Posted by: GRW Chief Editor on Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 11:00:00 pm Comments (10)
What is Constitutional Carry?
Constitutional Carry is usually defined as any form of loosened gun restrictions where no permit is required to possess or to carry a firearm, whether carried openly or concealed, or whether loaded or unloaded.
It is often called Permitless Carry by purists who feel that if it isn’t specifically written into the state’s constitution, then it doesn’t have permanency and it doesn’t really count. The flipside to this argument, of course, is that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution ends with, “shall not be infringed,” and that’s all the permanency that one should ever need to declare his or her freedom to carry their firearms for protection anywhere they go.
Let's run through the current status of each one with an explanation of where they all are in the process right now and what we suspect will be the outcome of each:
State Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, filed the bill that would allow residents to carry a concealed pistol without a permit.
The Alabama Sheriffs Association came out against the bill, but Senator Allen took that opportunity to point out that all the permit really is useful for is to give the various sheriff’s departments some extra money.
Too tough to call. With a Republican Governor and 3 to 1 Republican House and Senate, this should be an easy win in most states, and it may still be here.
Arkansas is an unusual and complicated animal, in that it can be argued that it already has constitutional carry, provided you read Act 746 that was passed in 2013 correctly.
When passed, this Act amended a portion of the Arkansas statute 5-73-120, which previously read,
“A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon if he or she possesses a handgun, knife, or club on or about his or her person, in a vehicle occupied by him or her, or otherwise readily available for use as a weapon against a person."
It was changed to now read,
“A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon if he or she possesses a handgun, knife, or club on or about his or her person, in a vehicle occupied by him or her, or otherwise readily available for use with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person."
It should be obvious to most that the Act made the carrying of such a weapon only illegal if the carrier had the intention to harm somebody - thereby establishing permitless carry.
The problem is, that didn’t happen and some police and deputies continued arresting people for carrying anyway.
Attorney General Leslie Rutledge Makes it Confusing
In August of 2015, The state’s AG threw a monkey wrench into the situation, when she made this statement:
Nothing in Act 746, § 5-73-120(a), or this opinion is intended to suggest a person may carry a concealed handgun in public without a properly issued concealed-carry license. In fact, except during a journey, it is likely that the Arkansas Supreme Court would allow the presumption that a person who has flouted the concealed-carry licensing scheme in Arkansas law by possessing a concealed handgun without a concealed-carry license has the requisite unlawful intent for a violation of § 5-73-120(a).”
The Arkansas Court of Appeals Rules
On October 17, 2018, the Arkansas Appeals Court stated in case No. CR-18-353, Jamie Taff v. the State of Arkansas:
“[I]n general merely possessing a handgun on your person ... does not violate § 5-73-120(a) and may be done if it does not violate other laws or regulations. Under the clear language of section 5-73-120(a), the possessor of a handgun must have an unlawful intent to employ it as a weapon against a person in order to make that possession a criminal act.”
For all intents and purposes, this case ends the debate on Constitutional Carry in Arkansas. It is now legal to carry a loaded firearm open or concealed throughout the state. However, the story doesn’t end there...
House Resolution 1013 Wants To Make It Even Clearer
State Rep. Brandt Smith, R-Jonesboro, was able to get (nonbinding) Resolution 1013 declaring that Arkansas is a constitutional carry state where permits are not required to carry firearms passed through the House on Thursday, February 14th, 2019.
An identical resolution will be going to the Senate and if that passes, the presumption is that it will go through the process once again, but this time as a fully binding bill.
Although the matter is settled in the eyes of the law, this will make it harder to repeal since it will then be proven to be passed by the legislature and not simply by a court decision.
It makes no difference; this one is a done deal. Regardless of how this bill goes, we’ll be shading Arkansas in fully green as we now consider the state to have full constitutional carry rights.
In November, House Bill 2 was pre-filed with 25 sponsors called the Georgia Constitutional Carry Act of 2019.
As well as granting full constitutional carry, it removes restrictions from carrying in parks, historic sites, wildlife management areas, public transportation, and 42 specific recreational areas. It also removes any and all restrictions against carrying of arms while hunting or fishing.
The bill faces resistance from Democrats and even a few Republicans, but it still seems likely to move forward.
Likely to pass, although there could be some hurdles to overcome. The Governor has made statements in the past that seem to point to a strong likelihood of signing the bill if and when it gets to his desk, so the only probable stumbling block would be the votes themselves. If you’re in Georgia, make those phone calls!
On Monday, February 11th, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill eliminating the permitting requirement for carrying a firearm. It still needs to go to the House and Senate for votes there.
The bill, SF 2106, needs to now get through the House and Senate, then be passed by the governor.
The biggest problem in Iowa is that Governor Kim Reynolds has made comments that strongly put into doubt her willingness to sign any sort of permitless carry bill and has called the current law requiring a background check in order to get a gun permit, "good policy."
Still, Reynolds will presumably be running for reelection in 2020 and favor among her Republican colleagues in the Senate will be important to her if she’s politically savvy enough to understand it. As has been shown repeatedly in the past, earning favor among the left if you’re a Republican is utterly worthless.
Not a good chance of passing. While obviously still a possibility, Iowa has in recent years been a more or less purple state, with a typical number of Republican legislators leery of passing any bills that some constituents would claim are too extreme.
Squeaking this one through the House could be tricky, although the Senate looks easier. As stated above, the real challenge is going to be the Governor’s office unless there’s a change of heart happening that we’re unaware of at this time.
A package of four bills that collectively seek to end restrictions against carrying pistols without a permit also remove restrictions against most gun-free zones for those who do have permits as well as revise sentencing guidelines to conform with the proposal were introduced recently by a group of Republican legislators, who still hold a technical majority in the state.
The problem, of course, is the freshman Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Any Constitutional Carry bill presented in a split legislature has the deck stacked against it from the start, although not a lot is known about Whitmer's positions on firearms.
Probably not going to pass. We just can't get past the glaring issue of having a Democrat Governor, no matter who it is. Any Democrat, even if it was a pro-gun one, who be in an enormously difficult position of being under tremendous pressure from national Democrat politicians.
Optimistic gun rights advocates look to do the unthinkable in Nevada, despite the current controversy over their impending universal background check by passing permitless carry. Assembly Bill 437 was introduced by Republican lawmakers on March 24th but appears to not have much of a chance in the newly Democrat-controlled state legislature.
The sponsor of AB437, Jim Wheeler of Minden, freely admits it's a longshot.
Democrat Assemblyman Steve Yeager of Las Vegas said the bill is not likely to get a hearing in the Judiciary Committee when speaking to the Reno Gazette-Journal.
The backlash over universal background checks (Senate Bill 143) that passed last month may be partly responsible for the announcement of the measure.
Almost zero chance of this passing anytime soon. If one state could be said to have less chance than any other in the country of passing permitless carry, this would be the one.
Just announced on February 12th this year was House Bill 61, North Carolina's new Constitutional Carry bill sponsored by Representatives Pittman, Potts, Kidwell and 5 others, which as well as removing all permitting requirements also makes it illegal to consume alcohol while carrying and criminalizes carrying onto private property that is conspicuously posted as prohibiting firearms.
This bill also makes it illegal to carry a gun into prisons, police stations, courthouses, the statehouse, and various other places.
Constitutional Carry has been attempted in at least 5 of the past 6 years and failed every time, usually in committee. Though the Senate and the House have more Republicans than Democrats, they don't overwhelm the minority with huge numbers, and the Governor, Roy Cooper, is a Democrat.
Cooper previously got A ratings from the NRA, but his approval by them went from 93% in 2012 to 64% in 2016 when he was elected. In 2017 he made disparaging remarks about the wisdom in granting teachers the right to carry, and his personal satisfaction with the current permitting process makes it seem unlikely that he would sign any bill removing the necessity for permits.
Probably not going to pass. Despite the overt concessions to the anti-gun crowd with the new restrictions that it would impose as outlined above, we just see it as unlikely that this bill would survive the triple whammy of having to endure committee hell in both chambers and be signed by a Democrat governor generally unfavorable to the idea — one who now would likely have even more pressure on him by the left not to sign it than even recent past governors would have had.
Fresh off a win that saw a law modified after a clerical error that would have inadvertently outlawed AR-15's, the state's gun groups think they just might have the numbers to do the same.
HB174 was introduced this past Wednesday the 26th by Mount Lookout Representative Tom Brinkman and removes all permitting requirements, just as South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Kentucky recently did.
Ohio's current House is strongly Republican, with the Senate even more so. Despite having proposed the bill before and having it fail, proponents believe that the recent wins in other states will help push the bill along. Recent comments from Republican Governor Mike DeWine have convinced Brinkman that he also would support it.
HB 174 was officially introduced on March 29th by Rep. Ron Hood, a Republican from Ashville and Rep. Tom Brinkman, a Republican from Cincinnati. Twenty-seven more Republican lawmakers are co-sponsoring the bill.
This one could go either way. The GOP's numbers look quite good, but this is a traditionally purple state where it's likely that many of the Republicans in the legislature are somewhat left-leaning. With former RINO Governor John Kasich out of the way, this bill might just have a good fighting chance in the Buckeye State.
H.3999 in the Palmetto State was introduced last Tuesday (the 19th) with 25 sponsors and repeals all permitting requirements throughout the state. It also revises and removes some of the places where carrying a firearm would otherwise be prohibited.
The process is still in the very early stages though, so details other than the bill itself make it difficult to tell how this one could go. It’s worth pointing out that a similar bill failed there just last year.
Chances of this happening just got a lot worse. The House Whip, Russell Fry, is blocking the bill at the moment because of a fight with the sponsor of the bill. Residents are encouraged to call his office and demand that he stop his antics and bring the bill back to the subcommittee for a vote. You can read all about it in our recent story, here. We've turned this state back to orange on our big map.
Another state in the early stages, Loje Star gun rights advocates have made permitless carry a priority this year, referring HB 357 to the Texas House Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee for review last Tuesday (the 19th).
Rep. Jonathan Stickland, a Republican from Bedford, sponsored the bill along with 14 other Representatives.
The biggest problem right now appears to be that two Democrats chair the most pivotal committees standing in the way of Constitutional Carry. They are state Rep. Poncho Nevarez (D-Eagle Pass), who is the new head of the Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee, and state Rep. Nicole Collier (D-Fort Worth), who was appointed to head the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee. Both are fairly well known to not be friendly to gun rights.
Probably not going to pass. 2019 may not be the year for Texas, but they’ll likely get the chance again next year. We’re not expecting any permitless carry bills to make it out of committee in the Texas legislature in this session.
Dennis Bonnen, the Republican Speaker of the House for Texas on Friday, April 5th made a public declaration dropping the state's Constitutional Carry bill after a Chris McNutt, the executive director of Texas Gun Rights, showed up in his hometown to urge him to expedite the bill.
Posted by: GRW Chief Editor on Monday, January 7, 2019 at 11:59:00 pm Comments (0)
Understanding The Linton v. Calif. Attorney General Xavier Becerra Case
When Chad Linton and Paul McKinley Stewart fought for and successfully had their minor felony convictions from the 1970s and 1980s in Washington and Arizona overturned, their records were stricken from the books and that should have been the end of painful lesson that neither of them will ever forget. To their shock though, California discovered their past transgressions and has barred either of them from ever owning a gun... despite the US Constitution preventing the state from doing so.
In 1987, Chad Linton was 18 years old and stationed at a US Naval base in the state of Washington taking weekend liberty away from the base when he was spotted speeding by a police officer, who attempted to pull him over. Being late for his check-in and at this point quite close to the base, he made the foolish decision to speed up to try and make it back before the officer could catch him. After a short time, he realized this was a bad idea and pulled over. He was arrested without further incident.
He then learned that in the state of Washington, evading the police even for a brief time is a felony. He spent the next 7 days in jail and upon release, served mandatory probation and some community service. The case was left open-ended and no felony was ever officially entered into his record.
When he was sentenced, the Washington State court judge, who was sympathetic to Mr. Linton, told him that he would not want to see his military career destroyed over the incident. He told him that if he successfully completed all terms of his probation, that the court would reduce the matter to a misdemeanor and have the matter discharged from his records. Chad put the matter behind him believing that this had in fact happened and was seemingly confirmed to him the following year when Linton received a certificate of discharge, showing that he successfully completed his probation, and which included a statement that “the defendant’s civil rights lost by operation of law upon conviction be HEREBY RESTORED.”
