Arms Control

... send in some comments to the National Park Service suggesting that they allow the firearms rules for their parks to match the rules in the surrounding state.  Joe Huffman has some good visuals showing why. 

Laws on firearm carry in national parks should mirror state laws.  The states have already made their own decisions on whether and how to restrict concealed or open carry of firearms by law-abiding citizens.  States which allow open carry of firearms, with or without a permit, should also have that right available to their citizens in national parks within the boundaries of the state; likewise with lawful concealed carry of firearms.  There is no need to add yet another layer of confusing and conflicting regulations upon the behavior of honest citizens attempting to enjoy our national parks safely.

Not as much as you might think.  In this case, pointed out by Patterico, the 9th Circuit upholds a 5 year sentence for using a gun while possessing marijuana for distribution.  The catch?  The person involved was a border patrol officer who tried to steal a portion of drugs seized while on duty.  They happened to be caught on videotape.  The only reason there was a gun involved is because the guy had to carry one as part of his uniform and law enforcement duties. 

Now, nevermind that the drug war is wrong; never mind that this law enforcement officer is clearly corrupt; is wearing a gun on your belt as part of your normal clothing, without ever drawing the gun from its holster and without any attempt at force or intimidation, really "using" the gun in commission of a crime and worth 5 extra years in jail?  Bear in mind the sentence for using a gun (60 months), was twice the sentence for the theft of the drug (30 months).

That's a lot of potential bad for a concealed-carry licensee who makes an otherwise small mistake.  And I'm a lot more concerned about the fact that a law enforcement officer would steal something he's supposed to be confiscating than that he did so while wearing his duty weapon.

Scott Bach explains the issues.  There was a favorable court ruling (a surprise in New Jersay) that struck down one-gun-a-month laws as having no rational basis.  That's doubly-surprising, because the rational basis test is one that is usually very easy for a government to pass.  The ruling has caused some of the local gun control groups to push for statewide gun rationing laws.

There's one point I found particularly interesting:

What they conveniently forget to mention is that a large percentage of the traced guns have nothing whatsoever to do with criminal activity, but they are given the label "crime gun" nevertheless, because of a BATFE database requirement that all traced firearms must first be given a descriptive code before they can be entered into the system, and the only available codes happen to carry the designation "crime" in their name, regardless of whether the traced firearms were actually involved in crime.

I'll keep that in mind the next time someone is ranting about BATFE trace data on "crime guns". I already knew about this particular tactic for demonizing traced guns, but I didn't know the specific details that explain the designation.  Sometimes, knowing a detail like that can be more convincing than the bald assertion of fact alone.

... but interestingly enough, not support for gun bans.  The survey covered 50 people, from what I can tell all currently in prison, 42 of which were serving time for drug offenses.  The author sometimes calls his respondents "inmates" and other times "students"; why he does this is unclear.  Perhaps his respondents are inmates who are also students?

I'm assuming the survey population from which answers are drawn is the same, regardless of whether "inmates" or "students" is used.

Some interesting points from the survey:

Have you ever been shot, or shot at, with a firearm? If so, provide details :

Thirty-one inmates answered "Yes," and only three of them said the shots had been fired by law enforcement officers.

Of course, the answers as reported do not preclude criminals shooting at criminals.  In fact, all but one of the reported responses were cases that could easily be characterized as criminal-on-criminal activity -- the responses quoted had a definite tendency to initiate or escalate a confrontation, even while some could reasonably be considered defensive.  There's really no way to characterize most of the responses as being solidly self-defense or solidly criminal, it's all in the context that's missing from the responses.

The last reported response was someone who was shot after being robbed.  Note that he was shot after cooperating with his attacker.

But some students did seem to back some gun control measures, with 42 of the 50 in favor of licensing (for any and all guns), waiting periods and pre-purchase mental competency tests. 

So, criminals want to institute strict gun controls, yet obviously they have had no difficulty obtaining their own guns despite the mere possession of a firearm being a felony for probably everyone who participated.  (The odds are that everyone surveyed was either a prior felon or addicted to drugs, given the rough details we have about the participants in the survey -- currently incarcerated, 84% for drug crimes).

The survey was conducted by a Joseph Cooper, who teaches media law and ethics.  What the relationship between that field and criminology is, I have no idea. 

Because I'm always more than a little suspicious of excerpted media reports from such surveys, I asked the person who conducted the survey for his data.  This is a normal request in most scientific circles, because it allows for peer review.  His response to my request:

Thank you for your inquiry and request, but because my surveying will continue (following the Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller), and because of Dept. of Correction protocols and policies, and because of a book prospect, I must decline.

