a 10-day “cooling off period” before she could take possession of the firearm she had finally been allowed to purchase.

I wouldn’t be “cooling off” during that time. Miller reported she “stewed”. Right now I’m “stewing” over it and it didn’t happen to me. I’m not sure what my response would if it were to happen to me but it probably would more closely resemble a pressure cooker with the relief valves welded shut than a stew in a slow cooker.

D.C. law has to change. They do not recognize the 2nd Amendment and people should go to prison over that.

Quote of the day—dustydog

A lawyer telling you that ‘society needs gun insurance’ is like a frat telling you ‘society needs to lower the drinking age for hot co-eds.’

dustydog
November 7, 2013
Comment to Why ‘gun liability insurance’ is a bad idea
[I suspect being compared to a lawyer is libelous to “a frat” wanting a lower drinking age for hot coeds but I get the point.—Joe]

It’s the culture stupid

I forget which book it was (I know Thomas Sowell has written about it some but I think there was someone else that did a better job) that I read a couple years back that talked about the culture of the southern United States and how it affected violence. Thanks to rhodeskc I have another, shorter, source for the equivalent information. I have some relatively minor disagreements with the author on some points but the following I have no quibbles about:

… immigrants, who populated what I call Greater Appalachia, came from “an economy based on herding,” which, as anthropologists have shown, predisposes people to belligerent stances because the animals on which their wealth depends are so vulnerable to theft. Drawing on the work of the historian David Hackett Fisher, Nisbett maintained that “southern” violence stems partly from a “culture-of-honor tradition,” in which males are raised to create reputations for ferocity—as a deterrent to rustling—rather than relying on official legal intervention.

More recently, researchers have begun to probe beyond state boundaries to distinguish among different cultural streams. Robert Baller of the University of Iowa and two colleagues looked at late-twentieth-century white male “argument-related” homicide rates, comparing those in counties that, in 1850, were dominated by Scots-Irish settlers with those in other parts of the “Old South.” In other words, they teased out the rates at which white men killed each other in feuds and compared those for Greater Appalachia with those for Deep South and Tidewater. The result: Appalachian areas had significantly higher homicide rates than their lowland neighbors—“findings [that] are supportive of theoretical claims about the role of herding as the ecological underpinning of a code of honor.”

Another researcher, Pauline Grosjean, an economist at Australia’s University of New South Wales, found strong statistical relationships between the presence of Scots-Irish settlers in the 1790 census and contemporary homicide rates, but only in “southern” areas “where the institutional environment was weak”—which is the case in almost the entirety of Greater Appalachia. She further noted that in areas where Scots-Irish were dominant, settlers of other ethnic origins—Dutch, French, and German—were also more violent, suggesting that they had acculturated to Appalachian norms.

But it’s not just herding that promoted a culture of violence. Scholars have long recognized that cultures organized around slavery rely on violence to control, punish, and terrorize—which no doubt helps explain the erstwhile prevalence of lynching deaths in Deep South and Tidewater.

Honor/shame based societies tend to be violent. Muslims will kill their own daughter/sister if they bring dishonor to the family. Certain African-American cultures will get violent if they are “dissed”. In the book I read it said they acquired it from the slave-holder culture they evolved from. The majority of the slave holding white culture dropped that attribute in the last 150 years but a large proportion of the former slaves have not. What clinched the argument for me was that certain language patterns related to the honor culture could be shown to exist in Scotland and Ireland then traced to the Southern slave owners and still exist in “black English” long after they had disappeared in the U.K. and whites in the U.S.

The anti-gun people like to point out the higher rates of violence in the south and claim it is higher rate of gun ownership that accounts for this. Of course they ignore the high rate of violence in places like “gun free zones” Chicago. The truth is that it’s the culture that creates the violence, not the guns. And as long as there are those that insist all culture is equal and that we respect diverse culture, as long as it isn’t that yucky gun culture, we will have violence cultures and have to deal with the problems.

Quote of the day—Alan M. Gottlieb

Under the First Amendment, California is not allowed to compile a list of books you can read, and under the Second Amendment the state should not be allowed to compile a list of handguns you can own.

