“Peaceful” anti-civil rights activists that aren’t so peaceful. (Image from Gun Free Zone)
So. Sod ‘em. Take your toys, take your tax base, take your services and go somewhere that they’ll not be the centrepiece of a barbeque that erupts the next time someone gets a case of the red arse.
Here’s the evidence, here are the relevant statutes and an explanation of one following a Supreme Court decision. Feel free to match witness testimony, physical evidence and an applicable statute showing a criminal act and post it in the comments.
Expect this study to get buried fairly quickly as it does not fit the narrative. Some quick highlights:
- “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,”
- “violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” [Note CCW and gun ownership have gone up at the same time]
- “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”
- “Most felons report obtaining the majority of their firearms from informal sources,”
- “stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals.”
- The majority of firearm deaths are from suicide, not homicide
- “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” It also stated that proposed “gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”
The report goes on to advocate smart gun technology, which will be problematic at best.
Overall this report has the potential to make things much more difficult on anti-rights activists. Expect them to ignore it and try to bury it.
Miguel over at Gun Free Zone has a list. While I can understand wanting to repeal the NFA, I don’t see it happening yet. We may be able to remove suppressors from the NFA though and I would be all for that.
As for the items on Miguel’s list I am in agreement. We need national reciprocity on CCW as too many have fallen victim to the patchwork of laws and reciprocity agreements we currently have. Especially since some states, (Pennsylvania) have been known to change their reciprocity listing overnight. States that take a dim view of civil rights will try to oppose this, but I think it is something we will see either through legislation or the courts (maybe both).
Enacting the Coburn Amendment as is would blunt
Dr. Cocteau’s Bloomberg’s plans to pass seemingly benign legislation through the state referendum process. See I-594 in Washington, that is not a simple background check. It criminalizes normal behavior. Illinois enacted something similar to the Coburn Amendment with its CCW law. You call a number at the State Police, input a prospective buyer’s ID and they simply tell you yes or no. No other details are passed. Doing something similar with NICS, both makes sense and allays fears of a Government firearms registry.
Finally strengthening and adding teeth to the FOPA is long overdue. I would suggest that this legislation include both criminal and civil penalties for those jurisdictions and officers directly that choose to abuse Gun Owners. Additionally measures should be taken to ensure the law is enforced to the fullest.
The biggest roadblock to this wishlist sits in an office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to pass the legislation now because the debate will serve to educate the public. Then with a (hopefully) more civil-rights friendly Government after the next election getting these measures enacted should be easy.
Basically after the Sheriff decided not to appeal the decision declaring “May Issue” CCW Licensing schemes unconstitutional the State of California and the anti-rights activists at the Brady Campaign tried to get involved. The court just told them to buzz off.
Expect “May Issue” to hit the Supreme Court very soon.