Unwilling to be locked out of the gun cabinet by Sacramento Democrats, California residents have pushed gun purchases up to record numbers, leaving latecomers to the trend in the lurch. But as the state Legislature added fresh restrictions, developments in the courts painted a murkier picture that could impact interpretations of federal law around the United States. 

Over the course of the year, lawmakers spearheaded a suite of measures designed to further tighten the screws on the California gun market, which has long been subject to progressive constraints. “The new gun control legislation, six bills signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in July, was a boon to 2016 gun sales already on an upward trend,” as the Press Democrat noted. Voters followed on the action by toughening things further at the ballot box: 

“Nearly one million firearms were purchased in California as of Dec. 9, the most recent state data available, compared to just over 700,000 guns sold in all of 2015. Sales have likely soared beyond one million guns since then. Semiautomatic rifle sales have more than doubled. The California Department of Justice reported 364,643 semiautomatic rifles had been sold by Dec. 9. Only 153,931 rifles were sold last year.”

More “assault weapons”

Shoppers have raced to acquire firearms that won’t be available for legal purchase after the raft of new legislation takes effect. “Rifles with bullet buttons for the quick swap of ammunition magazines and other soon-to-be banned features have also skyrocketed,” the San Jose Mercury News reported. “Statewide sales are up 40 percent by early December. The new gun controls reclassified semi-automatic rifles that have certain features as assault weapons. The features added to the prohibited list include a protruding or forward pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a folding stock or a flash suppressor.”

Although rifles with bullet buttons will be banned from sale as a result of their reclassification as so-called assault weapons, it will remain legal to own and possess them. 

A separate front

As has been the case with issues such as immigration and minimum wages, California municipalities have in some instances gotten out ahead of the state on gun control. In San Francisco, a federal appeals court recently agreed that an 11-judge panel would “review a challenge to an Alameda County ordinance that restricts the locations of gun stores in March,” according to CBS San Francisco. “The challenge was filed in 2012 by three businessmen who wanted to open a gun and firearms training store in an unincorporated part of San Leandro that was found by county zoning administrators to be within 500 feet of a residential area.”  

More than just Alameda County law could be at stake, officials quickly argued. “Lawyers for Alameda County said 17 other cities and counties in California regulate the locations of commercial gun dealers, including San Francisco — which has a 1,000-foot buffer zone — as well as Oakland and Contra Costa County,” the San Francisco Chronicle observed. “State Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office said a ruling allowing a constitutional challenge to the local restrictions could also imperil state laws regulating commercial gun dealers’ licensing, inspection, monitoring, storage methods and delivery of firearms.” The Alameda regulation was made law in 1998, but the crux of the controversy will implicate a key part of the most recent landmark gun ruling to come down from the nation’s highest court. As the Chronicle noted, the Alameda case “is one of many pending in federal courts over the meaning of the 2008 Supreme Court decision that declared a constitutional right to possess firearms at home for self-defense.”

The gun control measures signed Friday include strict limits on magazine capacities, add more paperwork for law-abiding gun owners who wish to buy or sell a gun, establish stiffer penalties for law-abiding gun owners who store a gun in a home or storage facility where a child could have access to it, and add a new ban on lead ammunition used by hunters, so that it does not endanger animals.

Lead ammo ban

One of the most controversial bills, AB 711 by Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, will ban lead ammunition in hunting. Many believe this will kill the hunting industry in California.

“Lead poses a danger to wildlife,” Brown said in his signing message. But then, technically, so does hunting.

Animal rights groups, including the Humane Society, and Audubon California, led the crusade for California to be the first state in the nation to kill wild game hunting.

Humane dog-sitting

Jennifer Fearing, the California senior state director of the Humane Society of the United States, apparently lobbied Gov. Brown on AB 711 at the dog park. A recent story in the Sacramento News and Review told how Fearing dog-sits for Sutter Brown, Gov. Jerry Brown's Pembroke Welsh corgi.

“'I had this kind of random idea to take him out on the road for [Proposition] 30,' explains Jennifer Fearing, the Sacramento-based California senior state director of the Humane Society of the United States,” the Sacramento News and Review reported in “How Sutter Brown saved California.”

