The Tools of Insurrection

This simple graphic, which was produced by California Governor Jerry Brown in 2009 when he was his state's attorney general, is the result of a survey of crimes involving firearms. The results show that the vast majority of firearms used in crimes were handguns. However, almost all the focus in the gun control debate is on so-called "assault weapons", which count as rifles.

In California, rifles were used in only 8.8% of crimes, and of those rifles less than two thirds were classified as assault weapons. Therefore, assault weapons are used in a miniscule fraction of crimes in which a gun of any kind is used, as can be seen in the following graphic (from the same 2009 report):

[click on the image for a larger view]

So, from this data we can safely conclude that an assault weapons ban will have little impact on crime and public safety in America. In fact, studies after the last ban, in 1994, have shown no discernible correlation between the assault weapons ban and gun crime, which we would expect based on the low percentages involved.

Why, therefore, is this such an important issue for the Federal Government? To answer that question, you have to look at the proposed assault weapons ban in the context of an unprecedented explosion in federal government authority and economic influence in the past few decades. For example, as I've mentioned in a previous post, the U.S. Federal Government now controls nearly five times more money per person today than they did in the last year under Bill Clinton (2000). All of this money translates into government action, some of which is popular and some of which is unpopular. Clearly, as the trend continues, there will come a time when citizens in various parts of the country say, "Enough!" and take steps to try to impede the intrusion of federal authority in their lives and livelihoods.

One example is Colorado. Currently, Colorado law (which makes recreational use of marijuana legal) is at loggerheads with U.S. policy, with unpredictable results. In California, armed federal agents have stormed legal, licensed and peaceful medical marijuana growing operations to destroy the crop and arrest the operators. As marijuana cultivation and sale becomes widespread in Colorado, how will the Feds respond, and what will the citizens of Colorado do about it? This is an open question, and one that the federal government wants to stay ahead of, which is why they are banning so-called "military style" weapons, which not so ironically are exactly the weapons they carry when they storm legal medical marijuana growing operations in California.

Statewide Gun Registration - An Idea Whose Time Has Come

State governments need to know who owns what guns.

For a long time I agreed with the NRA position that gun registration proposals should be opposed at all costs, for they are the first step in gun confiscation. However, I have come to believe that well-regulated gun registration schemes, on a STATE-BY-STATE basis, are now needed.

PLEASE ALLOW ME MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT I OPPOSE ANY EFFORTS TO IMPOSE A FEDERAL GUN REGISTRATION SCHEME.

The problem that we are faced with, which calls for firearm registration, is how to know when someone who can no longer own a gun does, in fact, own one. Expecting the mentally ill, or those subject to protection from abuse orders, or those convicted of felonies, to VOLUNTARILY inform the authorities of what guns they own is naive.

Therefore, I support the notion that individual state government need to develop a firearm registration regime that will permit the authorities to know what guns are out there, and who is responsible for them.

This is the only way, as I see it, that we can effectively keep legally purchased firearms out of the hands of those who cannot safely possess them.

Firearms and the Mentally Ill -- We've Got to Do Something NOW

The world's deadliest sniper was killed by a troubled vet he was trying to help.

If there ever were a tragic event that should bring into focus the fact that gun safety is not about outlawing guns but about controlling who has access to them, it is the death of ex-Seal sniper Chris Kyle at the hand of a young Iraqi War veteran who was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

At this moment, individuals who are suffering from emotional or mental disorders who have not been involuntarily committed by court order are not restricted from owning, or coming into contact with, a firearm. However, allowing veterans suffering from PTSD access to their weapons has resulted in countless suicides, and now a tragic double murder.

We need legislation requiring individuals who are suffering from severe depression, paranoia, schizophrenia, or a similar ailment to sell, transfer, or surrender their firearms until they can be deemed fit. Legislation such as this would have legally prevented Chris Kyle from bringing his murderer to the gun range that day, and he would still be alive. Similarly, it would have impeded Adam Lanza's mother from providing her troubled son with access to the weapons he used in the Newtown massacre, and twenty-six people, including twenty young children, would still be alive.

We really need to spread the word that guns and emotional or mental instability cannot coexist. If we live with someone who suffers any of these ailments we need to do whatever we can to separate them from their weapons so that they are less likely to hurt themselves and others.

However, this is often incredibly difficult to do. Someone suffering from paranoia will likely become severely agitated if you try to take away a gun that makes them feel safe, perhaps with violent results. Currently, the authorities cannot intervene until the mentally ill person has done something that demonstrates that they are a danger to themselves or others. However, this threshold may be too high to increase public safety.