He shortly afterward moved back to California and in the ensuing 30+ years stayed out of trouble with the law. He bought several guns during this time, undergoing multiple background checks and fingerprint-based database queries of law enforcement records which never flagged him as being a prohibited person.
However, in December of 2015, he attempted to buy another gun and this one finally showed him as being prohibited from possessing a firearm — by the state, not the federal government. To clear up the matter, he traveled back to Washington and hired a lawyer to formally request that his record be expunged. The judge looked at the facts of his case and decided that Chad was no danger to society, clearing the felony from the books and granting him his right to owns guns back. It's worth noting that he didn't necessarily have to actually do this since the FBI records at the time didn't show him as actually being a felon. The state of California had been relying on an incomplete report on the matter showing that he was charged with a felony and that he pled guilty. They never dug any farther to find the full resolution of the case in Washington.
At this point, He is not only not a felon but has never been a felon in the eyes of any court in the country. Additionally, he now has a court order from the originating state proclaiming him as perfectly legal to purchase and own guns. A copy of the order was then sent directly to the FBI by the judge as a further effort to proclaim Linton's innocence.
Despite this, the California Attorney General's office decided that since they see an offense that qualifies as a felony on the old copy of the arrest record that they found and that since he pled guilty, he is, therefore, a felon as far as they're concerned, regardless of having been exonerated by the original state where the offense happened... in clear violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution.
In October of 2016, Mr. Linton then voluntarily underwent a Personal Firearms Eligibility Check (PFEC) with the California DOJ to confirm his eligibility to purchase and/or possess a firearm. Based upon this check, the DOJ’s Bureau of Firearms informed him that he was, in fact, eligible both to possess and purchase firearms, based upon a search of California’s records. The PFEC form indicated, however, that the actual purchase of a firearm would involve the search of a federal database by the DOJ. This was obviously not an issue since the federal database did not show his as a felon and did not bar him from owning guns.
In October of 2018, Chad once again attempted to purchase a rifle that was legal to possess in California but was again was denied the right to purchase. In November, the California DOJ informed Linton that he was ineligible to purchase or possess firearms pursuant to its review of state and/or federal records which purported to show that plaintiff was a “Felon: Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States, of the State of California, or of any other state, government, or country.” However, the only felony conviction he had ever received was the one in Washington State, which by that time had already been vacated and for which his firearms rights specifically had been restored to him by the Washington court.
Proving the incompetence of the California DOJ, Linton then requested and underwent a “Live Scan” fingerprint-based background check request with the department directly. Within a few days, the results of that scan were returned to him and showed no felony convictions in his history.
He then mailed a copy of the exoneration letter from Washington to the DOJ, which they neglected to respond to at all. He waited close to a year and finally just sent the letter again. The response he got was cryptic and curious, stating that “the entry in question cannot be found on your California criminal history record, therefore, no further investigation is required.”
Believing he might have finally cleared up the bizarre behavior of the DOJ, he decided to try one more time to buy a gun — and was again denied by the DOJ. In March of 2018, the inept DOJ sent Linton a letter stating that the attempted firearm purchase was denied due to the presence of a prior felony conviction — obviously referring to the now-vacated Washington arrest.
They next sent California's Department of Justice agents to Mr. Linton's house with a search warrant under the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) program to seize all of his guns. Mr. Linton was not home at the time, but his wife was. Upon arrival and upon learning what they were there for, Mrs. Linton retrieved the court order from the judge in Washington who granted him his right to own firearms back and showed it to the agents. For their part, the agents were sympathetic and understanding and called the Deputy Attorney General Robert Wilson's office to explain the situation. Wilson told them that it didn't matter and that they were to take the guns anyway, so they reluctantly confiscated every gun he had, including the antique shotgun that his grandfather had given him. One agent later sent an email to his bosses protesting the actions they were forced to perform and supportive of Linton's rights to his guns.
Ridiculously, when Mr. Linton asked the Attorney General's office how he would go about getting his firearm rights in California restored, they told him that it would require a presidential pardon since there is no other process for it to happen by. This is obvious nonsense since he is not now nor has he ever been a felon and there would be nothing to pardon — not to mention the fact that US presidents cannot pardon state crimes anyway, only federal ones.
As an 18-year-old in Yuma County, Arizona in 1976, Paul made the poor decision one night to climb a fence and enter an unlocked truck owned by the telephone company to steal some tools. Like Chad above, he performed his sentence and cleared the matter sufficiently to have it downgraded from a felony and later stricken from his record entirely.
Despite this, the state of California is still defiantly refusing to restore Mr. Stewart's gun rights to him.
He later made a connection with the lawyers representing Mr. Linton and has joined the case as a co-plaintiff.
Attorney George Lee from the law firm of Seiler, Epstein, Ziegler, & Applegate, LLP out of San Francisco is representing both plaintiffs. The firm is further joined by:
- The Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF)
- The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC)
- The Calguns Foundation (CGF)
- The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and
- The Madison Society Foundation (MSF)
Named as defendants in the case are:
- Attorney General Xavier Becerra
- Acting DOJ Bureau of Firearms Chief Martin Horan, and
- Deputy Attorney General Robert Wilson
Why California Will Lose
- California's big problem? This is a direct violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause outlined in detail in Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution. It specifically states that all states must respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
- But, it gets worse. Since California was accepting exonerations from judges within its own borders but not out of state judges, it then became guilty of violating the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, which prevents states from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner.
- Additionally and similarly, they violated the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment in Section 1, Clause 2, which states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
- Since California systematically half-asses everything except its own incompetence, it then compounded the massive legal blunder by unlawfully confiscating Mr. Linton's existing legal firearms and hence became guilty of violating the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
- And finally, does it really need to be pointed out that California's zeal to prevent as many people as possible from owning guns has resulted in a blatant violation of the Second Amendment?
We stated at the beginning of this section that the state will lose; however, we need to keep in mind that this is Califonia we're talking about. The plaintiffs could, in fact, be the ones who lose, but since the case has ballooned to national attention our strong suspicion is that it will be appealed if that happens and appealed again if necessary right up to SCOTUS if need be. Past US Supreme Courts would probably pass on taking the case, but we've talked before about how this new high court might just take such a case. The net result is that the overall likelihood of this failing all the way up to SCOTUS and then failing even there is just not very high.
The bulk of this information comes from the Firearms Policy Coalition. The FPC is looking for anyone who has had a similar situation, where their gun rights were restored by another state but the reinstatement is not being recognized by the state of California. If your case fits this description, please contact the FPC/FPF Legal Action Hotline at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline or (855) 252-4510 (available 24/7/365) immediately.
Disclaimer: Gun Rights Watch does not give legal advice and no content contained herein may be construed as offering legal advice.
GRW does recommend specific lawyers to refer to upon request.
Material published on GunRightsWatch.com, including articles, photos, graphics, videos, bulletin board postings, and other content, is copyrighted by Gun Rights Watch or by other information providers who have licensed their content for use on GunRightsWatch.com. The entire contents of GunRightsWatch.com are also copyrighted as a collective work under the United States copyright laws. GRW does often grant permission to reprint its works on other websites and publications.
Posted by: GRW Senior Staff on Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:40:00 pm Comments (1)
The History of Gun Control in America, Part Four
The Late 1970’s - Organized Factions Form
(Continued from The History of Gun Control in America, Part Three)
In 1974, the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH) was founded by armed robbery victim Mark Borinsky with Republican marketing manager Pete Shields, whose son had been a victim of murder by handgun, joining shortly thereafter. By 1980 they would change the name of the group to Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI). For a short time, they partnered with the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (NCBH), although this partnership did not last long. The NCBH soon decided that the HCI did not share their fervor to promote anti-gun legislation, and renamed themselves in 1990 as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV). This split seems unfortunate for the CSGV, as the HCI has had considerably more traction following the assassination of John Lennon in 1980.
By 1981, HCI's membership had grown beyond 100,000; in 1983, the HCI spawned the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV) as an educational outreach project, and in 1989, CPHV established the Legal Action Project to push for anti-gun legislation in the courts. In 2001, the HCI renamed itself again to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which was instrumental in the passing of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill).
At about the same time as the formation of the NCCH / HCI / Brady Campaign, in 1975, despite the change in tone and direction of the NRA during the 1970’s away from any attempts at compromise or appeasement with the advocates of Gun Control, and towards a previously unseen level of political activism, some gun rights activists felt a that a more unified group of gun owners strictly against the anti-gun movement was called for, and formed the Gun Owners of America (GOA).
H. L. Richardson, a state Senator from California and the founder of GOA and the Gun Owners of California, still serves as its chairman after 42 years. Richardson has gone on record publicly criticizing the NRA on multiple occasions for what the GOA considers to be an attitude of compromise on gun rights issues and for selling out the gun rights movement in general. Retired Congressman Ron Paul further describes the GOA as “the only no-compromise gun rights lobby in Washington.” For more than 30 years, GOA has been building an active network of attorneys who sole aim is to challenge any anti-gun legislation in the courts.
The Dawn of the 1980’s
(All We Are Saying, Is Give A Piece A Chance)
On the evening of December 8th, 1980, John Lennon was shot dead at point-blank range by Mark David Chapman in the archway of his home in New York City. This was the first major news event to affect the issue of gun rights in the 1980’s. For this senseless act, Chapman was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison at the Wende Correctional Facility, where he has remained ever since, being denied parole 9 times already.
Lennon’s murder in 1980 renewed interest in stricter gun control laws. “John Lennon’s death appears to have done more to center attention on handguns than any recent event,” reported the Washington Post. Still, the notion of any new gun control legislation was rejected by then President-elect Ronald Reagan. Ironically, Reagan’s own assassination attempt merely 3 months later would eventually spur the passage of the Brady Bill in 1993.
On Monday, March 30, 1981, new President Ronald Reagan was leaving a speaking engagement at the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. As Reagan got into his limousine, John Hinckley, Jr. opened fire from just a few feet away with his revolver. Incredibly, despite the extremely close range, Hinckley’s six shots almost hit everything but President Reagan. The first hit White House Press Secretary James Brady in the head, actually causing the most damage of any bullet Hinckley fired that day; Brady suffered brain damage and was permanently paralyzed. The second round hit District of Columbia police officer Thomas Delahanty in the back of his neck as he turned to protect Reagan, wounding him moderately. Delahanty later recovered completely.
With Delahanty out of the way, Hinckley had a clear shot at Reagan but missed again anyway and hit the window of a building across the street. As the Special Agent In Charge Jerry Parr frantically shoved Reagan into the back seat of the armored limousine, his fourth shot hit Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy in the abdomen, who also later recovered completely. The fifth bullet hit the bullet-resistant glass of the window on the open limo door, and the sixth and final bullet ricocheted off the armored side of the limo and hit the president under his left arm, grazing one rib and lodging in his lung, stopping almost an inch from his heart. Reagan’s injury proved to be relatively minor; he was able to speak to reporters and sign legislation the next day and was out of the hospital less than two weeks later. It is generally acknowledged that Parr’s quick reaction is what saved the President’s life.
In the aftermath of the shooting, amazingly, no new strong voice for Gun Control rang out immediately. It would take years for the passage of the Brady Bill. Reagan retained his strong stance for gun rights, although after his presidency he did support the background checks enumerated in the Brady Bill.
Late 1980’s Reagan-Era Legislation
(The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, The Firearm Owners Protection Act and the Undetectable Firearms Act)
There were three pieces of significant legislation related to gun rights during the Reagan administration. The first was the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986, which illegalized the manufacture or import of armor piercing ammunition, or "cop-killer bullets," which are designed to penetrate bullet-resistant clothing.
This relatively minor act was quickly overshadowed by the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. On May 19, 1986, President Reagan signed this bill, which amended the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, repealing parts of the FGCA that were declared by studies to be unconstitutional. This was something that the NRA had long lobbied for, and it was generally declared a victory for gun rights. This act accomplished several things; it was now easier to transport long rifles across the United States, it ended federal record keeping of ammunition sales, and it prevented the prosecution of someone passing through states with strict gun control with firearms in their vehicle as long as the gun, or guns, were properly stored. The act, however, also contained a provision outlawing ownership of any fully automatic firearms that were not registered by May 19, 1986. This provision was cleverly slipped into the legislation as a last-minute amendment by Rep. William J. Hughes (D) of New Jersey. Reagan has been roundly criticized by some gun rights groups and gun owners for signing the legislation with the Hughes amendment intact.
