ID and instant background checks on purchases of new and used handguns bought at stores and pawn shops by people of the age of majority is smart and effective. They will prevent the sale of handguns to most felons by stores. But those are about the only forms of "gun control" that are smart and effective. You give clear and accurate reasons as to why the other forms only serve to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens while being ineffective at keeping handguns out of the hands of criminals.

Every responsible gun owner I know supports the swift and sure prosecution and harsh sentencing of any person who uses a gun in the commission of any crime. They also support the immediate revocation of parole or probation of any formerly-convicted felon caught in possession of a weapon. And that is exactly where our focus should be.

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 2:33:42 PM

  (1+)

Thank you. 

Instant background checks and positive identification should be enough. 

Gun control laws are little more than "feel good" efforts that avoid the hard problem, the real problem - criminal control.

by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 3:10:48 PM

  (1+)

The net effect of these technologies is to try to ensure the Government can out-gun the civilian subjects, . . . er . . ., citizens.  Oh, and confiscate those owned by lawful citizens at will.

But criminals will still have the unregistered, fully-automatic AK-47s and Uzis with 30-round magazines.  They will probably also have the phased-plasma rifles in the 40 watt range once they are a reality.

I made these same points (minus the phased-plasma rifles in the 40 watt range :-) in a diary entry:

Three Ring Assault Weapons Ban Circus in Philadelphia

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:25:16 PM

  (1+)

Thank you.

I am a little surprised at the position of Pennsylvania officials.  The state constitution is more clear on the issue; Article I, Section 21, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

If we, the people, do not guard our rights the government will grab them.  The "Patriot Act" is just one horrid example how we will be tricked into government control in the name of security. 

Another Founding Father quote I like is from Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:03:45 PM

  (1+)

While most of the state is strong on gun rights, Philadelphia is very liberal & antiguns. Governor Rendell used to be mayor of Philly, so he has that antigun mindset.

The subject refers to a joke around here that Pennsylvania is Philly & Pittsburgh in between really its Alabama.

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:04:49 AM

  (1+)

I see the immediate exception even by gun advocates of "felons" from those who should retain their right to bear arms. Such short-sightedness is typical of those on the Right, but is not a hallmark of the Left. Just like Bush can usurp all of your individual rights by deeming you a domestic threat, so can any political enemy arrange for a trumped up criminal audit, or a conveniently dropped bag of cocaine, etc. Almost all of the felons in America have been convicted of non-violent crimes based upon evidence which would not be admissible in most of the industrialized democracies. These people, who would be the most likely to stand armed for the Constitution rather than just talk about it, are the ones every gun advocate agrees to keep unarmed.

This blind faith in a failed judicial system contradicts the very purpose of the Second Amendment. In a country where virtually every adult commits a felony at least once a year, knowingly or unknowingly, there being such an abundance of laws, forfeiting the right to bear arms for such a conviction, if nonviolent, is exactly what a tyranny desires. Need I note that in most states the entry of an ex parte injunction against domestic violence forfeits a man's right to bear arms for life, even though he is not even present to contest the allegations which come amidst the struggle for custody, alimony, and child support: all of which can be won with false claims of domestic violence.

Wise up! Only those proved to have used firearms criminally in the past should be banned from ownership in the future. And even then, what if those folks in New Orleans had refused to give up their guns to Blackwater and stood on their constitutional rights and exchanged fire. If they were later convicted of some crime, should their future rights to gun ownership be lost because they exercised those rights?

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:29:25 AM

  (0+)

Thank you.

I understand your points concerning who is subject to the loss of their Second Amendment rights and under what circumstances.  Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not even begin to address this completely:  "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Supreme Court Of The United States, Syllabus, District of Columbia Et Al. V. Heller, Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit, No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008)

While I could not possibly fully address the 20,000 – 25,000 firearms laws on the books (nor am I qualified) I am concerned that more laws keep getting piled onto an otherwise overloaded judicial system.  I did try to examine some of the laws the Brady Campaign actively promotes as “sensible” and where there is question to the sensibility.

by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:55:27 AM

  (1+)

I can say without any hesitation whatsoever that I have never in my life committed a felony, let alone one per year.