“Fearing had dog-sat Sutter often, and even escorted him to Los Angeles once for a spay-neuter advocacy event. So last fall, when she wanted the governor’s tax-increase measure to pass, both personally and for her organization, she suggested bringing Sutter into the spotlight.”

While Gov. Brown was considering signing the most comprehensive ammo ban in the country, the Sacramento newspaper published the story about how the California Humane Society lobbyist dog-sits for Gov. Brown's dog.

This could go a long way in explaining how the Humane Society has achieved favored environmental group status than any other environmental group in the last 3 years. It makes sense — their California lobbyist is the free doggy daycare sitter, and former Prop. 30 publicist, using the governor's dog.

But AB 711 was amended at the 11th hour in a secret deal to postpone the effective date until 2019. If, according to the Humane Society, the need for the bill is really over concerns about poisoned Condors, what about the thousands of great birds which will have died by the time the bill finally goes into effect six years from now?

Alas, Brown signed the bill. Perhaps we should blame Sutter Brown.

 Assault weapon bill

“Make no mistake this is the most draconian set of gun control measures in the nation,” said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly in a press statement. “While I am grateful that the Governor vetoed SB 374 (Steinberg), this remains the single greatest assault on the 2nd Amendment in California history.”

“The 2nd Amendment clearly states that no government entity shall infringe on our rights,” said Donnelly.  “I wonder how the millions of lawful gun owners in the State of California feel about having their rights infringed today.”

Brown vetoed SB 374, by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, which would have expanded the definition of “assault weapons” to ban the future transfer of all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines. SB374 would have required new “assault weapon” registration, and the registration of all those semi-auto rifles currently possessed, in order to retain legal possession in the future; and subjects these firearms to all other “assault weapon” restrictions.

Steinberg claimed the bill would have closed a “loophole” in California's assault weapons ban by preventing rapid reloading using replaceable magazines.

“This bill goes much farther than banning any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine,” Brown said in his veto. Brown said he vetoed SB 374 because the bill covered many rifles used in hunting, as well as collectible guns. And, hundreds of thousands of gun owners would have to register their weapons as assault rifles in California, if SB 374 had been signed into law.

“There is no legitimate reason for hunters or sportsmen and women to have battlefield-style rifles that can quickly spray dozens and dozens of rounds through the rapid reloading of detachable magazines,” Steinberg said during the committee hearing process. “These types of weapons have in fact been used in many of the mass killings our country has suffered over the years. In nine out of ten of those mass killings, the shooter had no serious prior criminal history. It’s time to reduce the carnage. It’s time to close the loopholes.”

But Brown disagreed. “I don't think this bill's blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity, or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owner's rights,” Brown said in his veto.

Not for the Democratic supermajority in the California Legislature. More than two dozen gun control bills are being voted on this week. And while lawmakers are making a pretense of having difficulty voting for their passage, the bills are being passed. Several gun control bills have passed out of both houses of the Legislature and already await the governor's signature.

“I don't see anybody switching teams here,” quipped Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, in the busy Assembly gallery Wednesday.

Of the original 40 gun control bills, 29 made it into the committee hearing process.

Senate Bill 396

Critics contend the most restrictive of the gun control bills, SB396 by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, is constitutionally questionable. The bill would retroactively confiscate guns lawfully purchased and owned. SB396 would ban the possession of all standard capacity magazines over 10 rounds, which generally means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The bill language specifies, “Surrender the larger capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.”

“This bill is going to say, if you own a Glock, you're a criminal,” Donnelly said. “By taking away capacity of individuals determined to kill, also takes away capacity for people to defend their own lives. We never hear about the millions of times each year people defend their lives and homes. Why do we in Sacramento believe we have the right to interfere with the right to self defense?”

“I am deeply concerned with taking private property by state government,” said Assemblywoman Marie Waldron, R-Escondido.

“The Constitution says government cannot seize private property,” said Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield. “I just pray to God Jerry Brown is the savior of the Second Amendment in this state.”