I will leave the reader to judge whether that's a reasonable response or not.  While, obviously, he would be in something of a bind if the data he used has conditions attached to it, I'm not sure I buy that; how would any research on questions like this be peer-reviewed if the data cannot be shared due to a firm policy?  I wouldn't mind waiting until after Heller v DC to get a complete dataset, but if that's holding him up, why publish articles about it in the newspaper?

It seems a little defensive to me.  I'm particularly curious how any of those reasons could justify his refusal to share non-personally-identifiable data while not preventing him from excerpting that data in nationally-published newspaper articles.

Amusingly enough, he visited my blog immediately before issuing his response to me in email -- less than 2 minutes before, in fact.  I wonder if that had any influence on his decision?

At any rate, since he refuses to provide his data, I'm not inclined to give his results any significance -- particularly not his carefully-excerpted and nationally-published excerpts.  The price of credibility is openness to validation.

Thanks to David Hardy for his patience in answering a few questions concerning the ettiquette of data sharing.

From the VPC blog (to which I will not link):

Victory is imminent; we expect a 9-0 decision in favor of D.C. Paul Helmke may pay lip service to the possibility of losing the case, but, in reality, he is quite confident of the outcome. Our forces are metaphorically preparing to cross the Rubicon and smash the NRA.

"Metaphorically" prepared?  It better be a metaphor, seeing as actual preparation to "cross the Rubicon" with "forces" to "smash the NRA" would involve... guns.  Which I think the NRA has more of.

Bill Owens has a pictorial essay outlining the consequences of Obama's various gun-control ideas.  He focuses on Obama's support for banning "all forms of semi-automatic firearms", indicating how that would cover everything from sporting shotguns to Olympic target pistols to popular hunting rifles and handguns.  From there, it's on to Obama's support for renewing the Assault Weapons Ban, and then to the handgun ban.  It's a good way to show someone not really familiar with the details just how broad Obama's gun control support really is.

... but of course they have no intent to discontinue their unConstitutional agenda, do they?  Of course not! 

"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically."

How's that crow taste, Helmke?  Frankly, as a special interest group whose major policy initiative is viewed by 75% the American public as unConstitutional after years of effort and significant funding, I'm surprised they haven't all committed suicide in shame.  With something other than a gun, of course. 

Although, to be honest, I want to see the actual decison before I decide to celebrate too hard.  That could come down from the court any day now.

Instead, they are trying to rally the troops for slightly-less-unConstitutional gun laws:

"Universal background checks don't affect the right of self-defense in the home. Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home," said Henigan. "Curbing large volume sales doesn't affect self-defense in the home."

I'll state the obvious: Banning assault weapons won't pass strict scrutiny.  Curbing large volume says won't pass strict scrutiny.  Universal background checks might... if the other side gets lucky. Were I Mr. Henigan, I'd be looking for another line of work.

Michelle Malkin's see-dubya has a lengthy post about it.

The NRA has a fact sheet about Obama's positions on guns, now that he's the official Democratic nominee.  It's scary.  Worse, the man is very attractive to people who don't spend a lot of time paying attention to politics (read: people who don't do their own research into candidates).  With any luck, more of these past positions will start coming back to haunt him.

That said... if I didn't know better I'd say Obama has deliberately kept a low profile on most controversial issues in preperation for his run for the presidency.  His legislative record is simply too sparse.  He's not trying to make a career out of passing laws, he's treating each political office as a line on his resume. 

Fortunately, being a liberal Chicago politician means that you can't avoid the gun control issue.  And in the general election, it'll be a doozy if we can get the message out.

I know I'll be watching closely to see how he reacts when the Heller ruling comes out, too.

Over at Firearms and Freedom there's some discussion about the effect of federal versus local background checks on the rate of suicide by firearm.  He gets a little bit into the numbers, but it's not actually necessary.  I can tell just from a few words that the study he's reading won't tell us anything useful.

Not quite sure what to make of this, but the Medical College of Wisconsin released a study that gun suicide and homicide rates were about 25% lower in states that did local background checks as opposed to state or federal checks.

Examining "gun" suicide and homicide rates will never be productive.  In order to have any real point you have to study whether there are overall differences in suicides or homicides.  After all, someone who commits suicide or is murdered will be just as dead whether they were killed with a gun or a knife or someone's bare hands.