I do understand your point about there being so many laws that can make someone a "criminal," knowingly or otherwise. It's not a situation I approve of.

But as Mike states, there has to be some kind of balance, and a line must be drawn somewhere as to what constitutes a crime that, once committed, disqualifies a person from exercising the right to keep and bear arms that is extended to those who respect the rights of others. Just as your right to be free can be revoked if you disqualify yourself by committing a crime which lands you in jail, certain crimes can and should disqualify one from the right to bear arms.

Ideally, the crimes that would trigger disqualification would be violent crimes, including burglary and other crimes in which the actual use of violence did not occur only because of chance. Meaning the fact that a burglar did not use violence in the commission of a burglary only because he was not confronted doesn't give him a pass. Or a car-jacker who merely yelled at an elderly woman to get out of the car before he stole it. Those are the kinds of folks who have no business owning guns.

As much as I disagree with the "war on drugs" and the injustices that have come from it, much gun violence is unquestionably tied to drug activity, especially in dealing and trafficking. Persons convicted on felony drug charges are generally people I would not be comfortable with having weapons.

I also completely understand your point about ex parte domestic violence restraining orders and divorce antics. That is definitely something to consider.

I don't have all the answers, and the problem should be discussed, and there probably are some felony offenses that shouldn't be felonies in the first place. But we have to be realistic. Just as I will not stand for having my right to own a weapon taken away, I cannot expect society to allow those who have violated the rights of others to live peacefully to own weapons.

We must be sober-minded and reliant on wisdom and prudence in asserting our rights and in determining their limits.

Addition:

In addition to all that, there is nothing wrong with a program that allows ex-felons to petition for a special restoration of the right based on individual circumstances of their convictions, time since their release, past behavior and current situation.

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:10:57 PM

  (1+)

Thanks, JC.  You have articulated much more clearly than my hurried reply before starting my workday that there must be a balance.

In an ideal world we would not even need the Second Amendment.  People would respect each other's rights and refrain from crime.  When your neighbor needed help, you would be there to provide it.  Our world is less than ideal and I personally believe we need the Second Amendment to ensure our personal defense, defense of the state, and as a safeguard against government tyranny.

We also have to try to control those who would abuse those rights.  The atrocities committed by deranged individuals at Columbine and Virginia Tech could have been avoided.  In both cases there were clear indications that the individuals involved had previous psychiatric intervention and/or law enforcement investigation before the events.  We failed to recognize these problems and to act on them in time. Some balance has to be provided to protect the public’s rights.  Instant background checks with positive identification should suffice.

Will there be injustices as a result of non-violent felons being denied rights?  Obviously that does occur.  JC points out the possibility of an appellate procedure to restore rights that may be an alternative.  I have pointed out separately that the reality of New York laws clearly infringed on my rights to keep a handgun I had already owned for 30 years.  Still, I lived with that for the three years I lived in Rochester.  That is part of the reason I wrote this article.  Let’s look at sensible laws, not arbitrary laws to score points with voters while we ignore the problems causing the violence.

by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:37:21 PM

  (1+)

While both of you make seemingly reasonable arguments, you essentially say that the Second Amendment should be abridged so long as it is not your right to bear arms that is forfeit.  This eviserates the intended effect of the Amendment as the force behind which all of the others are guaranteed.  You weaken the Second Amendment without understanding the basis that once justified its revocation for felons, but now is used to disarm political foes.

For instance, there are two types of crimes: crimes that are malum in se and crimes that are malum prohibitum.  Crimes that are malum in se are crimes that are inherently evil in themselves:  one instinctively feels guilt committing such a crime.  These are essentially the Ten Commandmant crimes--stealing and hurting others.  Crimes that are malum prohibitum are only crimes because the legislature has made them so.  One may commit such a crime and feel no guilt or remorse at all.  An example here would be making an excessive campaign contribution.