On November 10, 1988, President Reagan signed the Undetectable Firearms Act, which HCI supported Congress in passing. The United States Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 makes it illegal to manufacture, transport, sell or possess any firearm that is undetectable by walk-through metal detectors, or any firearm whose major components do not generate a recognizable, accurate image before standard airport imaging machines. This bill was designed to ban firearms that could foil standard metal detection, and also required handguns to assume the traditional shape of a handgun so that imaging machines could recognize them easily. It began as an attempt to ban handguns like the Glock 17 that had much less metal content than other handguns in the mid-1980s. This particular bill might have faded into obscurity, but in recent years the advent of 3D printing with high-grade plastics (and now, even as metal parts) has given this measure a new degree of relevance.
The NRA originally chose not to fight this bill, because its restrictions did not affect any guns being made at the time, but this may prove to have been a short-sighted decision with the advent of 3D printing. Also, the passage of this bill was seen as a major victory by the anti-gun crowd; it seems to have added an air of legitimacy to HCI, who was instrumental later as The Brady Campaign in passing the Brady Bill. The UFA originally had a ten-year lifespan, but when it came up for renewal in 1998, it was endorsed by the NRA. Further renewals in 2003 and 2013 were similarly endorsed, and this 30-year-old law is now making new headlines against the possibility of 3D printing technology.
A final event of the 1980’s would prove to impact further gun laws. On January 17, 1989, at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, Patrick Purdy, a man with a long criminal history, shot and killed five schoolchildren and wounded 32 others before committing suicide. This incident immediately received national news coverage and was cause for renewed calls for regulation of semiautomatic weapons. Time magazine asked, “Why could Purdy, an alcoholic who had been arrested for such offenses as selling weapons and attempted robbery, walk into a gun shop in Sandy, Oregon, and leave with an AK-47 under his arm?" The state of California soon passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, which banned anything they considered an assault weapon. The federal government was more divided on this issue, but this event is considered to be the catalyst for the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 prohibits any individual from possessing a firearm anywhere within 1000 feet of any place that is defined as a school zone. First introduced in the Senate in February 1990 by Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, it was then incorporated into the Crime Control Act of 1990, signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. In 1995 the Supreme Court subsequently maintained that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority, but then-Attorney General Janet Reno found a loophole to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling; in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 she buried an exception that if the firearm in question "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce" it is still subject to the GFSZA, which affects nearly all firearms.
In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, commonly referred to as the Brady Bill, was the culmination of almost 20 years of the efforts of the Brady Campaign, formerly known as the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH), then known as Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI). The Brady Bill mandated federal background checks on anyone purchasing a firearm in the United States and instituted a five-day waiting period before any purchase could be claimed. The waiting period was replaced in 1998 by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This system determines whether prospective firearms or explosives buyers' identification and birth date match those of a person who is listed as ineligible to buy. The Brady Bill was quite restrictive, yet it was overshadowed by the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
The Brady Campaign also lobbied for the passage of this ban, which used rather ambiguous terms to define an 'assault weapon'. Nonsensical characteristics, such as the color of the weapon in some cases, were used to outlaw some rifles, pistols, and shotguns. (There were actually a detailed and complex set of rules for whether a specific firearm would be banned, such as the inclusion on the gun such features as folding stocks, flash suppressors, pistol grips, and detachable magazines, but a complete list of features and the rules for banning firearms based on them is outside the scope of this article.)
This law, officially called the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, is merely a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, barely passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 (52–48 in the Senate), and signed immediately that day by President Clinton. It was enacted with a ten-year lifespan, and due to lobbying efforts on behalf of the NRA, it was failed to be renewed in 2004. In October 2003, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a report about the effectiveness of gun violence prevention strategies which concluded, "Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws.” A similar survey of firearms research by the National Academy of Sciences arrived at nearly identical conclusions in 2004. None of the renewal bills have left committee, and, despite the stated intentions of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to re-enact the ban, no movement was made on this until the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. On January 24, 2013, Senator Diane Feinstein introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, basically a copycat of the 1994 AWB but without an expiration date. This bill failed its vote in the Senate 40 to 60. To date, this is the closest the 1994 AWB has come to renewal.
The 21st Century
This century so far has been much kinder to gun owners than the heyday of the anti-gun sentiment of the 1960’s and 70’s. Increased public awareness about gun rights issues, courtesy of the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and other groups like them, as well as lobbying efforts on behalf of the NRA, can all be thanked for that.
In 2003, The Tiahrt Amendment, proposed by Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), prohibited the ATF from publicly releasing data showing where criminals purchased their firearms, with the stipulation that only law enforcement officials could access such information. The Washington Post indignantly declared of this law in 2010, “The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study, and public scrutiny. It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.” Gun owners and lobbying groups have steadily maintained that public release of this information would unfairly target certain gun shops. There have been efforts to repeal this amendment, but none have come to fruition as of yet.
In 2004, The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act was enacted. This law allows qualified law enforcement officers, current and retired, to carry a concealed firearm anywhere in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions. Later amended by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010, this expansion of scope specifically extended its coverage to include officers of the Amtrak Police, Federal Reserve Police, and police officers of the executive branch of U.S. Government. On January 2, 2013, LEOSA was again expanded by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed by President Obama, furthering the law’s scope to include military police and civilian police officers within the Department of Defense.
On June 6, 2005, Gun Owners of America helped in lobbying the House of Representatives to vote against the Moran Amendment, by a vote of 278 to 149. The amendment would have banned .50 caliber weapons from being licensed for export. This bill started with another media event: On January 9, 2005, CBS's "60 Minutes" show demonized .50-caliber rifles. The CBS/VPC storyline was that a .50 caliber weapon is "too dangerous to be in the hands of private citizens." As if on cue, anti-gun zealot Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) immediately introduced his "50 Caliber Sniper Rifle Reduction Act" in Congress.
In effect since October 26, 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed by President George W. Bush, prevents gun manufacturers from being held liable in federal or state civil suits by crime victims involving guns made by that company. Gun manufacturers and even dealers can still be subject to a lawsuit for damages from defective equipment, breaches of contract, or any other criminal actions that they may be directly responsible for, just as any other U.S. company can (and should) be.
This law stemmed from the backlash of several lawsuits, perhaps the most notable of which was Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley’s 1998 lawsuit targeting gun makers and dealers. He was quoted as saying: "You can't expect the status quo on businesses which make money and then have no responsibility to us as citizens." Mayor Joseph Ganim of Bridgeport, Connecticut stated flatly that their tactic of pursuing gun manufacturers with litigation was the route that he and his city’s administration would take from now on.
In the legislative aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, On Jan. 8, 2008, President Bush signed H.R. 2640 into law. This was New York Senator Chuck Schumer's NICS Improvement Amendments Act, designed to address loopholes in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action Against Gun Violence, Democratic gun control advocates, some mental health experts, and the NRA all supported the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (also known as the School Safety And Law Enforcement Improvement Act), but the GOA took issue with a portion of the bill, which they termed the "Veterans' Disarmament Act." This portion of the bill famously put many veterans with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or combat fatigue), or even anyone who had applied for Social Security Disability benefits on a “no-buy” list, prohibiting them from purchasing any firearms.
On June 26, 2008, District of Columbia vs. Heller (554 U.S. 570) was decided. This landmark case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided that an individual’s right to possess a firearm is the central issue of the Second Amendment, and was the first case in which the Supreme Court declared that an individual’s right to have firearms for home defense was a fundamental freedom. It further declared that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban was unconstitutional and would be abolished, and the requirement that legally-owned rifles and shotguns should be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated Second Amendment rights. It did, however, declare that the right to keep and bear arms was not unlimited and that it would continue to be regulated.
It should be noted that this case essentially reversed the almost 70-year precedent set by the United States vs. Miller case of 1939. Also, it redefined the focus of the Second Amendment in favor of individual rights and away from that of a “well-regulated militia”.
Decided June 28, 2010, McDonald vs. Chicago (561 U.S. 742) is another landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which found that the rights of the individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected via the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. This decision cleared up any uncertainty left after the District of Columbia v. Heller decision as to the scope of an individual's gun rights in regard to the states.
Whereas Heller was about citizens gun rights as pertaining to federal law, this case was all about the state’s ability to interfere with those rights. In this case, several suits against Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois challenged their gun bans after the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision. The suits, including one by Chicago resident Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old retired janitor, were thrown out of court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit later affirmed their appeal, which then went to the US Supreme Court and on to a victory for Otis McDonald and for all American gun owners.
In early 2013, President Obama proposed sweeping changes to Gun Control, after the massacres of 20 first graders in Newtown, Connecticut, and 12 moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado. Throughout his presidency, upon news of any mass shooting, he would publicly scold the American People about the dangers of guns (I’ll take a moment to note that not at any time did he adequately lay the blame on the wackos who did the shooting, but instead blame it on the easy availability of firearms) and introduce proposals to tighten Gun Control laws. His plans included universal background checks for gun sales, the reinstatement and strengthening of the assault weapons ban, limiting ammunition magazines to a 10-round capacity, and other measures. These measures all failed at the national level, but some individual states did begin enacting tighter legislation to encroach on Second Amendment rights, flouting the precedent set by the McDonald vs. Chicago decision just three years earlier.
On Sept. 10, 2013, The normally left-leaning (but liberty-minded) State of Colorado recalled two pro-Gun-Control State Senators. Voters in the state threw out of office Democrats John Morse and Angela Giron for supporting recently enacted Gun Control laws that require background checks on private gun sales and limit magazine clips to 15 rounds. The election became a media storm, drawing national attention not only for the removal of the officials but also for the mass influx of money from both sides of the political aisle, from the National Rifle Association and from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a noted Gun Control advocate.
In February 2017, the Trump administration signed into law a bill that rolled back the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, returning Second Amendment rights to approximately 75,000 individuals who were receiving Social Security disability and had representative payees. This new Trump administration bill was supported by the ACLU, the National Association for Mental Health, The American Association of People with Disabilities, the National Council on Disability, and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, as well as other disability rights advocates.
And, finally, in 2018, in the political aftermath of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneham Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, a number of students who survived this incident took to the national stage to call for tighter gun control. One student named David Hogg seized the opportunity to declare himself as a spokesman for the anti-gun crowd, leading the students in chants of “We call BS!” (I’m sure Barbara Streisand changed her phone number shortly after this battle cry was heard.) Though Congress’ reaction varied, Florida state legislators promptly prepared new rounds of legislation. This is one more Gun Control scenario that will likely be playing itself out in courtrooms and more (unconstitutional) legislation.
This is part four in this series and the conclusion of our History of Gun Control in America.
Posted by: GRW Senior Staff on Saturday, August 11, 2018 at 12:00:00 pm Comments (0)
The Martin Luther King Assassination - Backlash
(Continued from The History of Gun Control in America, Part Two)
As expected, the shooting of MLK led to an ad nauseam tidal wave of articles in the media damning guns and the people who owned them. The Boston Sunday Globe had this quote at the end of an article about the heated controversy from Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal:
"I am against all your gun laws. It is argued that the Constitution supports them by holding that every citizen has the right·to bear arms. Then to hell with the Constitution."
In spite of all the anger and controversy, no further legislative action was forthcoming for the time being. A month after the assassination, an attempt by Senator Dodd to add all long barreled guns to the mail order ban was voted down in the Senate. Another month went by.
Then, on June 5, 1968, Senator Robert Kennedy was assassinated.
This single event led to the most fervent opposition to gun rights the nation had yet seen. This very same day, a Senate Judiciary Committee approved a provision of the Omnibus Crime Bill to ban the mail order sale of handguns.
The NRA headquarters in Washington, D.C., was picketed for a week, with the first appearance of signs that may still be familiar today, “Lobby For Murder” and “Stop Violence, Stop The NRA”. Unprecedented vitriol was directed their way in the form of thousands of telegrams blaming the NRA directly for Kennedy’s shooting. Dozens upon dozens of bills were brought before Congress, with a wide range of restrictions imposed.
The media, popular political magazines like Time and Newsweek in particular, had a field day with the anti-gun sentiment raging nationwide, calling gun owners in rural areas “anti-social misfits”. The NRA, it was implied, had defeated a ban on the importation of military arms, and this had somehow meant that RFK’s death was their fault. Even the wording of the second amendment was challenged, with some arguing that there was no constitutional right to bear arms, that there was no right to home defense, and that the NRA’s claim that gun registration is the first step towards confiscation was silly paranoid nonsense.