I've always been a little puzzled by the persistent desire to examine "gun" deaths rather than "overall" deaths.  It's not inconceivable that restrictions on firearms would reduce the number of successful murders and suicides.  For example, in theory, someone who has been recently hospitalized as a suicide risk might show up on a background check as having mental health issues resulting in a denial of purchase, and then not have the willpower to go through with a more elaborate and painful method.  Or, similarly, someone who shows up as a criminal on a background check could be arrested by the police before finding other means to commit the intended crime. 

Yet we continually see studies examing "gun" deaths, rather than "overall" deaths.

That tells me that someone in the anti-gun community has done the studies, at least informally, and found that there is no difference, or even worse, that the legal availability of firearms reduces the homicide and suicide rate.  That someone must have put out the word not to study the issue, because the studies would result in nothing at all or even in active damage to "the cause".

I can't think of any other reason for this peculiar consistency.

Does anyone have any good studies addressing this point?

One of the commenters on Megan's post suggested that a rapier was a better defensive weapon for an apartment than a firearm:

Is this for home defence, or concealed carry? If only the former, I'd actually recommend forgoing the gun and investing in a bladed weapon, preferably something with a decent reach that can still be wielded one-handed, such as a rapier. Jokes about bringing a knife to a gunfight aside, in the small dimensions of an apartment, you will always have sufficient proximity to an intruder to have the upper hand over anyone who doesn't begin the encounter by pointing a gun at you, in which case you're scrod no matter what's in your arsenal. A sword is easier to learn how to handle, is much easier to maintain, is never unloaded, and if, heaven forfend, there should ever be a tragic accident involving your weapon, it is much harder to have a lethal accident involving a sword than a firearm of any sort. And any of the less-used lower tech weapons brings with it a psychological intimidation factor.

I'm in favor of gun rights, but I believe in having the right tool for a job. For home defence, in any home where the maximum sightline is less than 15 feet, that's a blade.

Posted by Michael | June 3, 2008 2:49 AM

Here's how I responded:

Michael,

Defending your apartment with a sword? I'm fond of swords myself and own several high-quality blades, but I'll be going for a gun to defend myself. And that's from someone with the muscle and training to effectively use those swords.

We stopped using swords as serious weapons hundreds of years ago, and we did it for a reason: guns work better. Guns need less training, less physical strength, and are more effective at stopping an attack.

Since you're talking about "sightlines of less than 15 feet" I assume you are basing your thinking on the general assumption that someone within 21 feet with a knife can close and use the knife before a defender with a holstered gun can draw and fire. This is accurate as far as it goes, but it's far from the whole story. Just consider how well you would fare in the same scenario trying to draw your rapier!

One strike with a bladed weapon is not necessarily fatal, and one shot from a handgun is a lot more likely to end the fight permanently. There's no reason to give up the advantages of a firearm in favor of merely equalizing your defensive options against an attacker armed with a knife.

A firearm is not a magical talisman that will keep its owner safe from harm. It's just the best tool available for self-defense.

I confess to not being able to make up my mind whether Michael is a true believer in gun control trying to win points by conceding the concealed-carry issue (since it's not currently legal for ordinary folk in DC anyway), or actually thinks he's giving good advice.

Jed points out Megan's (of Assymetrical Information) request for advice on the question of whether to buy a handgun while living in DC, assuming the Heller decision comes down in favor of DC's residents rather than DC's politicians.  I posted a reply that ended up going a bit longer than expected, so I am reproducing it here in case others are asking themselves similar questions:

Megan,

Congratulations on beginning to grapple with the challenge of providing for your own safety. It's every adult's responsibility, but DC has preferred to treat its residents as children for over 30 years.

Unfortunately, even if the Heller case is a victory, it's unlikely to turn DC's laws into a pro-gun utopia. The city is likely to immediately follow a Supreme Court decision with the most restrictive laws short of a total ban that they think will pass muster -- repeat until the courts become sufficiently bored.

Expect the city to try requiring licensing, registration, safe storage, training, possibly even magazine capacity silliness... all with as many roadblocks put into the process as they can come up with. What you get is likely to be determined at least partly by what they will allow you to have. The courts may strike down some or all of whatever requirements they pass, but it may well take years for that to happen.

Bear in mind that if you're willing to put up with that, it's already legal to own a shotgun, if you jump through all the hoops. Some would argue that a shotgun is better suited for your intent anyway.  I wouldn't, but some would. To get an idea, read The So-Called Capital of the Free World.

Even if they don't try to mandate a training requirement, plan to get some if you're a first-time gun owner or first time handgun owner. If you go to the appropriate NRA training course you won't have to try to sort out which of your commenters knows what they are talking about and which are just trying to convince you it's a bad idea for political reasons.