The drug possession laws are malum prohibitum.  When a person decides to possess and use illegal drugs he or she is not committing an inherently evil act.  In fact, an illegal drug user is making a very strong political statement that the state does not have a superior right over an individual's body than the individual himself. It is hard to imagine a more thoroughgoing political act than the taking of an illegal drug.  Such an act not only implies individual autonomy greater than state power, but also implies such conclusions that the draft is illegitimate, abortion should be legal, vaccinations cannot be mandatory, and that the government cannot make a person take any type of drug.  

Hence, when you so casually consent to the forfeit of the right to bear arms of a marijuana smoker, you are consenting to the marginalization of one who is most likely to use that right for the purpose for which it was designed.  And this is one of the primary reasons drugs are still illegal in the United States.  They marginalize people who believe that their bodies are their own and not the state's.  

As to not committing felonies, you are just ignorant of the law or lying to yourself.  Numerous studies conducted as far back as the 1970's have documented that the average American commits at least inadvertantly one felony per year.  Surely you have traveled with your gun concealed in your vehicle, or driven drunk on five occassions, or poured oil or radiator fluid directly into the ground, or disposed of tires or batteries or incadescent lightbulbs illegally, or thrown away a mercury based thermometer into the regular trash.  I could go on and on.  

A country populated by people who are not governed by internal spiritual restraints must legislate virtually every decision it expects its people to make.  The question then becomes not what is right and moral, but what is legal and what we can get away with.  As Christianity has declined in America, there has been a corresponding rise in the amount of legislation, criminal law, and lawyers.

Finally, as a former criminal defense lawyer, I suggest that just getting basic rights back for a felon is difficult enough.  I have never seen one get back the right to bear arms.  The state literally abhors this right in its citizens, and therefore seeks any excuse to remove that right.  Your arguments, which sound like those of people who have never actually fought the awesome power of the government on behalf of someone's rights, concede your brothers' rights in arms far too easily.  I believe you will hand over your weapons to Blackwater in a flash.  

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:48:17 PM

  (0+)

First, you are correct, I am not an attorney.  The views I presented were those of an individual examining the impact on me and my wallet for a few of the so-called sensible laws recommended by the Brady Campaign.  Particularly with regard to a right so significant that our Founding Fathers specifically spelled it out for future generations.  In my stated opinion these are not as sensible as they appear on the surface; particularly when you begin to legislate into law a mandate for the use of flawed technology and science fiction.

And I don’t think we are in disagreement.  Using your example of malum in se and the Ten Commandments.  I am sure you would agree that a gun dealer would say, “No.” if someone came in asking for a “Colt 1911 and fifty rounds of .45 ACP that I need to kill John Doe tonight.”  Or to commit a robbery.  So denial of a right to buy a firearm to a person who intends to commit a malum in se crime is acceptable.

We generally know that no one is going to go into a reputable gun store and make such a request.  If the person fully intended to use the weapon in a crime he/she would want one that would not be easily traceable to him/her.  Nevertheless, we would want to make some level of check.  Positive identification and instant background checks can at least provide a safety check for the citizenry at large.

The larger issue you are voicing (which I was not addressing) is how to address removal and restoration of rights for malum prohibitum crimes.

by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:23:40 PM

  (1+)

You attempt to put words in my mouth. I said nothing about taking a marijuana smoker's rights away. In fact, I talked about the same crimes you say would be "10 Commandment crimes."

And I believe that you will find more laws passed by "conservative Christian Republicans" that are restrictive of rights of Americans on all sorts of issues other than gun control.

I happen to believe that liberals in recent history have been on the wrong side when it comes to gun control, and I think many of them have begun to see that.

But the arguments I made were all about people who have demonstrated a willingness to violate the natural rights of others, and who have no aversion to using violence in order to do so.

And I still have never committed a felony.

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:49:17 AM

  (1+)

You should submit it as an article.