(Ironically, those exact sentiments of the anti-gun forces, and the multiple bills demanding confiscation presented to Congress during this period, may be the best argument that their concerns were and are perfectly justified.)
Newsweek in particular went for a full-on attack, fueled apparently by their staff’s assumption that the constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms did not apply to individuals. One article actually stated, “With their frontier traditions, Americans have long assumed that they have a constitutional right to bear arms.” They seem to have correctly surmised the nature of pro-gun attitudes when assigning them due to a fondness for self-reliance and individual responsibility, but mistakenly derided the possibility of anti-gun legislation having a possibility of leading to confiscation at any point. They actually showed in an article a copy of an ad for a non-firing replica of a firearm and made the text stating it was not able to be fired so tiny that it couldn’t be read, leaving the impression that the gun shown could be bought for $15.33.
Other anti-gun periodicals of the time were much more forthright, even if grossly misguided.
The New Republic flatly stated, “Put simply, private citizens should be disarmed. A modest effort in this direction would include the following first steps: No person should be permitted to buy or possess a handgun or ammunition for any handgun. Possession of all automatic and semiautomatic firearms should be banned. So should all rifles. However, licenses for the purchase of shotguns for sporting purposes could be obtained from the local police chief, who would be required to enforce certain federal standards.” An editorial in the Detroit Daily Press said it even more succinctly: “No private citizen has any need or reason at any time to possess a gun. "
Clearly, the anti-gun movement had grown to a now-unprecedented level with traction from the violence of the preceding months. The editors at Advertising Age issued an unheard-of challenge to their industry to create ads meant to provoke popular support for a bill that would bring about significant new restrictions on gun ownership. A nationwide advertising campaign soon popularized such slogans as,”Buy Now, Kill Later”, "More and more people are buying guns to protect themselves from more and more people who are buying guns”, and “O.K. National Rifle Association, now look at it from our side”, with the latter slogan accompanying a poster depicting a handgun pointed straight toward the viewer.
Hollywood stars soon joined in, financing their own campaign in support of the stalled bill. Elizabeth Taylor, one of the biggest movie stars in the world at the time, took out a $50,000 full-page ad in the New York Times demanding gun control. It was signed by more than 100 other celebrities, including Mel Brooks and Richard Burton.
Some sort of impending legislative action seemed inevitable. The legal battle that formed concerned primarily three measures: the ban on mail order sales, registration, and a ban on foreign imports of military arms. Many other measures were proposed, both more lenient and harsher, but these were the central issues. The majority of firearms manufacturers nationwide backed a proposal for gun licensing, which was opposed by the NRA (once again dispelling the notion that the NRA is a flunky of the gun manufacturers) and was ignored by Congress.
The mood in the country by this time clearly favored some form of Gun Control. A Harris poll taken in June 1968 showed 81% favoring registration, which was almost surely an inflated number (the reader can find the reasons why I believe this in Part Two of this series), but it does accurately reflect how the mood in the country was changing markedly against gun rights. An onslaught of new local regulations began appearing; New York City in August added registration of rifles and shotguns to the Sullivan Law, and Chicago now required registration of all guns. New Jersey narrowly missed garnering enough votes to confiscate all handguns and register long guns.
Three bills to register guns came and went before Congress in July 1968, but in the end, the anti-gun forces had their victory with the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (FGCA). This act completely banned any mail order sales of firearms and ammunition made since 1898 (except for muzzleloaders), banned the importation of all military-style weapons, banned interstate sales of guns and ammunition, and required record keeping by dealers of all ammunition sales. Importing small foreign handguns was also prohibited in certain cases, instituting a new system which ranked pistols individually by points based on a number of factor including size, weight, and caliber.
It should be noted at this time that for at least 25 years after the passage of the Federal Gun Control Act, the crime rate rose steadily, including murder and armed robbery rates. Additionally, the FGCA has placed unreasonable restrictions on gun owners, forcing them to buy whatever arms are available locally and pay whatever the local going rates are for guns and ammunition. Gun owners with rare guns chambered for hard to find ammunition may have to abandon the idea of shooting it. Military style guns have climbed steadily in value to several times their former price. Out-of-state hunters and target shooters cannot replenish their ammo.
The FCGA, possibly the most far-reaching and restrictive federal gun law ever passed, shares its most defining characteristic with every other Gun Control law: it hinders honest citizens while not affecting criminals in the least.
Gun Control in the 1970’s
(Or, Gimme Back My Bullets)
The wave of anti-gun legislation continued on into the seventies. Once the victory of the FGCA was realized, emboldened Gun Control advocates continued with bill after bill. Few bills saw the light of day, however, and in late 1970 the record-keeping provision of the FGCA was actually amended to exclude rifle and shotgun cartridges, despite fervent opposition from Senators Dodd, Kennedy, and Brooke.
The media attack on gun owners and sportsmen continued unabated. That same year, a network television special entitled "Say Goodbye," about endangered species of animals, included many scenes of endangered animals being ruthlessly hunted and shot via unsportsmanlike means, such as one scene featuring a mother polar bear and her cubs being shot from the seat of a helicopter. Unknown to viewers, all of the hunting footage in the film had been staged, apparently to pursue an agenda. Several of the scenes were not as they appeared to be; for instance, in the bear scene, the mother and cubs were being shot with a tranquilizer, but this was not mentioned in the film. After its airing, stricter rules were imposed to raise the standard of nature programs, but the damage to the American view of the hunter had been done.
It can be noted that at this time a change was becoming apparent in the attitude of the NRA. What my research for this article has led me to believe is that before 1970, the National Rifle Association had adopted a policy of working with the advocates of Gun Control; with the increased level of bias and unrelenting attacks came a sea change in their demeanor. Rarely after this period have I read of any NRA compromises with the Gun Control crowd. From this point on, it becomes much clearer what the underlying theme was…
...It’s Us Against Them.
Where this change first becomes noticeable is in the fight that evolved over the “Saturday Night Special”. This was a cheap, low-powered revolver, usually in .22, .25 or .32 caliber, that was readily available on the market but of little interest to the average NRA member. They were unreliable, inaccurate, and useless for hunting or target shooting, but criminals loved them for their cost and availability. Senator Birch Bayh introduced the bill to ban this little innocuous handgun, and the NRA leaped into the fray.
They didn’t need to object for long. The assassinations and violence of the late 60’s were quickly fading from public memory.
Senator Bayh’s bill went nowhere, as did a string of bills to follow:
- Congressman Emmanuel Celler’s 1971 bill to ban all handguns and register all rifles and shotguns was defeated.
- Senator Philip Hart of Michigan’s late 1971 bill to outlaw ownership of handguns by everyone except police and security guards was defeated 84 to 7.
- Congressman Abner Mikva of Illinois’ bill to outlaw handguns was ignored.
- Senator Ted Kennedy’s push to register all firearms failed 78 to 11.
- And, Senator Adlai Stevenson III’s bill to license and register handguns also went down 75 to 16.
Some of the credit for the quick defeat of these bills must be given to the Nixon Administration, which had a very different attitude towards gun rights than did the Johnson Administration. Nixon did favor some legislation against the “special”, but no new bill appeared to outlaw them.
Then on May 15th, 1972, Governor George Wallace of Alabama was shot five times and paralyzed by Arthur Bremer with a short barreled .38 revolver. As expected, the gun grabbers didn’t let the tragedy go to waste and public sentiment turned decidedly anti-gun once again. A Senate Subcommittee approved one of the “Saturday Night Special” bills, a rather crudely worded one which would have simply banned all handguns with barrels less than three inches in length. Although much supported, it got no further probably because the majority of legislators realized that an eight-inch barreled handgun can be turned into a two-inch barreled handgun with just a hacksaw.
Senator Bayh presented a similar bill which fared better. It passed the Senate, then was referred to a committee in the House. Then, however, an interesting thing happened. Bayh received a letter from Myron Lance, a convicted murderer serving a long prison sentence, with a criminal record that was longer. At the end of his rambling letter was the following: "I hope they pass that gun law. It'll make it harder for citizens to protect themselves. That way we could get guns easier." This bill died in committee, likely as a result of a general consensus that the measures introduced in the bill would have been ineffective.
Enter a New Dynamic: Police Overreach
On June 7, 1971, 26 Treasury Department agents and Montgomery County, Maryland police officers raided Mr. and Mrs. Kenyon Ballew’s apartment, responding to a tip that Ballew’s apartment was loaded with live hand grenades. A seventeen-year-old burglar had recently broken into the apartment, and upon his arrest had mentioned what he had seen there. Foolishly, law enforcement authorities believed this incredible story by a young thief.
The agents knocked on the door to the apartment. Mrs. Ballew, who was naked and changing at the time, called out, “Who is it?” At this point the testimonies diverge; the agents supposedly identified themselves but Mrs. Ballew maintains that she heard nothing. The agents knocked a second time, then a few seconds later began ramming the steel door with a battering ram. Mrs. Ballew screamed and called to her husband who was also naked and about to enter the shower; he had time to run out of the bathroom and grab his revolver and point it at the door, still naked. The two had been broken into before, as previously mentioned, and had installed the door and had guns ready for another attempt. After six quick rams, the door gave way. The first officers through the door were dressed as hippies, apparently undercover. One officer shouted, “He’s got a gun!” and the police opened fire, striking Ballew in the head. Mrs. Ballew screamed, “Murder! Police! Help!”, still thinking that hippies were breaking in. The police arrested Mrs. Ballew and sent her husband to the hospital.
As a result of this reckless raid, Kenyon Ballew was permanently paralyzed until his death in 1995.
No live grenades were ever found in the apartment. Ken Ballew did have 2 dummy grenades and 3 demilitarized grenades that had been turned into party favors. This case attracted a firestorm of publicity due to the haphazard nature of the raid and shoddy investigative work that had led to it, and the raid was criticized by groups ranging from the ACLU to the NRA. Ballew’s lawsuit against the federal government was decided against him and he was ordered to pay court costs. The judge in the case insisted that he thought that the agents properly identified themselves, though he didn’t comment on why he thought 2 innocent naked people would try to resist 26 police and ATF agents. This case galvanized support on both sides of the gun issue, though much more so for the NRA and pro-gun groups. It also marked more evidence of the gun issue polarizing people into two camps, and the NRA abandoning any effort to work with the anti-gun crowd and taking a more hard-line stance.
More speedily written and poorly conceived legislation followed the shooting of Senator John Stennis in January of 1973. Echoing the familiar patterns of the past, several bills were introduced, but none passed. Senator Ted Kennedy brought forth a bill that would have banned virtually all handguns (except those with barrels over ten inches, of which only 2 or 3 models available qualified). Interestingly, and possibly a factor in the quick dismissal of all anti-gun bills generated at this time, is that Wallace and Stennis both maintained a firm pro-gun rights stance after their shootings.
Most gun bills of the 1970’s focused on handguns. Much was made of the argument that handguns have no use for sporting, and are virtually useless for the defense, despite both of these statements being patently untrue. In Massachusetts in 1974, gun owners were now required to be licensed and to obtain a Firearms Identification Card (FID). Since that time, anyone possessing a firearm, even a BB gun, without an FID is subject to imprisonment for a minimum of one year.
And so it went throughout 1974 and 1975. Several measures were proposed but went nowhere, including one outrageous bill in Washington, D.C. to confiscate all handguns and shotguns immediately, with no compensation to the owner. Another bill called for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban handgun bullets as a hazardous substance (cute trick, eh?).
On September 5th, 1975, Lynette Fromme, one of Charles Manson’s group of anarchists, attempted to shoot President Gerald Ford with a U.S. Government Colt M1911 at a distance of two feet, apparently to make a statement to people to stop polluting the environment. Luckily for Ford, she forgot to put a round in the chamber and he avoided any sudden lead poisoning. Just 17 days later, Sally Moore shot at Ford with a new .38 revolver from a distance of 40 feet; the revolver had yet to be sighted in, and a result her bullet went 6 inches off the mark, just barely enough to miss Ford’s skull. As she aimed for another shot, a quick-thinking ex-marine in the crowd jumped on her, saving Ford’s life. For these unrelated attempts, both women were sentenced to prison for life and were released only after Ford’s death in 2006.