The bill failed to pass, 34-33, the first time it was voted on, and could only muster 39-34 on the second vote; 41 votes are needed to pass. Some say Hancock and Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-South Gate, will push for another vote Thursday.

Passed both houses

All the following bills passed both houses of the Legislature.

Senate Bill 374

SB374 by state Senate Pres. Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, expands the definition of “assault weapons” to ban the future transfer of all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines. SB374 requires new “assault weapon” registration; requires the registration of all those semi-auto rifles that are currently possessed in order to retain legal possession in the future; and subjects these firearms to all other “assault weapon” restrictions. The Assembly passed SB374 on Tuesday along party lines, 44-31.

Senate Bill 567

SB 567 by state Sen. Hannah Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, would expand the definition of “short-barreled shotguns” that are illegal to reclassify even handguns shooting “Shot-shells” as shotguns. SB 567 had trouble passing the first time around, but on the second try passed the Assembly, 41-34.

Assembly Bill 48

At a hearing in April, Berkeley Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner said, “bullets are the very thing making guns deadly.” Her AB48 prohibits the sale of gun kits to convert conventional firearms into semi-automatic weapons.

AB48 would also ban the manufacture, sale or import of any device that enables a gun to fire more than 10 rounds at one time. Apparently guns are bad, but bullets are worse.

AB48 originally required dealers selling ammunition to to notify federal and local officials when someone purchases more than 3,000 bullets. “But this gave some heartache,” Skinner said in the Assembly today. “So I took out that part — it's been struck from the bill,” as a nod to hunters and sportsmen.

“The bill allows our assault weapons ban to be in tact,” Skinner explained. “Now legally you can buy and sell conversion kits, so they can shoot many, many more than 10 rounds, and convert your conventional weapon to an assault weapon. Now the bill would make it illegal to purchase or sell the conversion clip kits.”

“This is inviting the government to spy on us becasue we want to exercise our Second Amendment right,” said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia. “We voted to stop filling or jails with those who possess drugs. But now we want to arrest people possessing bullets and metal parts. We are setting ourselves up to become instruments of tyranny. It's just going to turn a whole lot of innocent people into criminals.”

“This bill says any part of a conversion kit makes me a criminal?” said Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Riverside. “I don't think so. We are going back to this timeless discussion on the Assembly floor of reducing crime. 'Assault' is a behavior, not a type of weapon. If they can't do it with a gun, they'll find a way to do it with something else.”

But AB48 was passed, 42-30.

By Katy Grimes

Liberty loving gun rights advocates pushed politicians so hard, the assault weapons ban has been dropped from the gun control legislation in the nation’s Capitol.

Either that or U.S. Senator Harry Reid is running for reelection. Reid announced today his decision to shelve Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban, as the gun control legislation moves forward in the Senate.

“Reid, D-Nev., said he wanted to bring a gun bill to the full Senate that would have enough support to overcome any GOP attempts to prevent debate from even starting,” the Associated Press reported. “He said that ‘using the most optimistic numbers,’ there were less than 40 votes for Feinstein’s ban.”

In a move which is clearly political, Reid recognized that he didn’t have the numbers to pass the assault weapons ban. He probably also heard plenty from the gun lovers in his home state of Nevada.

In the first political move, immediately following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December, Feinstein introduced the new assault weapons ban legislation. The first assault weapons ban was passed in 1994 under President Bill Clinton, but it was allowed to expire in 2004.

Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban included banning ammunition magazines that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Feinstein called these “high-capacity magazine clips.”

“I very much regret it,” Feinstein, D-Calif., told reporters of Reid’s decision. “I tried my best.”

While gun control is not off the table by any measure, this is a solid win for individual liberty. It’s just such a shame Feinstein isn’t listening.

By Katy Grimes

Politicians are nothing if not predictable. With every tragedy, lawmakers seize the opportunity to come up with a solution,  a rule, or another law. But often the new rules don’t quite fit the crime. Facts become fuzzy and manipulations take place.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened with the recent killings at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the Aurora, Colo. movie theater, the Oregon shopping mall and the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

With guns on the chopping block in the United States and the specific challenge to owners of “assault rifles,” there is more smoke and mirrors than fact coming from the media and elected officials. Some are just ignorant of the facts, but others are deliberately disingenuous.