As a starting point, we should lower the threshold by which someone's actions initiate a process of court-ordered psychological review. For example, as I write this a deranged man in Alabama is holding a five year old boy hostage, who he took off of a school bus after shooting and killing the bus driver. However, this man showed numerous signs of mental instability, such as beating to death a dog that wandered onto his property and shooting into the air to scare off neighbors who ventured too close to his property line. The local authorities in Alabama should have been empowered to order an immediate psychological evaluation for this man. However, this did not happen, and now a bus driver is dead and a family is in anguish because they may never see their son again.

Also, we need to start a discussion with school administrators and the medical community about how they can help us identify those individuals in our midst who are not equipped to be allowed to own or otherwise possess a firearm. For example, the Ph.D student in Aurora, Colorado who unleashed a barrage at a midnight showing of a Batman movie had written a letter to his psychiatrist expressing a desire to inflict pain on others. Sadly, since no prompt action was taken twelve people were killed and over fifty others were wounded.

What is it going to take before we take the measures that need to be taken to identify those people around us who are literally "ticking time bombs" and disarm them??

Gun are ubiquitous and gun control is not the answer. The answer is cooperation by school officials, mental health professionals, law enforcement, and the courts to get these at-risk people identified, evaluated, and kept away from dangerous weapons.

Amnesty for the Employers of Illegal Immigrants

This does not need to happen anymore.

The Obama Administration is proposing amnesty to the approximately 11 million immigrants who have succeeded in crossing the border illegally, or who have stayed beyond the time limit of a tourist visa. In addition to amnesty, the Administration is recommending stricter border enforcement and increased raids by federal agents of employers who hire illegals, with increased penalties.

I see major problems with the Administration's proposals, especially as it applies to the crack-down on employers who pay illegals under the table. The path to legalization of foreign nationals currently here without authority will take a long time to complete. What does Obama want these people to do in the intervening period? Steal to eat?

Basically, the Administration is saying that illegal immigrants must not work here illegally, but they can stay and apply for a work permit and possibly citizenship as long as they are here illegally and unemployed.

The fact of the matter is that illegal immigrants cross the border because they know that there is huge untapped demand for their services in a range of industries where U.S. citizens prefer not to work, or where the wage that would have to be paid to attract a U.S. citizen would make the product being produced too expensive to sell competitively. Are you going to pay $8/lb. for California grapes? Because that might be what they would cost if you didn't have illegals picking them for you.

The Obama Administration is drawing attention to the rates of capture of illegal immigrants, which declined dramatically during their first term in office. However, this decline was not due to more border agents but rather to the worst economy since the Great Depression. During Obama's first four years many Mexicans went back to Mexico because they could not find work in the U.S., and this trend discouraged others from risking the sometimes dangerous crossing.

So, the issue is not illegal immigration, per se, but rather jobs and who is going to fill them.

RATHER THAN AMNESTY FOR IMMIGRANTS HERE ILLEGALLY, I PROPOSE AMNESTY FOR THE EMPLOYERS THAT HIRE THEM.

As I mentioned earlier, there are numerous industries in the U.S. that would suffer or fail if the supply of willing low-wage laborers were cut off. I recommend that the federal government expand existing visa programs so that these employers can request certain numbers of workers from different countries, to work LEGALLY at their facilities in the U.S. If these workers are already working illegally, upon approval of their application the employer could decide if they want to keep these workers and initiate a process of documentation of these workers without risk to the employer of prosecution.

Obama's proposal is a formula to put workers on the street while they wait to see if they can stay here legally or not, while my proposal is a way to codify the status quo and insure that the U.S. businesses that truly need these workers can prosper without fear of prosecution.

Common-Sense Solutions

Instead of abusing the Newtown tragedy by twisting it into an opportunity to undermine the 2nd Amendment and restrict legal gun ownership, we should pursue SENSIBLE POLICY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL MAKE US SAFER. In that vein, I am sharing an editorial written by the staff at USA Today that I think is a very good basis for conversation and debate. I believe that measures similar to these, which do not conflict with the rights of law-abiding citizens are where we should be looking to improve the system:

The following opinion was written by the editorial board of USA Today and published on January 30, 2013

Fight on assault-weapon ban shouldn't get in the way of other common-sense solutions.