Given new life, the media circus and legislation by Gun Control advocates began anew. Senator Kennedy slurred, ''The overriding lessons of these nearly tragic events is that if America cares about the safety of its leaders, it can no longer ignore the shocking absence of responsible gun control.” Richard Daley, Mayor of Chicago said: "You don't see someone shooting rabbits with a handgun. The only thing you hunt is human beings." (Well...about that. I just typed “shooting rabbits with a handgun” in Google and got a bunch of pictures and videos of people doing exactly that.)
Some mention must be made of the agenda-driven content of the pictures which accompanied the text of the many anti-gun articles of this time. One cartoon printed in Newsweek not long after the JFK assassination showed a mock mail order gun ad with the heading, “Sportsmen! Kids! Maniacs!” A similar cartoon appeared in Time magazine after the shooting of President Ford featuring Lynette Fromme, with the caption, “1975 National Rifle Association Poster Girl.” This photo showed her holding a revolver in one hand and a sign in the other saying, “Preserve our sacred right to bear arms.”
The various women’s magazines of the 1970’s seemed to showcase some of the worst anti-Second Amendment rights propaganda to be found. Good Housekeeping ran an article entitled, “Let’s Turn In Our Guns As An Act of Conscience.” Carl Bakals’ infamous and movement-defining book, The Right To Bear Arms (later reprinted in vast numbers as No Right To Bear Arms) started as a series of articles for Harpers. In point of fact, the only publications where any sort of pro-gun viewpoint is seen are the hunting and shooting magazines, and various conservative publications. But, of course, these journals only reach a small percentage of the population, and they are largely preaching to the choir. And yet, the National Rifle Association and pro-gun forces have been accused of using a vast network of lobbyists, and in the case of Congressman Michael Harrington, of the, “...use of their extensive media connections to state the details of proposed bills."
The television networks continued the attack. A special NBC program on Gun Control was entitled “A Shooting Gallery Called America”, which showed inflated numbers of gun sales and made the connection with a rise in crime. The TV special showed actual footage of gun crimes in progress, and interviews with tearful crime victims. As a means of showing the other side of the argument, the program showed a smiling man with a gun gleefully describing how he was going to shoot an assailant. A Shooting Gallery Called America may have actually been so over the top against guns that it had a reverse effect; Patrick Buchanan later wrote in TV Guide that it was a simplistic, emotional, single dimensional cri de coeur against the handgun in American society."
The later years of the 1970’s saw more of the same; it should also be noted that this was the decade in which the mainstream media really coalesced into a unified force to condemn gun rights and the Second Amendment. Though it picked up steam with the Kennedy and MLK assassinations of the 1960’s, in the 1970’s anti-gun fervor can be said to have come of age. Time, Newsweek, Reader’s Digest, Good Housekeeping, and several other periodicals worked together with the major television networks to create a social consciousness that de facto opposed to gun ownership of any kind. Polls of the 1970’s show a level of opposition to gun rights never seen before or since; one poll taken after the dual assassination attempts of President Ford show 77% in favor of universal registration (undoubtedly reflecting how few people of the time understood the extent of the fees, fingerprinting, photographing, and other ordeals prospective gun owners already had to face).
Research from the result of polling at this time versus other decades leads me to conclude with a fair degree of certainty that the mid-1970’s may well have been the high water mark of anti-gun sentiment in America. In the later years of the 70’s, a growing opposition to handgun bans marked a growing realization among some Americans that such an action would only disarm honest citizens and make them more vulnerable to the criminal element of society. The growing sales of handguns throughout the 1970’s may be seen as an indicator that more people felt that they could not rely on the police for protection.
With the fading memories of the 1960’s assassinations and the early- to mid-1970’s assassination attempts, and more focused and unified efforts by the NRA beginning to take form in this decade, the pro-gun advocates would fare better in the 1980’s.
This is part three in this series. Part four will focus on the history of gun control from the 1980’s to today.
Posted by: GRW Senior Staff on Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 12:00:00 am Comments (0)
The 1930’s: National Gun Control Begins
(Continued from The History of Gun Control in America, Part One)
The 1930’s were a period ripe for the kind of opportunities the gun grabbers were patiently waiting for. They were to see their first major national victories in this decade, though on the other side of the fence, the 1930’s were also the first decade to see the National Rifle Association (NRA) get involved in the battle over gun control legislation. They were very nearly successful in the early part of the decade in getting a full repeal of New York’s Sullivan Law.
Due to some of the fervor and idealism of the 1920’s carrying over into the next decade, the Gun Control activism was still going strong, although it had abated somewhat when the reality of the failure of prohibition began to dawn on the populace as a whole, despite the continued preachings of it success of Baptist ministers. Concerns about what to do about the ever-increasing threat of organized crime turned to wrongheaded propositions, fueled by attempted political assassinations.
The near-repeal of the Sullivan Act came about as a result of the attempt to pass the Uniform Firearms Act in New York. Conceived in the 1920’s by, among others, Karl T. Frederick, a New York attorney and NRA member, and later the NRA president, this act banned possession of handguns by anyone who had been convicted of a violent crime, minors under 18, drug addicts, and habitual drunks, it required a permit to carry a concealed weapon in a vehicle, and it required dealers to be licensed, and it provided a 48-hour cooling off period between purchase a handgun and receiving it as a method to help prevent crimes of passion. Laws like this are common today and even accepted by many pro-gun people, but at the time they were relatively unheard of; indeed, this was the first appearance of them. In the 1920’s, the Uniform Firearms Act was catching on, being adopted in California, North Dakota, and New Hampshire, and spreading to Alabama, Indiana, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington in the 1930’s.
But in New York state, the Uniform Firearms Act met a hostile reception. New York City Police Commissioner George v. McLaughlin had attacked the wording of the law in 1926, attributing the law to gun manufacturers eager to protect their income. He also challenged its definition of a pistol as a firearm with a barrel shorter than twelve inches by saying that a criminal could easily obtain a handgun with a barrel thirteen inches in length, which the criminal probably couldn’t since handguns with barrels that long are almost non-existent and would be hardly concealable even if they could be found, which would make them a pretty poor choice for a burglar.
The Uniform Firearms Act was re-skinned and was introduced in New York in 1931 as the Hanley-Fake Act, which passed handily in both the Senate and the assembly. Next, it was due to be signed into law and replace the Sullivan Act by the current New York State Governor… Franklin D. Roosevelt.
At FDR’s March 1932 hearing on the bill, the current New York City Police Commissioner Edward P. Mulrooney had already succeeded in having New York City exempted from it. Now he fought vocally against it replacing the Sullivan Act anywhere in NY State, declaring that it would enable residents of New York City to avoid the harsher act by simply purchasing guns outside the city.
Testifying for the Hanley-Fake bill, Karl Frederick objected that the current law unfairly forced the honest citizen to be fingerprinted like a common criminal before he could purchase a gun; FDR replied that no one should feel a stigma in being fingerprinted. Facing vocal opposition from several court judges, including one who flatly stated that constituents in his district were simply evading the fingerprinting portion of the Sullivan Law due to the widespread consensus of its unfairness, FDR nevertheless bucked the clear sentiment favoring the law and vetoed its passage. Despite the obvious message to the contrary, he again urged that citizens should not be offended by the fingerprinting requirement of the Sullivan Act, and also denigrated the legitimate applications of handguns. Thus did the only real chance for a repeal of the Sullivan Act die with the failure to enact Hanley-Fake.
In July of 1933, Attorney-General Homer Cummings stated that existing gun controls were inadequate and that legislation on the matter was required. He soon appeared as the dominant force for enacting new Gun Control laws in the 1930’s. A staunch enemy of crime, he occasionally used wild exaggerations to make his point; he once famously claimed that the armed underworld was twice the size of the entire U. S. Armed Forces, which incidentally would have worked out to 1 in every 244 people being an armed gangster. Despite obvious evidence that Mr. Cummings had poor math and deductive reasoning skills, he felt confident enough to urge passage of a law which would place extreme regulation on anything deemed a “gangster” weapon; “machine guns” (fully automatic firearms), silencers, sawed-off shotguns, and all handguns. Gun owners can at least thank him for bringing the NRA into the fight with the demand for the banning of handguns.
The NRA at that time had barely 50,000 members, in sharp contrast to several groups arrayed against them, not the least of which was the General Federation of Women's Clubs, which boasted two million members. But when they notified their members, they sprang to action, a large percentage of them immediately writing to their legislators to make their determined opposition known.
The Federation of Women's Clubs did about the same with their two million members to promote the bill as the NRA did against it. The final result of this struggle was made clear in transcripts of the congressional debate over the final version of the bill which had eliminated provisions on handguns. Despite this minor victory, when the handgun portion of the bill was removed, the NRA actually capitulated and supported it in a strange and disheartening reversal of policy, stating that it was, “to keep gangsters from buying machine guns.” Little is recorded about the reasoning behind this reversal to gain much insight over why this happened.
In early 1934, when new President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempted assassination by Guissepe Zangara coincided with the aforementioned legal struggle and provided the push for new Gun Control legislation that the gun grabbers were looking for; the National Firearms Act was signed into law. It put a virtually confiscatory $200 tax (I say that with authority; that’s $3,735.21 in 2018 money) on the purchase of machine guns, silencers, sawed-off shotguns and rifles, and certain other “gangster-type” weapons.
Despite this victory, Cummings and his supporters were discouraged by the final version of the National Firearms Act and began working immediately in favor of registration of all guns. He also wrote Congress repeatedly, asking them to consider adding handguns to the National Firearms Act. Throughout the rest of the decade, Cummings introduced or inspired a string of similar bills, all calling for more strict Gun Control laws.
The second major act of Gun Control occurred in 1938, with the passage of the Federal Firearms Act. This Act was actually proposed as an alternative to one of Cummings' bills, which would have banned all mail order sales of handguns and registered all guns; the NRA apparently feared the former bill’s passage and endorsed the Federal Firearms Act. The major provisions of this act make it a federal offense for a felon to transport, ship, receive, or carry firearms or handgun ammunition across state borders, made it illegal to possess a firearm on which the serial number had been altered, and required dealers to keep records of gun sales. With this Act passed, the gun-grabbers rested on their laurels some sense of satisfaction, and the 1930’s era of pushing for serious gun control ended, as both sides rapidly began to turn their attention to the coming conflict in Europe.
The mid- 20th Century - 1940 to 1960
(World War 2, The Korean War, and The Vietnam War)
The mid-century period from 1940 to 1960 was relatively quiet for Gun Control, at least on a national level. Assuredly, the majority of this interruption in Gun Control efforts can be attributed to the re-arming influence of the trio of major conflicts that the United States found itself embroiled in. War has a way of making it seem unreasonable to a nation’s people to be without the presence of a firearm. Americans had no way of knowing whether their own country was about to be invaded or attacked as so many others had been, and the resulting healthy paranoia led to a great national desire for firearms ownership.
Likewise, the relative absence of organized crime activity in this period as compared to the two preceding decades, and with no attempts at major political assassination attempts occurring at this time, meant that there was no great social impetus for another major push for Gun Control. Any minor attempts in this regard, and there were a few, can be attributed to a desire to disarm subversive groups and individuals, and because the notion was raised that firearms registration would be a helpful method of taking an inventory of privately owned arms which might be useful for national defense.
(It’s unclear to me whether Gun Control advocates of this era expected German spies to dutifully step forward and identify themselves before registering their guns or not. Also, it seems to me that if the situation in the American homeland were so dire as to require that every civilian’s private guns were called into action, why would it matter if they were registered? Any gun would be useful, registered or not.)
Americans saw what was happening in 1940 in Britain, and the news from that beleaguered little island was enough to douse the fires of gun grabbing activism for a long period of time. No one was going to take American citizens’ guns away during such a time or push any for legislation curtailing their Second Amendment rights. Britain had had strong anti-gun laws for decades prior to the outbreak of the war, and when Germany threatened, they were so desperate for weapons that many of the Home Guardsmen had old 18th-century muskets, or they had nothing at all. Many drilled with swords, clubs, or makeshift weapons. Begging Americans for help, they received 7,000 guns from the private ownership of U.S. citizens.
In the rest of Europe, the situation was similar. In every country they invaded, the Nazis immediately demanded registration of firearms, or more often, simply took them away. It at least some countries it seems that Hitler had issued a proclamation ordering the immediate surrender of guns and prescribing harsh penalties for those failing to comply. Carl Bakal, in his book (which has proven to be very popular for decades with the anti-gun crowd) The Right To Bear Arms, asserts that all Hitler had to do was issue his proclamation and everyone in the invaded countries turned in their firearms. History does not bear this out.