The very term “assault weapons” is dubious, as I explained in “Regulation is the enemy of freedom.” The term was first used by Josh Sugarmann, head of the anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center, “a national educational foundation working to enhance gun control in America.”

“The semi-automatic weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons,” Sugarmann said in 1988.

Ironically, Sugarmann is from Newtown, Conn., where the recent school shooting took place.

Presidental assassinations — a little history

In the history of the U.S. presidency, four presidents have actually died from assassination. Another six survived assassination attempts.

Of the four assassinations,  three were done with simple, legal and small guns. All three, with the exception of John F. Kennedy, was with a small hand gun. Not one of the guns was a large capacity weapon.

Assassinations

Abraham Lincoln – Lincoln was shot in the head while watching a play on April 14, 1865 by John Wilkes Booth, who escaped and was later shot and killed. According to the FBI, the recovered gun was a single-shot pistol — a one-bullet, tiny gun.

James Garfield – Garfield was shot by Charles J. Guiteau, a mentally disturbed government office seeker, and Garfield stalker, on July 2, 1881 with a British Bulldog revolver. This gun is a solid-frame pocket revolver.

William McKinley – McKinley was shot two times by anarchist Leon Czolgosz on September 6, 1901. Czolgosz shot McKinley with a .32 Iver Johnson revolver concealed in a handkerchief in his right hand.

John F. Kennedy –  Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, while riding in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas.  Oswald used a  6.5 mm Carcano rifle.

Today’s attempted gun ban would do nothing to stop any of these killings, nor any of the six attempted Presidential assassinations.

Six presidents survived assassination attempts

“In June 2002, 7 states and the District of Columbia prohibited the concealed carry of handguns,” the GAO reported. “As of March 2012, individuals can carry concealed handguns in all but 1 state (Illinois) and the District of Columbia.”

It is a travesty that members of Congress are not listening to the states, with this dramatic increase of states’ allowing concealed carry permit.

While many believe that Feinstein’s legislation will not make it through the Republican controlled Congress, President Obama has said that he supports this sweeping weapons ban, apparently more than the rights of all Americans under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

By Katy Grimes

A tiny blurb tucked away on page A4 of the Sunday Sacramento Bee today, told about four bloody murders in Oakland on Friday didn’t do the tragic story justice, nor give the whole picture.

Oakland, CA, the city where now-California Governor Jerry Brown was Mayor for eight years, 1999-2007, is rated the third highest violent crime city in the country. Current Mayor Jean Quan has been uncharacteristically quiet about the increasing violence in the Northern California city, particularly after her prominent role in ginning up the Occupy Oakland protests in 2011.

“A bloody six-hour stretch of shootings Friday left four dead in what police say is the deadly results of ongoing battles between ‘several identified groups.’ The surge in violence led an elected official to call on the city  to declare a state of emergency,” the AP reported.

Oakland police report a “sharp spike” in violent crime, with 131 homicides in 2012 — “the most since 2006 when there were 148,” the AP reported. Only 12 days into the new year, there have already been six murders in Oakland.

How quickly many have forgotten the four police officers gunned down in 2009 in Oakland by a guy out on parole. Oakland’s strict gun control laws did nothing to prevent the parolee from illegally obtaining a banned weapon, and then kill the police.

The media was quick to report that the gunman, already known to be a violent parolee with an “extensive criminal history” and wanted on a no-bail warrant, used an “AK-47 assault rifle,” as if the gun was the reason the cops were gunned down. They largely ignored the fact that the gunman was on parole, and banned from using any and all weapons. Had he pointed a rubber band gun at the cops, they could have arrested him.

Thankfully, the gunman was killed… shot, in fact.

But this violent episode led to the anti-gun crowd to call for more gun control, instead of more violent criminal control.

