I don't like the term "gun crime"--crime is crime, and while crimes, of course, vary in heinousness, that variance is not a function of the criminal's equipment. The term is useful here, though, because today's discussion is about "crimes" that are only "criminal" due to the fact that guns are involved.
An example is perhaps called for. Take, for instance, laws--such as California's--prohibiting faux "assault weapons." A violator of such a law need not do any harm--need not, indeed, intend any harm, but intent to do harm is irrelevant to the forcible citizen disarmament lobby--all that matters is that the violator is a "gun criminal."
In Jeff Snyder's brilliant A Nation of Cowards: the Ethics of Gun Control (required reading, if it were up to me--I know it isn't--for anyone who wishes to argue either side of the "gun control" debate), he explains the concept of "fighting crime by creating crime."
Stated simply, the laws CREATE crimes in order to STOP crimes. English common law distinguished between crimes that were "malum in se", or morally wrong in themselves, like rape, murder or robbery, and crimes that were "malum prohibitum", wrong because prohibited by a legislative pronouncement.
There is nothing inherently wrong, or evil, with purchasing a firearm across state lines, entering a post office while carrying a firearm, purchasing a firearm without first enduring a background check, or owning an "assault weapon" or magazines capable of hold more than 10 rounds. These activities in and of themselves harm no one; the deed in itself is not immoral.
When one thinks about it, every gun law criminalizes behavior that in and of itself does no harm. Take the Gun Control Act of 1968--which made it illegal for felons to own guns, despite the fact that mere ownership of a gun (or a million guns) by a felon hurts no one.
Since then, as it became clear that simply outlawing possession of firearms by felons wasn't accomplishing much, because being inclined to criminality, they tended to acquire them despite the law, more laws were added to try to stop that acquisition process. So we have background checks. Selling a gun without a background check hurts no one, but without such a check, it's easier for felons to buy guns. Remember that a felon buying a gun is not in and of itself harmful to anyone, either, so now we have two layers of laws against behavior that harms no one.
Now, it's proposed that we close the "private sale 'loophole,'" adding a third layer--now we make it illegal to sell one's own property privately, even though conducting such a sale violates no one's rights, because doing so makes bypassing background checks easier. Bypassing background checks, you'll remember, harms no one, either, but it has to be stopped in order to help make sure that felons don't buy guns. Felons buying guns, remember, is also in and of itself harmless, but since felons tend to be dangerous people, they have to be kept disarmed.
So, to how many layers of laws against behavior that is not, in and of itself, harmful are we to be subjected? Lots, if the Brady Campaign's Dennis Henigan has his way.
Gun shows are a primary venue for these no-check sales. A licensed dealer who was selling at a Texas gun show recently complained, "I have had people that failed background checks, and yet they are carrying guns out of here that they bought from someone else."
According to the "enforce current law" argument, we should allow criminals to exploit this loophole in the background check system, but devote more enforcement resources to tracking down the criminal after he has the gun. Doesn't it make more sense to prevent the no check sales in the first place?
This Spring, in a little over a month's time, over 50 people were killed in mass shootings in the United States. In virtually all of these incidents, the shooter either attacked police officers who already were "enforcing current laws," or the shooter committed suicide after the rampage, strongly suggesting that "more enforcement" would not have deterred him.
By that approach, every gun law is "a good first step" (indeed, those are words you will here at the passage of every gun law). Every such law, even if infallibly enforced, accomplishes nothing on its own--it is simply a tool to make compliance with other laws more easily enforceable.
I've borrowed very heavily from Snyder so far, but now I'm going to venture into territory I've not seen him address. In passing new gun laws--criminalizing heretofore legal behavior--the forcible citizen disarmament lobby creates new classes of criminals. With more gun laws to be broken, there is inevitably more "gun crime."
Henigan succinctly explains what the "gun control" lobby's approach is to more "gun crime"--more gun laws! With the new gun laws, we have yet more "gun criminals," and thus more "gun crime," so the "good first step" (the most recent "first step") must be followed up by a second step (but they won't call it that). And so on ad infinitum.
I've written before about "What the Brady Campaign really wants." The above is how I believe they intend to get there, and I fear that the Supreme Court's Heller decision will prove to be a rather small speed bump in their road, at best.