(I personally have read a fair amount about the French, Polish and Greek resistance movements in particular, and this was certainly not the case in those countries. The heroic members of those movements harassed the Nazis incessantly throughout the war, diverting badly needed military resources from the front lines, particularly emboldened after the Allied invasion of June 1944.)
Consider the mindset of a patriot whose country was invaded at that time. Some of the population, say 3% or so in the case of the American Revolution, (I’m tipping my hat here to the III% movement) will always resist to the death any invasion of their homeland. If they were facing a death penalty for resisting, why should they fear the same for merely keeping their guns?
(I also find Bakal’s conclusion that privately owned guns were inconsequential against an armed invasion to be ridiculous. If this was so, why did the Nazis confiscate them from the people in every country they invaded? Why do totalitarian governments always take them away immediately as a matter of course?)
Given all of this, it’s rather easy to understand why Americans in 1940 were very stridently opposed to any anti-gun laws at the time. When the United States entered the war on December 7th, 1941, this sentiment became even more fervent, as one might expect. The NRA suddenly lost a large measure of the stigma that had been attached to it in the 1930’s, as the many training films and manuals that they had created and provided free of charge were re-purposed for military use. They loaned over 150 shooting ranges for government use. They drew up plans for Home Guard units much like the English had, and the NRA even recruited dogs and trainers for Coast Guard Beach Patrols through its many contacts.
No mention could be found while researching this article of any public acknowledgment of the NRA’s contribution to the war effort by President Roosevelt, but President Truman did finally have this to say for them on November 14th, 1945:
“The National Rifle Association, in the periods between our last four wars, has done much to encourage the improvement of small arms and marksmanship in the Regular services, as well as in the National Guard, Reserve units, and the civilian population. During the war just ended, the contributions of the association... have materially aided our war effort. I hope the splendid program which the National Rifle Association has followed during the past three-quarters of a century will be continued. It is a program which is good for a free America.”
This was high praise not only for the NRA but for civilian gun ownership in general. During this mid-century period, it seemed that the lessons of the benefits of a well-armed citizenry had finally been learned, and after World War 2 and the Korean Conflict, and with the new Cold War looming, it took until the late 1950’s before the anti-gun crowd once again began to gain any traction with public opinion.
Perhaps with the absence of war for a period of time comes a sense of complacency, and memories fade about the threat faced by the nation just a few years earlier. But my research into news articles of the time don’t reveal a great deal of interest by the media in Gun Control, nor was there any significant rise in violent crime nor any political assassinations. Yet many polls of the time show a marked rise in public opinion favoring gun permits, and even one poll showing 59% of all respondent favoring a total ban on handguns. The only cause I have found at all was possible concern over the eruption of violence in the American south over the civil rights issue.
(I am left to conclude from my research that these polls were either inaccurate, worded with leading questions, or were blatantly untrue. All five of the Gun Control bills introduced in the late fifties died in committee. I believe that there was not yet any great interest in anti-gun legislation at this time and that the polls were simply a fabrication or at least a gross exaggeration.)
The Turbulent 1960’s
(Or, We Can’t Trust You With Guns Because They Shot The President)
As one might expect, the turbulent 1960’s, a time of great social upheaval and questioning the norms of society, had its worst effects yet on gun rights. The multiple and sensational political assassinations and widespread urban violence of the time caused many to turn their attention to the firearms question and lay the finger of blame squarely on the gun as the culprit, rather than examining the underlying social issues causing the strife. A new wave of anti-gun fervor began with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, surely tied with the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese as the two most jarring and disturbing incidents in 20th century America.
And yet, the 1960’s began with a general feeling of harmony between pro-gun forces and gun opponents. Many on both sides believed that gun sales via mail were a problem. At this time, a prospective mail order gun buyer needed only to sign a statement that he was over 18 (or 21 if purchasing a handgun) and had not been convicted of a felony. No proof was needed. As the gun grabbers most often do, instead of trying to enforce an existing law with some certainty, a new push for legislation was made. Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut, concerned with the problems in mail order gun sales, co-authored the new S.1975 bill with support from the NRA; it merely required the addition of a notarized sworn statement to any mail order for a handgun.
The Kennedy assassination on November 22nd, 1963 kicked the 1960’s wave of anti-gun legislation into high gear. On November 27th, Dodd began with multiple amendments to his bill and coined the phase at this time of using a “tragic opportunity” to enhance it. The newly amended bill included all firearms, not just handguns, and the new affidavit to be added to any mail order now required the signature of the Chief of Police or Sheriff in the buyer’s town. The NRA soon requested and received the change that the buyer instead simply furnish the name and address of the law enforcement official, and that the seller must notify said official of the purchase. Even when the bill was further amended to include rifles and shotguns, it must be noted that the NRA still supported it — it was around this time that the NRA began to be accused of supporting some firearms legislative efforts, which was clearly not the case and this was even corroborated by Senator Dodd himself.
As public sentiment was growing in favor of more anti-gun legislation, many in the shooting community began to feel disenfranchised, fearing that very restrictive measures might soon be passed in the wave of emotion currently sweeping the nation in the wake of the Kennedy assassination. A rash of news articles supporting stricter gun laws swept through the media at this time, fueling their fears. One article in Newsweek pointed out that a .22 caliber pen gun was available via mail order (never mind that the actual pen gun displayed in the ad was useless as a weapon since it would only fire blanks).
Articles like this constantly attacked the "frontiersman” attitude of shooters who relied on the protection of the Second Amendment, saying that they, "...seem to miss the fact that the frontier is secure and the armed forces, National Guard and local police protect the nation…” (Really. So help me, I won’t even get started on trying to refute the stupidity of that statement....)
While this media frenzy was occurring and pressing for ever more strict anti-gun measures, Dodd’s bill actually gained little traction. Why this happened is difficult to ascertain, as it did have the backing of the NRA the arms industry and 78% of the population according to the (as mentioned before, unreliable) polls. S.1975 died at the end of the 88th Congress in 1964; Dodd replaced it with an identical bill in 1965, then withdrew it and replaced it with S.1592 at the request of the Johnson Administration.
Senate Bill 1592 would have completely outlawed all interstate mail order firearms sales and prevented importing any guns thought to be unsuitable for “sporting purposes” - meaning, handguns. Naturally, the shooting world and the NRA alike voiced a profound vocal opposition to the bill, but the Johnson Administration favored it and pushed its passage. The battle for this bill rang clear through the press in 1965 and 1966, until August of 1966, when Charles Whitman, a student at the University of Texas, shot 44 of his fellow students and killed 13 of them. The next day, seizing yet again upon a “tragic opportunity”, President Lyndon B. Johnson publicly called for gun registration and stricter gun laws.
As often follows these incidents, the media coverage overwhelmingly backed stricter gun legislation, and a poll taken at this time showed 68% of Americans favoring this. The only opposing opinion came from a National Review article by William Buckley, Jr., defending all of the usual reasons for keeping arms, and pointing out that no bill ever presented before Congress would have prevented Whitman from acquiring a gun.
Despite the massive boost from the media and the Whitman shooting, S.1592 made no more progress than did S.1975, but it did pave the way for further anti-gun legislation. Dodd introduced a third and similar bill, S.1, in 1967. This too made some headway with a push from the usual suspects in the media and the Johnson Administration but gained no significant ground until April 4th, 1968, when Martin Luther King, Jr. was was assassinated in·Memphis, Tennessee.
This is part two in this series. Part three will focus on the history of gun control in the wake of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
|Back to Part One||Forward to Part Three|
Posted by: GRW Senior Staff on Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 12:00:00 pm Comments (2)
Since 1911, politicians and activists have tried to pass laws restricting access to guns, thinking that this will somehow take them out of the hands of criminals.
(Author’s Note: What follows is a brief history of gun control in America. While attempting to write this article in an objective manner, it is inevitable that soon my freedom-loving bias will come out. My apologies in advance if my accounting of the many and varied attempts to curtail my constitutional right to defend myself and my family seem somehow colored by this strange predilection for survival.)
It is the contention of this article that the majority of gun control supporters in this country are under the mistaken assumption that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will somehow reduce crime. They seem to believe that banning guns somehow takes them out of criminals hands. In my research on the subject, I found that this is anything but the case.
It is my belief that there is also another faction of the gun grabbers, an upper echelon. The elites in our country, just some of them mind you, want to take guns away from people because they want control, pure and simple. They see themselves as being on a higher level, and that they are the only ones who should be entrusted with the responsibility of firearms.
I also believe that the vast majority of people are good and are capable of using firearms responsibly, that it is their right to do so, and that that right should not be removed unless an individual proves demonstrably that he or she is not to be trusted with them. With rights come responsibilities of course, and citizens who own and use firearms need to be properly trained. But the vast majority of people are capable of this and should be allowed to do so.
Furthermore, I believe the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and for that purpose, I believe as many law-abiding citizens as possible should be armed and ready to defend themselves and their families. I think that with enough good people carrying firearms while going about their daily business unmolested by hyper-vigilant law enforcement officials, criminals will not find the intestinal fortitude to break the law in their presence.
Guns And The Birth of America
It is a well-known fact that there are more privately owned guns in the United States than in any other country in the world. Estimates vary widely of course, and it is not the intention of this document to attempt to cite an accurate number for them all. Gun ownership is a great tradition in this country; our War of Independence was won by them and several times in our history we've had to ensure our freedom with them.
Some say this is a bad thing; to them, guns are the danger, not the people wielding them. Take away the guns and you take away the violent crime, they'll tell you. Those of us with a better understanding of human nature know this is not true. Any attempts to take away guns only remove them from the hands of lawful people.
But America has a long history with guns. In the early days of our country, the frontier was won by them. They were necessary for the hunting of wild game and for survival against Indians or other attackers. In the Revolutionary War period, colonists sometimes had to protect themselves against the whims of British troops. Ever since this era, the mentality of being ready to protect oneself against all predators, non-human and human alike has been ingrained in the American psyche, including against a potentially aggressive and unjust government.
So for these reasons, and for the relaxation and joy of target shooting, guns were ever-present in the early days of America. Gun use and ownership was such a part of everyday life that to ban them was considered unthinkable.
This opinion was shared by the vast majority of America for well over a century, which no doubt coincided with the fact that most of America was still rural or wilderness, and guns were seen as very necessary for survival there. Even as the untamed portions of the nation began to be settled towards the onset of the First World War, in rural America firearms were viewed with almost equal necessity as in the past, for pest control and fresh game on the kitchen table, even though the constant threat to personal safety had passed. Since the vast majority of America was still rural at the turn of the last century, firearm ownership was as it had always been, an unchallenged necessity for most.
The Dawn of Gun Control
As the urban centers of the east began filling up with people, alarming crime rates began to show, particularly in New York City. Attempts to make some sense of what was happening began to attribute the crime to the prevalence of handguns everywhere, and a misguided mindset began to develop that reducing crime by controlling the availability of handguns might be possible. Some urbanites who were removed from the rural world of hunting, target shooting, and self-defense began to associate guns with crime and tragic accidents and began to question the reasons for gun ownership.
This is where the Gun Control argument began. If we simply remove the guns, they mistakenly reasoned, crimes that typically involve a gun won’t happen. This reasoning is flawed for two basic reasons, both of which should be obvious to most people reading this article, but I’ll reiterate them for the record.
- First, a gun is an inanimate object, and any attempt to control it would be futile and much better served by instead examining how to control the behavior of those who abuse the killing power of guns. Any question involving crime and firearms must focus on the individuals committing the vile acts, not merely all gun owners.
- Secondly, Gun Control can only be enacted via one avenue: legislation. Laws are passed to outlaw some firearms or at least infringe upon the rights of individuals to own or use them, but they are only laws. And when laws are passed, the majority of citizens observe them, and the criminal element does not, which takes them out of the hands of precisely the wrong group of people and further emboldens another precisely wrong group of people. Throughout the years, in any given time and place, the statistics almost always bear this out. As we move to the next section of this article, we’ll look at the first instance of the adoption of Gun Control measures, and then examine their long-term effects upon crime rates.
The Sullivan Act of 1911 - New York State
The first significant gun control law to be adopted in the United States was The Sullivan Act of 1911. This was merely a local NY State law, but it was a harbinger of things to come.