I don't mean to be discouraging but this is not likely to be a settled issue that can be treated casually in the District for some time.

All that said? The answer is YES, get a gun. Because it's your life, not theirs, and the government often needs to be reminded of this.

I can't say I'm happy with that answer.  Gun ownership is a fundamental, Constitutionally-protected right.  It should be very simple to exercise that right, with minimal government intrusion.  But, to risk a Clintonism, "should be" is not the same thing as "is".

If I lived in DC, I'd ask a lawyer to help if I intended to buy a handgun in the near post-Heller future.

The American Hunters and Shooters Association, a false-flag operation run by gun banners to give political cover to candidates who want to ban guns but don't quite have the political courage to say so, has decided to endorse Obama.

Obama has never seen a gun control measure he did not like... before running for president.  Now, he's praying no one looks into his slim and scarce voting record.  And that they forget about him insulting gun owners by claiming their "bitterness" leads them to "cling" to their guns.

Gun owners have long memories.

Hat tip to The War on Guns for the story.

Bitter shoots, cleans, cooks, and eats an editorial from the American Hunters and Shooters false-flag operation.

He's right, but no one seems to be listening.

One popular "gun control" measure lately is the idea of banning gun sales near schools.  It's popular because it doesn't seem like a big sacrifice at first glance, it has the virtue of "saving the children" from the perceived menace of school shootings, and probably most important, it's new enough that the facts haven't had time to reach the public awareness and overpower the propaganda.  Most people are still evaluating the idea based on superficial first impressions.

One person who is trying to move the discussion into serious policy analysis instead is Les Jones, who has been posting "Rights Exclusion Zone maps" for various cities, indicating the areas within those cities that are within the mandated "forbidden zone".  (King County) (Texas, Indiana, Tennesee)

The area in green are the parts of King County within which no firearms dealers would be allowed to operate, based solely on exclusions for middle and high schools, as proposed by Obama. This excludes elementary schools, higher education, and parks. Most of the east side (right side) of this map are parks of various compositions. Map from MapPoint. Data from Washington State.

For most cities, there are no gaps. 

Rather than being a "small sacrifice" this proposal would effectively ban gun dealers from operating within city limits anywhere.  If the law has a grandfather clause allowing existing businesses to continue operating, it would have very little practical effect -- only as the grandfathered businesses failed would new businesses be required to locate outside the city limits.  (It would, however, provide a significant barrier to entry for new gun stores -- effectively creating a market incentive to raise gun prices within cities).

If it does not contain a grandfather clause... well, there would be lots of chaos as any gun store within one of the exclusion zones would have to relocate in a hurry.  And the chaos would be ongoing, presumably, as new schools are built and force gun stores to relocate away from them.

There are reasonable arguments for not locating outdoor gun ranges in heavily populated areas, as there is always the chance of someone being stupid and letting their bullets escape the range.  But gun stores, without attached ranges, pose no threat to anyone. 

Like many other gun-control measures, this is a feel-good law that could have a tremendous cost attached to it and absolutely no benefits.  Unless you consider imposing huge and otherwise unjustified economic burdens on firearm dealers (who are already hugely burdened with regulations) to be a benefit in and of itself.  Which would be pure bigotry... not that that's news either.

Sebastian is reporting on an effort in your state to ban "inherently dangerous firearms".   As he says, you only get one chance to stop things like this, it's very hard to repeal a law once passed.

... but it can sure make you wonder.

A gun summit?  I know what that means.  That means Hillary will tell us what she wants and then accuse us of not being "bipartisan" for not going along with it.  It's par for the course when only one side is asked again and again to compromise for yet more meaningless measures.

Oh, and the best part?

?I think we can do that, but it?s going to require us all to maybe give a little and understand the point of view of the other people,? she said. ?That?s something I would do as President to really bring people together.?

?We know we need better background checks and we know we?ve got to have mental health information in there,? she said.

Didn't we just pass that legislation?  Didn't you just vote for it, Senator Clinton?  (I don't actually know how she voted on the legislation I'm thinking of, or even if she did, but it did pass the Senate)  Is it too much to ask that you read the legislation you are voting on?  I guess so.. but that's also only to be expected from gun control advocates.  For some reason, they love to keep pushing the same measures again... and again... and again... even if they passed the first time. 

Don't ask me why; I just report the news... at least, in this post.

I guess Hillary thinks she can pander to both sides and get credit for it somehow.  I doubt she'll fool anyone.