Alan M. Gottlieb
November 6, 2013
GLOCK FILES AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTING SAF’S CALIFORNIA CASE
[Nor is California allowed to compile a list of religions you may join, a list of crimes that you are required to confess to, or a list of people exempt from the 13th Amendment protection.

SAF, “winning back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ashley

Nobody cares about your guns, if you hunt with them or (I hope) someday kill yourself with them.

Everyone else considers “ya’ll” crazy. We strive for the day that your ancient propaganda goes extinct. You, Mr. Redneck, are a dying breed of ignorance.

Ashley
November 5, 2013
Comment to Quote of the day—The Coquette
[Why are anti-gun people so violent? Oh, yeah. Now I remember.

Don’t ever forget. There are a sizeable number of anti-gun people that want you dead. They want your children dead. This is just one willing to announce it on my blog. They believe their desires are so mainstream they don’t even have to hide that wish and will tell it to your virtual face. And perhaps it is a mainstream view in San Luis Obispo California where Ashley is (IP address 66.215.49.99). Yet people look at me a little strange when I tell them I try to avoid California because those people hate “my kind”.

People will say “it’s just talk”. “You don’t have to worry about someone like that.”, they will reassure me. Probably not. But I’ll bet a lot of people didn’t think they would have to worry about a half nuts failed artist in prison writing a book about “My Struggle” either.

And you do you notice that in her world view I’m ignorant and crazy? I’m quoting U.S Supreme Court cases, Federal Appeals Court cases, and Gandhi. What does she reference to bolster her view? Nothing. And claims of me being ignorant by people who have spent more than two minutes of time talking to me are non-existent. I am therefore forced to conclude that Ashley has based her conclusion on ignored data. Which, if I’m not mistaken, makes her the ignorant or possibly crazy one.—Joe]

Right to carry violated under color of law

It’s possible this could be a good case to take much further and set a good precedence:

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Arkansas on behalf of a legal resident alien, alleging that his right to keep and bear arms is being violated by a state law that prevents him from obtaining a concealed carry license.

The lawsuit, on behalf of Martin Pot (pronounced Poht), a citizen of the Netherlands, challenges the Arkansas statute because it “completely prohibits resident legal aliens from the concealed carry of guns, in public, for the purpose of self-defense.

SAF, “winning back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time”.

Quote of the day—The Coquette

Dude, you can wave court cases in my face all you want. At the end of the day, you’re still the wingnut who’s against centralized firearm registration and liability insurance because guns are like bibles.

The Coquette
November 3, 2013
Comment to On gun control
[There are so many lessons to be learned from this thread.

My response:

If suggesting the Second Amendment should be treated like the First Amendment means one should be called a “wingnut” then you will have to call a bunch of Federal Judges the same: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-…

And if you can’t be persuaded by the laws, the Federal Courts, or me gently pointing out the facts that makes you the dictionary definition of a bigot. I’m so glad we are a ruled by laws limited by the enumerated powers of the Constitution rather than by bigots. Otherwise we would still have Jim Crow type laws still being enforced, Jews being denied entry into schools, and concentration camps for the Japanese.

If being a defender of civil rights makes someone a “wingnut” in your book then I have a lot of “wingnut” company I am proud to be associated with. Are you just as proud of your association with the KKK?

Coquette response:

You’re not a defender of civil rights, Joe. You’re just an old white man in a fedora leaving creepy comments on my website.

It’s sad, really. You’re so myopic that you can’t even look past the barrel of your own gun and focus on the greater good.

My response:

All the evidence presented here is that the right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated civil right. All nine Supreme Court justices in the Heller decision agree with that. That your refuse to acknowledge that and insist that my defense of that right is somehow contrary to being a defender of civil rights takes a great deal of arrogance or is evidence of serious delusions.

We are done here. But thank you for playing along. This thread is
great material for my blog. You will be featured with Quote of the Day status on Tuesday.

Coquette response:

Looking forward to Tuesday, big guy. In the meantime, keep on using words that you don’t understand.

It should not be surprising that in addition to being prejudiced against gun owners that they have hostile opinions about people of certain ages and skin color.

Coquette is not the least bit concerned with the Bill of Rights or court rulings. All that matters is what they think is “the greater good” and looking down on people that disagree with their “superior” opinion. There is not even a glimmer of recognition that they might be wrong.