Named for its author, Timothy D. Sullivan, and influenced by New York County Coroner George P. Le Brun, the catalyst for the act was a growing sense of alarm from New York City about the growing crime rate and the wounding by gunshot of New York City's Mayor William Gaynor in November 1910. This incident turned a mere sense of concern overnight into a unified sentiment of NY State politicians against guns and sparked a push to adopt some form of anti-gun legislation which ended up with the passage of this poorly conceived bill.
With the Sullivan Act now in place, a New York State resident had to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun and another to own it. Originally, the non-refundable purchase permit was $.50, but within ten years this figure was raised to $20; this figure is equivalent to about $516 dollars in 2018. The purchaser had to endure an interview with police officers and had to convince them that he had “good reason” to own a handgun.
(At this point I’ll try really hard not to go off on a tangent about how arbitrary the judgments of police officers and other public officials may sometimes be, how prone to bias, racism, and unfair discrimination of many types a government employee of New York State in the year 1911 could have been. Really, I’ll try...oh, wait. Never mind.)
The gun purchaser also had to be fingerprinted and provide three personal references as to his good character and provide four photographs of himself. If, after all of this was provided and permission was granted by the whims of the powers that be, the owner was then authorized to keep the pistol in only one place, usually his residence. Recreational target shooters and hunters then had to apply for another special license to allow them to transport their handguns, and only if they were intended to be used for this purpose. When the owner died, the handgun would be confiscated by the state, with no recompense to the estate of the deceased.
One particular provision would come back to haunt the creators of the Sullivan Act: the ban on non-citizens carrying firearms of any type.
Originally the bill was praised roundly by the NY press. One NY Times editorial expressed hopes that “evil habits of pistol owning and carrying will gain a new odium, and will be abandoned by many — perhaps all outside the distinctly criminal class." Arguments against the bill were attributed to “greedy gun manufacturers and dealers”, with the Times stating ridiculously that there was "...no argument against the bill except that it will reduce sales and thereby profits." Timothy Sullivan himself upped the ante on the wrong-o-meter by proclaiming that the bill would save more souls than all the preachers in the city giving sermons for ten years.
Truth be told, there was surprisingly little opposition to the bill at first. This must be attributed to the fact that the bill received almost no publicity between its passage in February of 1911 and its signing into law that May. Prophetically, the one strong voice against the bill, State Senator Ferris, voiced a sentiment which would be heard again and again in other battles over gun control throughout the years when he said: “You can't force a criminal to get a license for a gun.”
(NY state Gun Grabbers didn't get it then, and they don't get it now.)
Upon the signing of the bill into law on May 30th, an uproar began, most likely as a result of the sudden publicity that the media finally decided to bestow upon it. When the question was asked of whether a person who already had a handgun would have to surrender it if he failed to receive a permit, and the answer was yes, outrage began to be seen among the populace.
On September 2, the day after the new law went into effect, Italian immigrant James Palermo was arrested leaving a hardware store with a brand new shotgun he had purchased; under the new law, foreigners were prohibited from carrying arms. Within the next few days, several incidents of this nature made their way into the newspapers, and public outrage quickly began to build.
On September 6, 1911, New York district attorney Charles Whitman stated that the section prohibiting keeping unlicensed pistols in the home was an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms. Emboldened by this, New York City lawyer Joseph Darling boastfully and publicly informed a police captain that he was in possession of an unregistered handgun. After his inevitable arrest for flouting the Sullivan Act, he stated:
"There are 500,000 persons with pistols in their homes and I want this law defined. I want to know what are my rights; what are the rights of any citizen... I have not procured a license because I think this law is unconstitutional."
Supporting Darling's cause was Justice Francis Pendleton of the state Supreme Court, who also said the law should not apply to guns kept in the home. He stated, “...any broader construction would bring the constitutionality of the law itself into question as an act exceeding the police power and interfering with the rights of citizens to take measures for self-protection." Darwin's case was settled on January 4th, 1912 in the state Appellate Court. Unfortunately, the majority of judges held that the law could restrict handguns in the home and held that the act was "regulatory, not prohibitive”. Two judges who broke with the mainstream view said that the law “prevents householders from defending themselves against marauders.”
Few comments were recorded favoring the law in the next few years. The Times reported no decrease in lawlessness, and Magistrate Joseph E. Corrigan famously declared: "The new anti-pistol carrying law is ridiculous… You can't pick up a paper nowadays without reading of a shooting scrape.” Reported figures show a 23% increase in shooting homicides from 1911 to 1912.
In addition, consternation rose that while criminals were still well armed, those who applied for permits were being turned down. In one case, a doctor who had previously been held up was refused a handgun permit. This was a common scenario at the time; there was no uniform standard for granting or refusing permits, and they were routinely refused at the whims of the police.
After 1914 the furor over the Sullivan Law abated and the law even earned some praise. In this year the number of homicides stabilized, and in an interview with the Times George P. Le Brun stated that “75% of all homicides are caused by the presence of a weapon” and, incredibly, that “guns are of little value for defensive purposes”.
(Statistics do show that the number of the number of homicides decreased substantially from 1914 to 1919, however in hindsight it seems likely that some other event in the year 1914 may have had something to do with this. Hmm...anyone know of anything important that might have happened in 1914? Bueller?)
When World War One broke out in Europe in 1914, employment opportunities arose for those who may have otherwise been involved in crime. Perhaps·some of those who would otherwise have been shooting New Yorkers were instead engaged in the more socially acceptable pastime of shooting Germans. This theory seems to bear some fruit, as by the 1920’s, murder rates were again soaring.
Today, the Sullivan Act is touted by fans of Gun Control for the recorded drop in handgun murder rates for a few years after its passing, disregarding the entire picture of shooting homicide incidence over a longer period of time. New York City is hardly a paragon of safety and non-violence since the passage of the Sullivan Act, and the fact that fewer people are killed with guns in New York seems irrelevant. If the goal of this bill is to prevent violent crime, it seems to have failed miserably, as New York City still seems to have quite a high murder rate. In addition to its ineffectiveness in reducing crime, there is no doubt that the Sullivan Act negatively affects the honest citizens seeking to own a handgun. Perhaps the greatest advocate of the Sullivan Act, the New York Times, even stated in 1924: ''A harsh critic would have some excuse for saying it is ignored by those who alone would make nefarious use of deadly weapons and is effective only in imposing inconvenience and expense on those whose one purpose in arming themselves would be legitimate defense of their persons and property.”
The 1920’s - Prohibition and Gun Control
Or, “Hey, That Banning Alcohol Thing Worked So Well, Let’s See How It Works On Guns”
As the urbanization of America continued, so too did the country see its crime rate begin to climb. In this decade, the same idealistic spirit for reform which fueled prohibition also took hold firmly on the side of Gun Control.
Most of the more extreme measures of this cause died quietly and with little support in the hands of lawmakers, but one rather pointless federal regulation did come to life. Echoing the clearly naive logic that many of that time still possessed, one Baptist minister proclaimed that “If nobody had a gun, nobody would need a gun.”
Captain Paul Curtis, Jr., responded rather poignantly in Field & Stream magazine, stating, "Truly we are in a dangerously Puritanical age when a few mollycoddles with good intentions, can try out their theories for the prevention of crime at the expense of every honest, red-blooded man in the land.”
The Wall Street Journal also publicly opposed any new Gun Control regulations, reminding that the experience with the Sullivan Law had shown Gun Control to be ineffective: “It sends to jail honest people, ignorant of the law, and it makes the armed miscreant safe in carrying a gun.…”
Several more pieces of legislation were proposed throughout the 1920’s, with the anti-gun forces enjoying at least one victory in 1924 when Sears & Roebuck announced that it was discontinuing the sale of all firearms: “We feel the moral side of all public questions is the right side, not only because we want to be right, but because it is good business."
Apparently good business was ultimately more important to Sears than right or wrong, as gun sales were discontinued for only a brief time when the Board of Directors discovered a slide in sales after the adoption of this policy.
Also that year, another victory for the Gun Control proponents was almost realized. HR 9093 was introduced to ban the sale of pistols through the mail and was passed by the House of Representatives. Since this would only have affected the U.S. Mail, the only effect of the bill would have been the nuisance of paying higher delivery charges for handguns via other carriers. Regardless, the bill was fiercely fought by both sides in Congress in that year because the anti-gun forces and pro-gun forces alike saw it for what it was, a first round in the new war on guns.
When HR 9093 was referred to committee by the Senate without debate, effectively killing the measure, Gun Control proponents were not discouraged. In 1926, New York City Chief City Magistrate William McAdoo proposed a federal law.which would have effectively banned all handgun sales. An ardent supporter of the Sullivan Law, he now wanted the nation to enact a similar measure. His bill proposed a $100 tax ($1424 in 2018 money) on the sale, gift, or barter of every handgun, and a tax of $1 on every round of handgun ammunition, with ammunition to be sold in quantities of fifty, one hundred, or one thousand.
(For those who don’t feel like doing the math, this would have meant a minimum mortgage payment, I mean investment, of $712 for a box of ammo in today’s money).
MacAdoo’s bill would have also decreed that any handgun already owned would be seized and destroyed. In the 1926 book, Outlawing the Pistol, author Lamar Berman supported legislation like that proposed by McAdoo. He argued that any Gun Control measures needed to be strictly on a federal level, and based his assertion on the presumption that prohibition had not been effective until enacted on that level.
We at gunrightswatch.com, who read our history books before the liberals started rewriting them, are of the opinion that all prohibition did was to turn a legal business into a black market one, and to turn otherwise law-abiding people into criminals, much like most Gun Control laws have the potential to do.
Whackadoo McAdoo, as one might guess, was an early proponent of prohibition. It does seem odd that with his early and close connection to the prohibition issue, he couldn’t see how poorly that particular endeavor worked for the betterment of the United States of America. He also was one of the first to suggest banning or at least placing greater restrictions on automobiles, which he somehow linked to a greater incidence of crime. Luckily for the rest of us, not one of McAdoo’s proposed bills were blessed with acceptance.
In 1927 a new bill, HR 4502, was crafted and proposed to do almost precisely what HR 9093 would have done — the banning of handguns via the U.S. Mail. Though both bills were virtually identical, HR 4502 passed easily in the House and Senate where HR 9093 had failed. It was signed into law on February 8th, 1927 by then President Calvin Coolidge, who reportedly signed it “to prevent the passage of any stricter measures.”
To this day it is still not possible to ship a handgun via U.S. Mail in most circumstances except through a Federal Firearms License holder, but this now seems irrelevant. Not one politician or talking head has dared to present the silly notion that this arbitrary ban has had any effect on reducing crime or any actual effect at all other than to have a minor consequence of costing the average citizen a little bit more for postage and to help illustrate the obsolescence of the U.S. Postal Service. This is the single most common effect of Gun Control legislation: to exact hardship upon honest, hard-working citizens while having no effect, or possibly an enabling effect upon the common criminal.
This is part one in this series. Part two will focus on the history of gun control after 1930.
Posted by: GRW Senior Staff on Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 12:00:00 am Comments (1)
The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance
The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance is an ordinance aimed at sending a clear message to gun control advocates about the gun rights specifically enumerated in the US Constitution, and the idea appears to be catching on in the states of Oregon and Illinois.
It’s unclear where this movement started, but some sources point to Oregon. Oregon counties have been passing Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances since 2013. In Wallowa County, a man named Leo Castillo wrote the original ordinance and got it passed through his county’s board of commissioners. Wheeler County followed in 2015 and Curry County in 2016.
The statewide effort is being coordinated by Rob Taylor, a Coos County resident who leads the movement’s Committee to Preserve the Second Amendment.
Taylor, however, found that a different path to getting The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance, or SAPO, passed would be necessary. Initially meeting stiff resistance from the Coos County board of commissioners when it was presented to them in 2015, Taylor then took the issue to the voters, who passed a ballot measure that allows the county to restrict funding for gun laws passed by state lawmakers.
Taking a page from the playbook of California sheriffs who refuse to enforce immigration laws, Taylor quickly realized that more right-leaning sheriffs in other parts of the nation could use the same strategy to ignore oppressive gun laws, as he envisioned legislation that could allow them to do just that. Since then, Taylor has helped several other counties file similar ballot measure proposals.
This single county ballot measure in 2015 has blossomed into a full-blown movement. Gun Rights Watch now dutifully maintains a series of maps of Oregon and Illinois which are updated routinely, showing the advancement of this ordinance, and a continuing march for gun rights across both states. We feel confident that many more states will follow, as news of the SAPO’s advance hits the news media more and more often.
