The Election and Gun Control

So overall this election was good for the Second Amendment. The anti-gunners know it, so they are focusing on what little they have. Let’s start with the silly:

NYAGV NH

Yes Shaheen is anti-gun, but so was Scott Brown. This is not a gun control victory, this is a failure of pro-gun New Hampshire to protect it’s own interests in the primaries. Now New Hampshire and guns are often off the radar. While everybody talks about states that have gone pro-gun in my lifetime like Texas and Florida among others, places like Northern New England never bought into the anti-gun push in the 60s and 70s and have just ALWAYS been pro-gun. Really Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire make Texas and Florida look like California when it comes to guns, but since Texas and Florida voters likely witnessed, or were party to the pro-gun fight in the 90s, they still see how quickly we can lose our rights. People of Northern New England seem to take for granted the fact that you can simply walk into a store, or over to a friend’s house and buy a gun. Vermont has NEVER had a carry permit system, nor a restriction on carry, and New Hampshire and Maine simply ask you to take a few simple steps to get your permit. If you don’t carry in these states it is simply because you personally choose not to. Also so-called “Assault Weapons” have never been on the table as anything but “guns” in these states. Sadly these states are going to have to lose rights before we all see how REALLY pro-gun they are.

Now onto Washington and their passing of I594. It’s a terrible law. The antis claim it makes the laws more like they are here in Massachusetts, where there are no private sales, but it goes deeper than that. Minus a few poorly-worded exceptions, you cannot HANDLE a gun that doesn’t directly belong to you before paying an FFL for a NICS check. That includes range-trips, or even looking at that interesting gun in the gun safe.

Before I dig deeper, let’s look at this interesting press release from the Brady Campaign:

Law will save lives. Shows strong national momentum after Sandy Hook.

This is their lead! It is NOTHING but lies. No, this law will not save a single life, but we’ll talk about that in a bit. Also this is a local initiative, the anti-gun lobby has attempted laws similar to this on the national scene, and failed miserably. Given that ALL of their support was Democrat, and now there are less of those, their hope of “national momentum” is dashed.

In the only place where guns were directly on the ballot this election day, Washington state voters overwhelmingly passed Initiative 594 to expand background checks to all gun sales, including online and at gun shows.

First, let’s give credit where due, it was a 20 point victory. Pro-gun attempts to crush this initiative were CRUSHED. I don’t want to claim anything else on that. They didn’t “Cheat”, they didn’t “Steal” or “Buy” this, they won, and they deserve credit for that. Of course they WHERE dishonest, this is NOT about online gun sales or gun shows, this is about HANDLING a gun that doesn’t belong to you.

The bottom line is this law will save lives. Washingtonians should sleep better tonight knowing that their state will be a safer place thanks to expanded Brady background checks,” said Brady Campaign President Dan Gross.

The organization issued a report, Washington State Officers Attacked, Ambushed & Killed by Armed Criminals, which showed that there are 39 percent fewer law enforcement officers killed by firearms in states with expanded background checks. In addition, states that have expanded background checks show 38 percent fewer women killed by intimate partners. Washington was the only state in the country where background checks were voted on directly by citizens this election day.

No this law will NOT save lives. First up, the idea that police officers face much danger at all from guns is political grandstanding. Being a police officer in this country is one of the safer jobs. Construction workers, fire fighters, fishermen, machinists, miners, among many others face FAR greater danger in their jobs than police. Further if and officer is going to be killed or injured, it’s going to be in a traffic accident.

Also the idea that abusive domestic partners are going to be affected by this law is laughable. If they have a protection order against them in ANY state, they can’t touch a gun, meaning this is “One more law”, further for the domestic partners killed by gunfire (again for anti-gun people only “Gun Death” seems to count) how many of those killers ALREADY OWNED THE GUN????

Gun control supporters don’t give a rat’s ass about domestic violence. They want to ban guns, and if a wife gets shot by an abusive husband, or a domestic partnership ends violently that is NOTHING more than political fodder from them. Remember the anti-gun forces are AGAINST a woman being threatened by an abusive partner getting a gun for protection. Also they don’t care a wit about a woman beaten to death in her own home, because that isn’t politically useful.

Brady President Dan Gross went on to say, “Today’s great success in Washington confirms what we already knew, that the American public, in every state of this nation, overwhelmingly supports expanding background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people.

Can you cite any way this will keep guns “out of the hands of criminals”? I live in Massachusetts, and to LEGALLY own a gun, you need to take a safety course, pay money, and wait for a permit, then you have some very limited avenues to legally buy a gun. Of course criminals don’t care about legality, so they simply steal them, hire a straw buyer, or buy the guns off the black market.

How will Washington be any different?

Of course this law will put MORE guns in the hands of “Criminals”. Take an NRA Basic pistol course, and the instructor becomes a felon for supplying guns for the class. Friends become criminals by going out shooting and trying all the guns. Concerned friends become criminals when they give a lend a scared friend a gun in case that stalker decides to attack them.

Of course that’s the anti-gun initiative, make ALL gun owners criminals, and confiscate the guns!

“Make no mistake, this is a huge victory for the gun violence prevention movement and for every American who wants to live in a safer nation. It is the first direct vote in years to show exactly where the American people really stand on the gun violence issue. Most importantly, it is an inspiring indication of things to come, as we work to ‘finish the job’ and expand lifesaving Brady background checks to all gun sales nationwide,” said Gross.

First up, again, Brady has Less supporters in public office than every before, they will not expand laws nation wide. It’s a political impossibility, but it’s nice for them to tip their hand on the fact that they are not truly happy with a law in JUST Washington, or a few other known anti-gun enclave states.