I have to take issue with one point, though. You wrote:

A country populated by people who are not governed by internal spiritual restraints must legislate virtually every decision it expects its people to make.  The question then becomes not what is right and moral, but what is legal and what we can get away with.  As Christianity has declined in America, there has been a corresponding rise in the amount of legislation, criminal law, and lawyers. 

My impression is that the US is a rather religious country. I recently read "American Theocracy:The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury". The author paints a picture of empires, past & present, driven by religious extremism. Sure sounds like the US today.

I would argue the opposite, that as religion has become more prevalent government has grown. If one can have faith in a god one can have faith in government too. This blinds people to the lies & abuses of our masters in DC & state capitals.

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:27:29 AM

  (1+)

Mr. Kimball,

I’m not sure if you reached a definitive conclusion – are you suggesting that gun control is a bad thing?   Or is gun control a farce?  Or should gun control be scrapped?  Or is your conclusion made by implication? 

Secondly, is the use of the word criminal – since Americans do often break laws while wishfully, and in denial, want to see themselves as law abiding.  Who then is the criminal - is the person who cheats on their taxes or do we limit it to the person who commits violent crime (such as road rage, threatening the use of force, or are we talking about a bank robber?)?

I did know a person who owned a fully automatic (yes, I said fully automatic and I know the difference) AK-47.  Why, because the second amendment did not prohibit it.  He did not have a license from the ATF for possession.  Is he a criminal because he is in felony possession or does he cross into criminal status once he uses it?

We use the word criminal without defining the word – so, do we define a criminal as some one who has been brought to justice for committing a crime and those who commit crimes and never been caught as law abiding?     Lott never defined the word – a cardinal sin in scientific research as you must define all the parameters used (my wife is in scientific research and so I do know what I’m talking about).  Ambiguous terms have no place in valid research.  

My aunt Marcie believes that communists sneak into her home and write secret messages on her toilet paper.  She has eluded mental health intervention all her life.  She legally carries a 357 magnum.  If she is in a shopping mall and one of her delusions hit and she draws that gun it is too late forever.  The use of psychotropic medications are on the rise in this country and that speaks volumes about the mental state of this country.  What are your suggestions for proactive measures to prevent people like my aunt Marcie from owning a firearm if she is a menace to both society and herself?

by Rabbi (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 109 comments) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:43:41 AM

  (0+)

Thank you.

As mentioned in my reply to W.M.L., my point is that “sensible” gun laws are not necessarily sensible or effective.  They do not preclude the criminal use of guns but restrict the use only by those who obey the laws.  Most gun laws focus on the symptom, not the disease.

There is a delicate balance between the right to keep and bear arms and the right of public safety.  With 20,000 – 25,000 laws on the books I do not think there is a single person in the United States that could articulate even half of them.  When is enough enough?

As to your friend with the fully automatic AK-47, if he is prosecuted I would suspect the outcome is likely to not be in his favor today.  The SCOTUS also stated in DC v. Heller:  “. . .We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.”  Unfortunately, they continue and only partially define the types of weapons: “We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” 

Unfortunately, today a “criminal” could be anyone who violates any of the gun laws.  Is that right or fair?  I can give a very personal and specific example where I would have been in violation of New York handgun laws when my company relocated me to Rochester.  If I had not used the Internet to research the laws of New York, I would have shipped my 30 year old Smith & Wesson I had bought legally in 1971 in Nebraska to Rochester. I would have violated New York laws. Because of the New York residency requirement laws to obtain a pistol permit, I chose instead to have my handguns shipped to my brother in Texas until I returned to California.  Was that fair to me?

I believe families have a role in caring for their own family members before passing that responsibility to society at large.

by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:59:44 AM

  (1+)

Good points all. Untold millions have been spent on gun control with little result in preventing and solving crimes; which was the original intent. Under most business practices, this would commonly be called a failure. But not with guns, which are approached with emotion, not numbers.

It is interesting that even anti-firearm folks, when in personal trouble, call folks with firearms. Of course the folks they call are good government people who are as straight as an arrow and sworn to "serve and protect."