Renewed Interest in 2018
This now brings us to reflect on how the SAPO has picked up steam this year, with the filing of bill IP 43, which is yet another “assault weapons” ban. before I explain how IP 43 has caused the SAPO movement to pick up steam, allow me to go off on a tangent for moment:
I put quotations around those 2 words because there is no such thing as an assault weapon. An assault weapon, as the meaning of which can be inferred from the language of the plethora of anti-gun bills that have been put forward and passed since the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, is any gun which you don’t like because it looks big and bad and scary. If it has a bump stock, can hold more than ten bullets, is painted black, or has a tacky skull embossed on the handle, someone will use that as an excuse to call it an assault weapon. An assault rifle is a real thing. An “assault weapon” is a non-descriptive, derogatory term that some liberal politician made up because someone’s gun looks big, bad and scary.
And by the way, being big and bad and scary is exactly what a gun is supposed to do. As any self-defense expert with some familiarity with firearms will tell you, the most protective thing about a gun is simply its appearance. A gun is most useful, and most often deters violent crimes, by merely displaying it. I’m fully convinced that guns prevent many more crimes simply by being visible, much more often in fact than actually firing one at a bad guy.
Okay, rant over.
IP 43 was filed on March 22 in Oregon. So far, instead of taking any “assault weapons” off the streets, it has instead renewed the interest in SAPO. Several counties have filed and even passed the ordinance by now; check our website or facebook page. I won’t try to tell you which ones have passed it in this post because the number changes rapidly.
Illinois apparently has taken up the cause of gun rights legislation with gusto now too. David Campbell, a print shop owner from southern Illinois, and Bryan Kibler, a prosecutor, have spearheaded a push to bring a version of SAPO to Illinois; the Illinois SAPO doesn't actually have any teeth, however, it's merely a statement that residents of Illinois county can make, and a message to the local sheriff of that county that they would prefer he didn't enforce federal gun laws. Their county of Effingham adopted the resolution on April 16th, and word spread quickly via conservative news sites and gun blogs. This started a chain reaction of Illinois counties fanning the flames of liberty by adopting the resolution and further popularizing this legislation; again, be sure to check the Gun Rights Watch website and Facebook page for our constantly updating map of the Illinois Gun Sanctuary Counties.
Coos County – First to Enact the Ordinance
Initially first enacted in Coos County, Oregon, the ordinance seems to have touched off a string of ballot initiatives in several counties to put the measure to a vote. Coos County voters signaled their overwhelming approval of the ordinance with a 60 percent majority and simultaneously showed their disapproval of Senate Bill 941, which was signed into law by Governor Brown on May 11,2015.
(SB 941, the Oregon Firearms Safety Act, is yet another unconstitutional law which adds the requirement of a background safety check for firearm purchases. Unfortunately, a Google search for "SB 941" showed me links to several news stories about SB 941 being proposed, placed on a ballot, or even passed in many other states besides Oregon.)
Douglas County Hearing
In Douglas County, the County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously on June 20th to place the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance on the ballot this November.
Following a public hearing where residents gave the expected mixture of opinions for and against the legislation, supporters of the measure spoke of the previously mentioned need to send a message about the gun rights that are stated clearly in the constitution, and gun control advocates and other opponents of the ordinance said that it would place sheriffs in the moral quandary of having to decide whether to enact the will of the people, or whether to follow blatantly unconstitutional state and federal gun laws. They also said that (drum roll please...repeat it with me now, in your best trance-inducing mantra) gun regulations are necessary to protect the children.
It seems to me that the children would be best protected by a trained parent with a firearm rather than left to the caprices of the state which seems to believe that taking the guns away from only the good, law-abiding people will somehow make the children safe (because bad guys don't obey laws, especially gun laws, remember? That's what makes them bad guys...).
And now, Columbia County
Columbia County, Illinois has been working to get the SAPO enacted since at least early 2016. Earlier this year, enough signatures were collected by petition filer Chris Brumbles, so the people of Columbia County, Oregon can now help their county pass a Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance like the people in Coos County did.
So, what is the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance?
This ordinance appears to be a resolution that is legally binding in some places, such as Oregon, and not so in others such as Illinois, depending upon the wording of the particular document. It would allow sheriffs in the counties where it passes the right to decide whether or not the citizens of their county need to observe state and federal gun laws if those laws are deemed by the county sheriff to violate the second amendment. This measure actually supersedes local and national gun laws in those places where it is binding, deferring instead to the language of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as all US citizens should be rightfully allowed to do.
The principal purpose of the ordinance in all cases is to send the message about how the voters of a county feel about their Second Amendment rights, primarily to the sheriff of the county but also to the balance of the county government.
In addition to the right to keep and bear arms, this ordinance also allows the free manufacture, sale, and purchase of firearms, firearm accessories and ordinance. SAPO is intended to not only comply with and advocate the spirit of the Second Amendment, it also further affirms the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that the ancillary firearm rights mentioned above shall never be denied or prohibited by the misinterpretation of any other amendments. It then also reaffirms the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution, reminding voters and legislators that any powers that the US Constitution doesn't reserve specifically for itself or specifically deny to states, are left by default to the states.
Also, SAPO mentions the Oregon state constitution, illustrating that the state document also reiterates the Second Amendment and the relevant parts of the Ninth Amendment where it pertains to gun rights.
Finally, SAPO declares that no county government shall authorize or appropriate anything which contradicts the rights outlined in the above mentioned amendments, such as more government bureaucracies designed to administrate registration requirements for firearms, or background checks.
Simply put, SAPO makes it clear that there should be no firearm registration or background checks, as the framers of the US Constitution intended.
The Future of the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance
To summarize, it seems clear that an honest-to-goodness movement is now underway, at least in Oregon and Illinois. What remains to be seen is whether the SAPO can be brought to the other 48 states of our great nation. So far, internet searches for the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances only turn up news articles from the two aforementioned states, but we at Gun Rights Watch are hopeful that more states will jump on the bandwagon.
Posted by: GRW - Senior Staff on Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 12:00:00 am Comments (0)
A Look Inside the Mind of a Gun Control Nut
Liberals like to call pro-gun people "Gun Nuts". Since my opinion is that not wanting to own a firearm and get trained in its use to protect one's self and one's family, and wanting to remove that right from law-abiding citizens is a more "nutty" state of mind, my response is to refer to the gun grabbers as Gun Control Nuts.
When a Gun Control Nut talks about proposing any particular piece of gun control legislation, they will usually recite some statistic or reference a news story indicating a number of deaths by guns to use as the rationale for their anti-gun fervor. For instance, recently I was told, "14 teenagers and 3 teachers were murdered in Florida with an AR-15 assault weapon. A few months ago, 58 people were murdered in Las Vegas with an AR-15. 49 were killed with a type of AR-15 in an Orlando nightclub. 20 tiny elementary school children and six teachers were killed in Newtown with an AR-15. Do you think this is okay? That we should continue to do nothing?"
Well, of course we shouldn't do nothing. Obviously something needs to be done.
I particularly enjoy watching the vein bulge on their collective foreheads when I tell them what I know we must do:
We should arm ourselves!
Firearms Save Lives as Well as Take Lives
By now, most people have heard the phrase, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Well, it's true more often than not. Of course, the average US citizen rarely hears about a robbery or mass murder being stopped by a law-abiding gun owner, mostly because it just doesn't often make for sensationalist news headlines, which is what the mainstream media seems to be looking for to attract an audience; that, and the last thing our far-left leaning media would like you to hear is something good about gun owners.
Actually, the media sometimes adds to the chaos by sensationalizing the crimes and making the perps into pseudo-celebrities with 24-7 news coverage of a particularly grisly shooting spree. Occasionally, they may even inspire more violence by revealing how some lunatic was able to pull off a high casualty rampage. Consider that the item pictured below never existed until USA Today came up with the graphic, inspiring some mechanically minded soul to fabricate it:
And, the bigger statistic that one never hears because it's near impossible to quantify is how many crimes are avoided simply by someone producing and displaying a gun at the right time and place, without a shot being fired. "What's that, no one shot, not even the perp? And no crime? We don't want to present that as news", they would say. "That's not news at all."
But of course they would be wrong. It would be huge news if an accurate statistic were available.
Consider this: Millions of Americans legally carry firearms every day, and most would cite self-defense as their primary reason. These guns sometimes are used for self-defense, and any discussions about firearms legislation must recognize the lives saved by legal gun owners as well as the lives lost to gun violence.
As previously stated, the number of defensive gun uses is a very controversial figure, prone to misrepresentation and impossible to accurately determine. But one study conducted by the The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council was left to conclude that "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence". They announced that almost all of their national survey estimates indicated that defensive gun uses by crime victims (make that would-be crime victims) are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals during the same time period.
Another study makes an estimate, granted though it may be that this is not completely verifiable, that there are 1,029,615 DGU's, or Defensive Uses of Guns, each year for "self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere", meaning not in the line of work for police work, military service or security guard work. They then concluded that there were an estimated 162,000 cases per year where someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they had not had a gun for protection.
And again, these numbers are estimates. But consider how many DGU's may never be reported. Some people may be traumatized by the event and not wish to relive it by giving testimony to the police. Some people may want to avoid harassment by police that they consider to be against private gun ownership. And some may just be people who feel persecuted by or are wanted by the police, or may simply have not gotten around the registering their guns in an area where gun registration is mandatory. Or they may not want to have their weapon confiscated to be used as evidence. I hear that there's a lot of those last two going around in Connecticut lately.
The Genie's Not Going Back In The Bottle
This, it seems to me, is the crux of the argument for the gun control crowd, and the most obvious flaw in their rationale: Guns are bad, and we must protect ourselves from them -- by legislating them away.
I've got news for you, liberals.
The genie is out of the bottle, the cat is out of the bag, and the hinges on Pandora's Box are broken. Guns were invented long ago, and they have spread to every corner of the globe, even, or perhaps especially, the gun-free zones. If we could somehow magically make them all go away, only that would actually end gun violence. But we can't. They're here to stay, and we need to deal with that.
Legislating away gun rights does nothing but embolden the criminals, who will have guns anyway. Scumbags do not avoid gun-free zones because someone put up a sign; in fact, they're attracted to those places. The bad guy thinks, "Great, no one there will have a gun to protect himself from me, so I can go in there and do whatever I want."
Not A Gun Nut, I'm a Freedom Nut
In the near future I may be, and fully expect to be, accused by liberals of being a "gun nut". I assure you, I'm not anything of the kind, any more than a guy who wants to make a hole is a "drill nut", or a guy who wants to build a house is a "hammer nut". I am, I suppose, what you could more accurately call a "freedom nut", or even a "not wanting to get murdered by a scumbag" nut. A gun is a tool, nothing more. But it's a very important tool; it's the tool by which our freedom can be secured, by which the Second Amendment guarantees the rights mentioned in the other nine amendments.
I'm not a gun rights advocate because of a love of guns per se, I'm a gun rights advocate because I love having rights, and at times guns are the most effective means of protecting my rights, whether it be the right to keep on breathing if I'm physically attacked, or whether it be to protect myself from an aggressive government who may want to take any of my other rights away.
It is our right to self-defense, as defined in the Constitution of the United States of America, that makes me a proud supporter of responsible gun ownership and the Second Amendment. Guns can be used for good purposes, and the Second Amendment is the one amendment that guarantees all of the others.
We would consider it unprofessional and irresponsible for a public safety researcher to study only the negative effects of bicycle accidents without also considering the positive health effects of the exercise bicycle users get. If public safety researchers wish to remain credible and be perceived as unbiased by the general public as well as with millions of gun rights supporters, they should endeavor to describe the very real benefits of legal and responsible gun ownership in addition to the harms caused by criminal gun usage. Government statistics that discuss only gun crimes without mentioning the use of guns to stop crimes are at the very least incomplete, and possibly intentionally disingenuous.
I support rational public policy based on objective research, but also tempered with a sympathetic understanding of individual rights, including the right of basic self-defense. If we are going to engage in gun violence research, and I believe that this is a necessary thing to do and that it will bear out some the arguments toward responsible gun ownership put forth in this article, then let’s do it the right way, by recognizing both the potential positives and negatives of civilian firearm ownership.
And lastly, let me say it again and add to it:
We should arm ourselves!
We should know how to use the damned things and store them safely!
And, we should fight for the rights of others who want to do the same!