So let’s get down to brass tacks here and talk about this law moving forward. First up, my condolences to all gun owners, and people interested in firearms in Washington state, you have a tough road ahead, and don’t interpret any of my following reflections on me taking this terrible defeat lightly.

First up, Joe notes the law is likely illegal. I don’t think this law will pass legal muster either nationally or in Washington. This is infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, and a tax on gun ownership. So a court challenge is a possibility. Trust me, people of Washington, as a man living in a state with directly illegal gun laws, I know the glacial speed of the courts.

Also despite the Brady Camp talking about police officers, cops don’t actually support this law. Now this reminds me of what’s happening in Colorado. Again a state get’s ambushed by Bloomberg’s authoritarian wishes, and the police know that A) it is nearly impossible to enforce, and B) They might be committing a criminal act by enforcing such a law in a state that recognizes the right to keep and bear arms.

Now I don’t like this side of it. Great that people in Colorado, and likely Washington will be ignoring this stupid law with the blessing of the police, but I see it as similar to the states that have various marijuana laws. Yeah, you may have a prescription for weed, or may have bought it at a state-recognized and licensed dispensary. Yeah the federal government may have said they aren’t going to crack down on these violations of federal drug law. You’re STILL committing a crime, and you have exactly ZERO defense if you find yourself in court on drug or weapons charges.

Still like marijuana laws, this disregard to terrible mallum prohibitum laws shows that it is on shaky ground to begin with.

Now let’s look at the national scene. Overall for the nation I see this as GOOD! What was the turning point of the gun control debate in America? It was the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. People got hurt and attacked, and they fought back. This law will be a rallying cry and social experiment on the failures of gun control.

It just sucks that the people of Washington have to live with it for the time being.

What do you think?

This entry was posted in Guns, Politics, Safety. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Election and Gun Control

  1. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    I think that all gun banners are scofflaws. They don’t like the obvious and historically supported meaning of the Second Amendment, so they want to weasel around it, and sound all self-righteous about doing so. A pox on them. The same bunch seem equally contemptuous of the rest of the Bill of Rights; they are quite willing to invoke it when it suits them, but let THEIR ox be gored, and suddenly they see all kinds of exceptions.

    I believe, and the historical record seems to back me, that the intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the common citizens had easy access to military grade firearms. I think that it CAN be argued that this is a bad idea (though I don’t agree). What I don’t believe can be argued is that it doesn’t apply to M-16’s, or .50 cal anti-material rifles, because “the founders didn’t envision them”. Did the founders envision fully automatic weapons, of heave caliber rifles capable of killing at long distance? To quote the movie S.O.B. “Is Batman a transvestite? Who knows?”. But the founders did envision the necessity of adjusting the Constitution; they provided a mechanism for Amendment. If you think that a provision of the Constitution or its Amendments needs correction, you need to moot another Amendment. If you are not prepared to do so, you are a scofflaw.

    I have had neighbors who apparently could not back down their driveways without jumping the curb or hitting something like a mailbox. The idea that they had a natural right to own a fully automatic weapon (which is how I interpret the Amendment) is a little alarming. But a great deal more alarming is the idea that a large swath of Politically Active types do not see themselves are constrained by the Constitution, and by extension any lesser laws. Nitwit neighbors doubtless do cause deaths, but out of control governments cause orders of magnitude more.

  2. Pingback: A telling quote from the anti-rights activists behind I-594 | Ordnancecorner's Weblog

  3. TS says:

    The organization issued a report, Washington State Officers Attacked, Ambushed & Killed by Armed Criminals, which showed that there are 39 percent fewer law enforcement officers killed by firearms in states with expanded background checks.

    How about overall murder rates? Or violent crime? Does this law not make you safer unless you are wearing a badge? It is patently obvious when they have to look at subsets of murder to show a correlation it’s because the overall correlation is not there- like women only killed by intimate partners, or police shooting deaths per state, which is so small a number that many states have zero in a given year (seriously there were only 30 of these nationwide in 2013 and they are trying to use that stat to draw correlation with the handful of states that ban private sales).

    But here’s my idea for Washington gun owners to punish other Washington gun owners who voted for this piece of billshit. It works especially nice when they are related to you. It goes like this:

    2A Advocate: “Hey, cuz, I heard you bought a new Beretta. Can I check it out?”

    “Reasonable” leftist gun owner: “Yeah, it’s awesome. I can’t wait to shoot some trap with it. Here, let me open up the safe.”

    2A Advocate: “Sweet. Yeah, it’s beautiful. I’ve always wanted one of these. Thanks, man. That’s real generous of you. I don’t know what to say.”

    “Reasonable” leftist gun owner: “Ha! Yeah, right.”

    2A Advocate: “No seriously, you just gifted it to me. Otherwise you committed a crime and I’m going to have to call the cops on you.”

    “Reasonable” leftist gun owner: “Nuh uh”

    2A Advocate: “What, you didn’t read that garbage you voted for? You believed the Seattle Times when you read how ‘reasonable’ it is?”

    “Reasonable” leftist gun owner: “Just give me the damn gun back.”

    2A Advocate: “Oh hell no! Then I would be committing a crime too because this wouldn’t be considered a bona fide gift then, and we both just illegally transferred a gun. I’ll be damned if I’m going to do time for you because you thought this bill was so ‘reasonable’. Look, I got about $500 I could give you- but that would be a crime too! The only transfer between relatives exempted from having to go through an FFL is for ‘bona fide gifts’- not sales, not loans, not even ‘hey, check out my new gun’. My hands are tied, bro. It’s either I take this gun home with me, or I call the cops- because I am a law abiding gun owner. Well… unless you want to get gay married.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.