But that Coquette is concerned with “the greater good” tells us all we really need to know. The concept of individual rights is either alien or distasteful to them. The “greater good” is the mantra of the tyrant and the ever present excuse for genocide.

That someone can be that blatant in their disregard for the rule of law and individual rights is extremely scary. Even President Obama and VP Biden say they “respect” the Second Amendment and the courts rulings. They don’t of course, but they claim to. This person completely ignores the concept of rights. This is how governments end up murdering millions of their own people. People like this get into power and the rule of law disappears.

Again, the Second Amendment is to protect people from liberals.—Joe]

Well there’s your problem

Via Sebastian we have this article whining about the lack of funding for the ATF. I only had to read as far as the second paragraph to see what the problem was:

The ATF, charged with keeping track of the nation’s 300 million guns…

Listen guys, the ATF has no more authority to keep track of the nation’s guns than it, or any other government agency, does the nation’s Bibles, Korans, and Torahs. And even if it were given the authority it would not be possible to keep track of those guns anymore than the DEA, with twice the funding, can keep track of the recreational drugs in this country.

And if you want to look at it another way try this: Our country is deeply in debt and getting worse. If the ATF isn’t doing the job you think it should be doing with the funding it is getting then let’s just get rid of it. Then put the money someplace where it would do some good. I would like to suggest paying off the debt.

CSGV and VISA

CSGV now wants VISA to stop its affiliate program with the NRA:

Visa is helping to pay for NRA lobbyists who advocate against common-sense policies like background checks on gun buyers, and for dangerous legislation that would force K-12 schools, colleges, places of worship and businesses to allow the carrying of loaded guns on their premises.

I have a suggestion for CSGV. Why don’t you guys compare what a boycott by CSGV members would mean for VISA versus them dumping the NRA? It may be that this plan “can’t get the votes necessary” to succeed just like the gun control legislation they have been pushing.

The NRA has something like five million members. How many does the CSGV have?

Oh! That’s right. CSGV doesn’t have members so we can’t really do a direct comparison on that parameter. How about the number of people that show up for the annual meeting? The NRA has something on the order of 75,000. How many does the CSGV have?

Oh! That’s right. The CSGV doesn’t announce any annual meetings or make it known how many people show up at their meetings. But then a small apartment balcony with a couple lawn chairs is probably all they would need or could afford so announcing such a thing doesn’t make any more sense than demanding VISA drop the NRA.

Consensus with Biden on gun laws

I’ve been reading (listening to it actually) Emily Gets Her Gun: …But Obama Wants to Take Yours. In it she tells of V.P. Biden telling Jim Baker, “regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

Only 44 out of 72,659 denials of the NICS check were prosecuted in 2010. If the firearm buyer told the truth on form 4473 when they tried to purchase the firearm the seller would have either been denied the sale on the spot and no NICS check would have been performed or they would have passed the NICS check. If they lied then they committed a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

I realize V.P. Biden has a problem with his head whistling when the wind blows so I’m not surprised he didn’t think of the following when he tried to get consensus on gun law changes. Gun owners, the NRA, and Biden should all be able get behind legislation to get rid of gun laws the Federal Government can’t and won’t enforce. If they aren’t going to prosecute people for improperly filling out a form then lets get rid of the form. Otherwise people might as well scribble “Screw you!” on it and call it good. I might be okay with that last approach too. It would be a common sense compromise, right?

Make it moot

New York City’s has a “stop and frisk” policy where the police stop, question, and frisk people they deem suspicious. If drugs or weapons are found the evidence is used in criminal charges against them. In a typical year 500,000 to 600,000 stops are made. 86% to 90% of the time the person is innocent.

A Federal Judge told New York City to knock it off. But then she was removed from the case. Paul Barrett wants the city to use this opportunity “to come to a consensus on how the NYPD can continue its decades-long successful campaign to reduce violent crime, while at the same time respecting the Constitution’s ban on discriminatory government policies.“

As near as I can tell Barrett doesn’t have a problem with the searches as long as they don’t discriminate by race on who is being stopped for searches. I find this almost surreal. What would get it through his head that ignoring Fourth Amendment rights is a dangerous path to travel? Barrett’s mother escaped Europe as a little girl. Many of her relatives died in the camps during WWII. Maybe if consensus were for the police to refrain from frisking people unless their papers aren’t order. Have the police ask nicely and say, “Papers please.”