As Congress starts hearings today on gun violence, even the most ardent supporters of a new ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines concede they face an uphill battle. That doesn't make the ban a lost cause, or an unworthy one, in the wake of last month's school massacre in Newtown, Conn.
But the assault-weapons fight shouldn't get in the way of other common-sense, common-ground ways to curb gun deaths. Here are five that command bipartisan support and could make a significant difference without any injury to the rights of law-abiding gun owners:

1. Background checks. The nation's otherwise effective background check system has a critical loophole: The instant checks must occur only when a gun is purchased from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Buyers who can't pass a check — such as felons or people with a history of mental illness, substance abuse or domestic violence — can buy weapons from private sellers who aren't required to run a check. These private transactions are a key way that criminals get guns. The White House has proposed mandatory background checks for all purchases, with logical exceptions such as gun transfers between family members. National Rifle Association leaders are deliberately misrepresenting the idea and claiming it's a Trojan Horse for gun taxation and confiscation. Yet a poll last summer showed 74% of NRA members in favor of expanding background checks. And a CBS News/New York Times poll this month showed 92% support for background checks on all potential gun buyers.
2. Mental health database. Virginia officials were appropriately shamed when they learned that the student gunman who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007 had legally bought his two handguns after breezing through background checks — despite being so obviously disturbed that a judge had ordered him to get mental health treatment. Ordinarily, that sort of mental history would disqualify someone from buying a gun, but Virginia had done such a slipshod job of passing along mental health records that the shooter's history never turned up in two background checks. Virginia has since cleaned up its act, but a shocking number of other states have not. As of late last year, one-third of states had reported fewer than one mental health record for every 100,000 residents. Rhode Island had failed to report any. Five states — Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts, North Dakota and Pennsylvania — had each reported only one. States offer numerous excuses for their inaction, but the real reasons boil down to ineptitude or indifference. That's shameful.
3. Straw purchases. The deranged shooter in upstate New York who killed two firefighters last month couldn't legally buy weapons himself; he had served prison time for killing his grandmother with a hammer. Prosecutors say he got a neighbor who could pass a background check to go to the gun store with him and buy the assault rifle and shotgun he later used in the attack. Still other "straw buyers" purchase numerous weapons at gun stores and then sell them at a handsome markup to people who can't legally buy weapons themselves. Quirks in the law make this kind of blatant gun trafficking hard to prove and hard to prosecute. Prosecutors are often relegated to trying to convict a straw buyer of a paperwork violation, which can carry minimal prison time. In a welcome sign of bipartisanship, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., are co-sponsoring a proposal that among other things would make straw purchasing a federal crime with punishment of up to 20 years in prison, with up to an additional 15 years for conspiracy and organizing a ring of straw buyers.
4. Rogue gun dealers. The great majority of federally licensed gun dealers are scrupulously law abiding, but a tiny minority flagrantly flout the law: They "lose" guns that they then sell off the books to criminals, abet obvious straw purchasers and otherwise abuse their federal licenses to profit by funneling firearms to people who will pay serious money as long as there's no background check. The number of such bad actors is small and easy to identify: A study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) showed that 1.2% of gun dealers accounted for 57% of guns traced to crimes. This suggests that a big part of the gun problem can be addressed by cracking down on these rogue dealers. That's easier said than done. In Milwaukee, for example, the BATF has been pursuing one dealer for years. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which is co-counsel in lawsuits on behalf of four Milwaukee police officers shot with guns that the dealer allegedly sold illegally, the business has thrived since 1987 despite numerous attempts to shut it down. In 1998, 2000 and 2005, the dealer — which has changed names several times — led the nation's gun shops in selling guns traced to crimes. Current laws hobble the BATF and deliberately make it difficult to restrain rogue dealers. That could and should change.
5. Public responsibility. One of the least controversial but potentially most effective ways to cut gun violence could be to encourage the owners of the nation's roughly 300 million guns to take personal responsibility for keeping them safe. The NRA emphasizes safe and responsible gun handling, and a mostly overlooked part of the Obama administration's plan is to start a "national responsible gun ownership campaign" to encourage gun owners to secure their guns. Many do that, by using trigger locks or storing firearms in gun safes. But too many do not, and the results can be disastrous.
   

If Nancy Lanza had locked her Bushmaster rifle in a gun safe, for example, her son Adam might never have managed to kill her with it, then carry it to Sandy Hook Elementary School. And 26 first-graders and educators might still be alive.