Speaking of doublethink, here's some thoughts from Obama on guns:

Although Obama supports gun control, while campaigning in gun-friendly Idaho earlier this month, he said he does not intend to take away people's guns.

... and ....

At his news conference, [Prof. Obama] voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month.

But wait... the District of Columbia's ban on handguns takes away people's guns.  (In case you are wondering, the District also bans functional rifles and shotguns; you are allowed to have a rifle or shotgun only if it doesn't work and has been registered through an intrusive and difficult process).

UPDATE: And there's more.  Per the Volokh Conspiracy, Obama has favored increased penalties for the interstate transport of firearms, making it a felony to have your gun stolen and used in a crime, restricting gun purchases to one gun per month, banning the sale of firearms at gun shows, increasing the fee to obtain an FFL, banning the sale of used firearms by police agencies, limiting gun ownership to those over 21 with mandatory training, banning firearm dealers from having a storefront within 5 miles of a school or a park, banning "Saturday Night Specials" (and isn't THAT a nice bit of racist irony?), mandatory background checks for all people working at a gun dealers (doesn't look too bad at first glance -- except that it would impose a huge economic penalty on large stores that also happen to sell guns, like Wal-Mart), mandatory "smart gun" functionality that only allows the original owner of a firearm to operate it (no resale?), and finally, increasing federal taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500%.

... but there's little doubt he's better than what they Democrats will be offering in 2008.  The latest demonstration of this comes from a bill to allow firearms into National Parks (when they are accessible for self-defense; I believe it's already legal to transport them when properly stored).  McCain is cosponsoring the bill and the Senate leadership is blocking is, reportedly to prevent Hillary and Obama from having to take a vote. 

Hat tip to David Hardy, from whom I got the story.

It seems that the head of the noted anti-gun organization Violence Policy Center has a Federal Firearm Dealer's license, which lists as his place of business the VPC's offices in Washington DC... where possession of functional firearms by the peasants is banned.  This license allow him (and presumably, his organization to some extent) to deal in firearms.  If the press were actually independent, this factoid would have resulted in quite a few embarassing questions at press conferences by now.

David Hardy has the evidence, and notes that the license probably allows the VPC to ignore the ban on functional firearms imposed on the ordinary citizens of the District of Columbia.

It seems a Canadian newspaper is finally waking up to reality, and noticing that gun control is based on lies.  But they aren't yet ready to go all the way.

The Grits pretended the long-gun registry (handguns have had to be registered since 1934) would help prevent a repeat of the 1989 Montreal massacre in which 14 women died.

This was nonsense. Gun registries don?t deter such crimes. The main purpose of a gun registry is to warn police if they are entering a house that has registered weapons, primarily in domestic dispute cases. It?s also ? combined with requiring gun owners to obtain permits and properly store and transport their weapons ? aimed at reducing the spontaneous use of guns in moments of anger, despair or recklessness, that lead to domestic murders, suicides and accidental shootings.

Even a well-run registry won?t deter random gun violence. To suggest otherwise is a fraud. If gun control advocates want to argue for the registry to reduce domestic murders and suicides, fine. But be honest about it. For once.

What they haven't yet realized is that gun registries don't do anything about domestic murders or suicides, either.  The only thing a registry can possibly do is make it more expensive -- in time and money -- for ordinary people to own a gun.  It won't even slow down criminals, and "ordinary people" have a myriad of other options for "spontaneously" killing themselves and/or their spouse.  That assumes that actual ordinary people do such things, when the evidence is that they overwhelmingly don't. 

Indeed, there is even an argument -- presently anecdotal -- that owning a gun can reduce such incidents, by teaching a responsible gun owner how to think ahead, evaluate the potential consequences of his actions, and back down from a fight when prudent.  The cycle of doing it again, only HARDER, has been broken.

... we have documents from the Clinton administration describing their strategy for attacking the 2nd Amendment and firearms in general.  In case you haven't noticed, the rash of gun liability lawsuits we've seen are the outcome of those plans.  So was the Smith & Wesson "settlement".  The Clintons were unable to implement their gun control fantasies legislatively, so they turned to other means.  This is the paper trail.

The Geek with a .45 has a take on the documents, as does Smoke on the Water.

I've read through the documents posted so far, and every single one of the points mentioned has later come up in various lawsuits. 

Wondered what the fuss was all about?  Find out here.

It should come as no surprise that an association of dictators, kleptocracies, monarchies, and communist "republics" tends to dislike the idea of ordinary people with firearms.  What surprises me is the way that so very many democracies seem willing to go along with them.