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: You bet it's personal!
- Austin: Patrick Burris: Are 5 people dead by government?
- Boston: Back door gun control
- Charlotte: Dangers of gun registration: 'The Belgian Corporal'
- Cleveland: Get Inside: Mountain Man Tradin Post
- DC: Sotomayor: latinas, guns, and werewolves
- Denver: The warrior code
- Los Angeles: Will Congress ask Sotomayor my question?
- Minneapolis: Taking to the air in defense of open carry
- National: Where does YOUR attorney general stand on the Second Amendment?
- Seattle: Arizona hiker gets new trial in fatal trailhead shooting
- Wisconsin: Gun rights advocates make progress
Comments
"Crime is crime."
Not really. There's a good reason Kurt doesn't like the term "gun crime"--because if you can ignore a problem, you don't have to address it.
Kurt pretends the nature of a crime has nothing to do with a criminal's "equipment." This will come as a shock to anyone who has ever attended law school or has an IQ above 60. By Kurt's logic, there's absolutly no difference between an assault by wet noodle and an assault using a .45.
I realize it's fun and easy to poke big holes in Kurt's logic but the reality is the law does distinguish crime both on intent and method. In fact, that's why there are over a dozen different charges concerning homicide alone.
And let's face it, how do we determine intent? Well, if I manufacture a 55 gal drum full of ricin--it's a pretty good bet I wasn't looking to kill just my next door neighbor.
Captain Kidd,
Nice horsecrap. Assault with a wet noodle???
So, are you claiming that you have never heard of assault, aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, etc...? We already have laws on the books to deal with criminal attacks with items used to cause harm to other people.
If one is pro gun control then they think that the stronger should be free to do as they wish to the weaker. In other words, by your apparent position, you believe that women, elderly, children, and the infirm are second class citizens who should have no recourse if preyed upon other than being abused and/or killed.
Personally, I believe that a woman standing over the body of her attempted rapist with a smoking gun in her hand is morally superior to a woman who has allowed a rapist to rape and kill her.
Amen Greg.
Gregg: The far more accurate picture is a man using a firearm in order to rape a woman. The fact is, in the vast majority of gun deaths, the victim knew his or her assailant. So your fantasy about a woman standing over her dead rapist is just that--a fantasy.
Well Kidd, if it is a fantasy as you claim, it is because of people like you who prefer that she be raped and murdered, rather than being able to defend herself.
Then you have the gall to use the results of your "designated victim" philosophy as proof that more should be designated.
Your a piece of work, buddy. But quality control must have taken time off in your case.
So - let's address that heinous "gun show loophole" to see just what a red herring it really is.
According to the US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, 0.7% of firearms used by criminals were purchased at gun shows. And that figure includes the "loophole". Once more - 0.7% of firearms used in crimes came from gun shows.
On the other hand, 78.8% of firearms used to commit crime were purchased illegally on the street, or obtained from friends or family members. Clearly we should outlaw families...
Google this phrase to find the statistics page:
"department of justice statistics gun shows"
It's been oft remarked that the First amendment does not grant one the right to cry fire in a crowded theater. By Brady logic we should all therefore submit to having locked gags installed every time we go to the movies to prevent speech crime.
As a separate observation I see a preponderance of news stories where a person under a restraining order commits harm against a woman and sadly sometimes her children. The police are too late to intervene. Only when she or a protector offer armed resistance does she stand a fair chance. And that remains true whether the transgressor is armed with gun, knife, or bare hands.
As the intended victim of a rape/murder, I have to call bullshit, Mr. Kidd. The ONLY thing that stood between me and death at his bare hands was the gun in mine.
I shot him to save my life, and I would do it again without hesitation.
If you wish to become a helpless victim, you are welcome to it. But do NOT attempt to disarm me with your BS. I know better.
The disarmed victim creation lobby needs to continue with their lies, how else will they continue to get a paycheck funded by the gullible?
Some politicians have been fooled by this lobby into thinking that criminals and gangs get their guns at gun shows and gun show parking lots, even citing it as fact, and mentioning numbers!