No. The “consensus” should be for the cops to cease stopping and searching innocent people. And another thing is the people should pass “constitutional carry” legislation and also end the war on drugs. After that what would be the point of frisking people? Suspicion of stolen property? Sure. Wounds from when they got shot attempting to harm an innocent person? Sure. But only after articulable probable cause that the person was a person of interest in a crime.

The number of innocent people stopped should be on the order of 10% or maybe 20%. When the innocent stop rate is 90% that is conclusive evidence the police need tall shiny boots and a German accent.

Quote of the day—Mailin Wong

The best is to move to another more civilized country when people don’t get boners just by watching guns.

Mailin Wong
May 5, 2013
Comment to Staples starts selling 3-D printers
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via email from Sean Y.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Emily Miller

The only way a mandatory check would work would be if the government could track every one of the 300 million firearms in the United States. And then the criminals would ask permission before buying them.

Emily Miller
Emily Gets Her Gun: …But Obama Wants to Take Yours
[300 million guns? We have computers that could do that, right? They built a computer system that signed people up for Obamacare so they should be able to do that for gun owners, right?*

These would be necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for “universal background check to work”.

They would also have to shut off the smugglers. You should assume this would work about as well as the War on Drugs has worked.

They would also have to prevent all the 3-D printers from making new guns. You should assume this would work about as well as the peeing into the wind.—Joe]


*In fact the Canadian gun registry (disbanded after costing 2 billion rather than 2 million) was built by the same people that wrote the Obamacare website.

Guns stop mass shooters

A good case could be made that the more people that have guns the less likely mass shootings are to occur. It a little tough to do the experiment because how do you know of a mass shooting was stopped because more people have guns?

But there is evidence even if we can’t do a fully controlled experiment like we would like. There are a number of cases listed here (H/T to John Lott) where the bad guy left a note or had made a modest start toward challenging previous mass shooting body counts when they were stopped by someone with a CCW and a gun.

There is also evidence presented in John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime as well. In the first edition (not sure about later revisions) the number of mass shootings prior to allowing people to exercise their right to keep and bear arms in public (no CCW) there were a modest number of mass shootings, then after passage of right to carry laws the mass shootings in that political jurisdiction went to zero. This was prior to the Gabby Giffords shooting which, of course, was in the gun friendly state of Arizona. But given that one exception when mass shooting occurs you can make a very safe bet that it happened in a “Gun Free Zone”.

It’s time to stop the mass shootings. We must stop government from infringing on our rights.

Comment backup

I’m backing up this comment here in case “Reasoned Discourse” breaks out over there.

Gun ownership is a specific enumerated right. Driving a car is a privilege.

Gun ownership is much closer compared to freedom of religion. We don’t, and can’t legally, require all the Jews, Catholics, and Muslims to register, pass tests, and register all their religious books. And so it is with the right to keep and bear arms.

Quote of the day—Roberta X

Lining up armed men in uniform to say “Verboten!” to members of the public wanting to pay their respects at a revered monument (one made of hard, hard rock and solidly anchored) is utterly necessary to the continued functioning of our great republic.

Okay, then.  But they’re gonna need taller, shiner boots.

Roberta X
October 6, 2013
Fed.Gov Has Shut Down The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall?
[I think I will start stealing that last line even though it’s not the shiny boots that make the difference. It’s the guns that back them up.

What they don’t seem to understand is that we have guns too. Not only guns but numbers. Numbers of people and numbers of guns that outnumber their guns and numbers. Please stop pushing because demonstrating the guns or the numbers will be very unpleasant for all involved.—Joe]

The only purpose

With as many crazy people as there are it’s surprising the world isn’t more messed up than it actually is.

And of course with a psychotic belief like that they have no reservations whatsoever about destroying your guns and you.

I tweeted back the following:

But trying to reason with the mentally ill is hopeless. I know, I’ve tried it before.