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:18:51 AM

  (1+)

Thank you.

And the SCOTUS ruled in repeatedly in that the police do not have a Constitutional obligation to protect an individual citizen (DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 1989; and Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 2005). 

by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:06:44 PM

  (1+)

Origin of the right

The concept of a universal militia originated in England.[10][11][12] The requirement that subjects bear arms and serve military duty,[13][14][15][16] dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense (see Assize of Arms). At that time, it was customary for a soldier to purchase, maintain, keep, and bring his own armor and weapon for military service. This was of such importance that Crown officials gave periodic inspections to guarantee a properly armed militia. King Henry III required every subject between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land owning subjects) to own a weapon other than a knife. The reason for such a requirement was that in the absence of a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of every man to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots.[17] This remained relatively unchanged until 1671, when Parliament created a statute that drastically raised the property qualifications needed to possess firearms. In essence, this statute disarmed all but the very wealthy. In 1686, King James II banned without exception the Protestants' ability to possess firearms, even while Protestants constituted over 95% of the English subjects. Not until 1689, with the rise of William of Orange, was this reversed by the English Bill of Rights which declared that "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law".

source

After reading a bit of the history behind the 2nd Amendment, I come to the conclusion our rights have been infringed upon to the extent of our no longer being able to defend ourselves. Prey, with our military strewn across the globe in the name of democracy and freedom as it is, I'm not all too certain we can count on them to defend the country!

Excellent timing, Mike. I hope you present us with a follow-up after giving this one time to sink in.  

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:08:26 AM

  (1+)

Another article . . .?  Possibly.  I am enjoying the serious discussion and the additional points I either did not address or could have addressed better. 

 I won't rule out another submission.

by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:25:05 PM

  (0+)

Guns breed complacency for suckers.  They are the perfect pretext for arrests and "incidents".

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 2:24:13 PM

  (0+)

Sounds crazy at first, but felons already are illegally armed.  Felons currently retain all other rights-free speech, some vote, etc.  You can even vote democrat after your death!  Currently, if a felon is silly enough to attempt to buy a gun in a gun store, he will fail the background check, and the FBI at least retains a record of the attempt.  Most felons decide to buy elsewhere, and nothing is registered. 

 Allowing felons to legally purchase a gun will allow the FBI and other agencies to have registration information that they would normally not have.  As some felons have cleaned up and have "gone straight", there should be no problems with them.  For the others, encourage felon registered weapons, and enhance penalties.  Felons caught with an unregistered firearm are guaranteed serious time, at the least.  As they already have a "first strike", a 2nd strike, especially with a weapon gets them life, or death, depending on the crime.   This should also dry up the black market.

by a a (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:16:57 PM

  (0+)

Yeah, right.

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:06:51 PM

  (0+)

Good job, Mike.

Just this a.m. I ran across a great example of the idiocy of gun restrictions.  I was checking out the DC process, to see if I could get a temporary permit to take my handgun while joining my husband on a business trip.  There's a paragraph instructing citizens that they must register only shotguns, rifles and revolvers.  They are not allowed to even own semi-auto pistols.  Does that make any sense whatsoever?  What, is a semi-auto pistol more "dangerous" than a revolver?  The idiots that make up these laws probably don't even know the difference in what the two handguns look like!

I carry a handgun in my purse because a cop won't fit, so he can't always be there to protect me.

I don't want to live in a country where the only people allowed to have guns are the ones in government uniforms.   

by shielah jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:24:00 AM

  (1+)

Thank you.

Dick Heller (THE Dich Heller of the SCOTUS DC v. Heller decision) was denied his request to register his 1911 model .45.  Huh?  Why?  Because under the new DC requirements categorize most/all semi-automatics as "machine guns" if they use or can be converted to use a magazine with greater than 12 rounds.  I have read that he is filing another lawsuit.

Just a classic case of adding insult to injury.  I am reminded of Forest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."

by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:20:38 AM

  (1+)