Yet, with heavy undercover police, and at times, ATF presence at all gun shows, the anti 2nd amendment lobby, the rights infringement lobby, and politicians are unable to cite actual arrest and conviction numbers from these "commonly known" source of illegaly obtained guns.
If you follow the actions of the rights infringement lobby and politicians, you will see that it is not only the 2nd amendment under attack, while doing nothing about true criminals.
"Some politicians have been fooled by this lobby into thinking that criminals and gangs get their guns at gun shows and gun show parking lots, even citing it as fact, and mentioning numbers!"_Hennigan lies.
Absoulutely untrue. I suspect you made such an error out of generosity of spirit, but you are wrong. Those politicians have not been "fooled", they know the truth, but to garner more power and disabuse more citizens of the ability to defend against unfettered power they pretend to believe the lies. Thereby disguising their power grab as "caring" and "doing something". Most people buy into the illusion they create of being mistaken but of good heart, therefore they aren't really the enemies of liberty. To quote someone else, "The greatest trick Satan ever pulled was to convince everyone he did not exist." Well, this is much the same thing. The greatest trick "some" of these politicians have ever pulled is to convince the majority of people that they are not enemies.
Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."
7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
I consider the creation of manipulative laws to ban guns, and to create more "gun crimes" from these new laws therefore to disarm Americans an attack on our "Freedom in America", just as the terrorist attack us on 911. These people who want to disarm law abiding Americans, are a real threat to United States of America.
Once we are disarmed the American people (minus the criminals) America could be invaded by a foreign Army. History has shown we were not invaded after the Pearl Harbor attack because "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Isoroku Yamamoto
Damn, though ain't it funny how they fullfil a duty to elected and unelected officials to provide personal protection for them.
I could buy this crap if the president had to fly commercial if the mayor had to drive himself by himself,well you get the idea.
Of course, our president probably couldn't clear the TSA checkpoint.
Whew! Way to go James. You took it to the next level. Good job! Facts...The other side doesn't know how to use them, because they have none. They rely only on emotion and twisting half truths to meet their needs. I just wished there was a way to get this information to everyone in America. Maybe then the blind could see what kind of mess this country has become.
"History has shown we were not invaded after the Pearl Harbor attack because "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Isoroku Yamamoto"
History shows us 'gun rights' advocates will fabricate quotes. The Yamamoto quote is bogus.
It's clear to me that the founding fathers intended NO restrictions on U.S. citizens owning firearms because #1 As you point out, OWNING something harms no one and is a crime only if some lawmaker legislates it to be so. And #2 The founding fathers evidently knew that once the legal door was opened to restrict (read that "infringe" upon) the citizens' right to "keep and bear arms", there would be no end to it by tyrants dedicated to disarming those citizens.
P.S. My very strong suggestion: Don't banter with the Captain. He just proves that foolishness is like heroin to some people, They become addicted to it.
P.P.S. Thanks, Kurt, for a great article.
AH, so this is where capt. pedobear moved his trolling to.
History has shown that you can't answer a question and flee to pollute another site with lies and the ramblings of a hateful little nothing who wishes to deny people the right to self defense.
Kiddie, you are one sick sad creature.
Look at this: www.shipleylegalfund.com You won't believe your eyes, If a FBI Agent gets busted for dealing firearms, you can be next. ATF does not know the meaning of Dealer or Collector. If your hobby is collecting guns you better read this. Thank you.
Thanks for the information James
Here's another for the list of failed protective orders:
SUSAN H. LACEY, Special Adm’r of the Estate of Mary E. Lacey,
Deceased, Appellee, v. THE VILLAGE OF PALATINE et al.,
Docket Nos. 106353, 106359 cons.
Opinion filed February 20, 2009
What if we don't allow it to happen? Never use the phrase.
Those who get all hot and bothered about the gun show issue being raised here might like to read a recent report "Inside Gun Shows: What Goes on When Everybody Thinks Nobody's Watching" from UC Davis.
It is purported that;
The report features hundreds of photographs and some video that show:
• illegal straw purchases, whereby a surrogate buys from a licensed retailer on behalf of another
• anonymous, undocumented private-party gun sales
• widespread availability of assault weapons, .50-caliber rifles and the parts needed to make untraceable guns
• links between gun shows and the neo-Confederacy movement and neo-Nazism
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!