We have the same situation today, with the recent horrific Newtown, Conn. school shootings. Shortly after the shootings, which left 20 little children, and several teachers, dead, U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein, D-California, brought her own gun-control legislation back to life. She proposes controlling who has guns, instead of controlling the mentally ill, well-known gangs and violent criminals which commit the worst of the gun crimes in this country.

It’s not the law-abiding citizens and legal, licensed gun owners gunning people down, or killing cops.

“For restrictive gun laws to gain the public support needed for passage, the public has to be misled, their emotions manipulated, and their fears exploited,” Kurt Hofmann wrote in a 2009 Examiner op ed. “The single greatest obstacle to passage of such laws is an informed public.  The forcible citizen disarmament lobby is well aware of this, of course, and tries to dominate the discussion with its own version of the ‘truth.'”

In one paragraph Hoffman summed up what the gun-control zealots are trying to do.

The proof is that the story of Oakland’s most recent murder-spree, which should have been statewide news, was buried in the Sunday Sacramento newspaper. It should have been on the front page of every California newspaper, and Sunday opinion columns so that citizens could participate in the discussion.

Instead, Feinstein and gun ban lobby, will try to shove her legislation through the House and Senate as fast as possible. And now, Vice President Joe Biden even threateningly intimated that President Barack Obama will sign an Executive Order to ban many guns.

Oakland is hardly the Wild West, but perhaps if more law-abiding citizens had weapons for protection, fewer of their innocent children would be killed.

By Katy Grimes

When the 1994 federal assault weapons ban was signed into law, it was a reaction to a horrific act of violence. The resulting law regulated certain semiautomatic weapons and large ammunition magazines.

The law was allowed to expire in 2004, but not everyone was happy about it.

With the recent school shooting in Newtown, Conn. still fresh in the news, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., seized the opportunity to reintroduce the legislation banning certain weapons, but this time, made it far more stringent.

1994 assault-weapons ban — then and now

Adam Eisgrew was Senator Feinstein’s counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1993 to 1995 and worked on the original weapons ban bill. He recently wrote about the 1994 assault-weapons ban and Feinstein’s proposed 2013 legislation in the New York Times:

“The bill had three main components. The first was a list of well-known, deeply feared guns that were banned by name (like Uzis). The second banned the future manufacture and sale of any new semiautomatic weapon with a detachable magazine and more than two of several assault-style features (like a forward handgrip). The third and most critical section was Appendix A, which listed every single hunting rifle and shotgun in use at the time — there were hundreds — that didn’t run afoul of the features test in the second component. Those firearms were unequivocally exempted from the bill.”

Eisgrew advocates for making the new assault-weapons ban stronger in the light of the Newtown shootings.

“If we want to reimpose a permanent assault-weapons ban and restrict high capacity ammunition magazines, let’s include a new list of exempted rifles and shotguns used for recreational shooting in a new Appendix A (updated annually) and actively solicit input from the shooting community to make it work.”

Proposed legislation

On Jan. 22, Feinstein will formally introduce her new legislation, a much more sweeping bill than the last, and more stringent than any previously proposed legislation banning weapons. Second Amendment defenders characterize it as “a firebomb.”

Last week Vice President Joe Biden, who is heading a presidential task force on gun control, “guaranteed” sweeping legislation would be passed by the end of January.

If Feinstein’s legislation is any indication, many are saying that up to 75 percent of all handguns currently in circulation would be banned, along with 50 percent of all long guns and with anything that looks like a military-style weapon.

Gun owners would undergo a six-month license application process to keep existing AR-15s and other automatic weapons, have to be fingerprinted and undergo a background check by the FBI.

Summary of legislation

Here is a summary of the legislation as posted on Feinstein’s website:

1. Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

* 120 specifically-named firearms;

* Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and

* Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

2. Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

* Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;

* Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and

* Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.

3. Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

4. Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

* Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;

* Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and

* Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

5. Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

* Background check of owner and any transferee;

* Type and serial number of the firearm;

* Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;

* Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and

* Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

By Katy Grimes

Despite a recent report by the  Federal Bureau of Investigation which found that violent crime decreased in 2011, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein released a summary of her legislation to ban assault weapons.

Yet Feinstein said her goal is to introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devises. “Military style” merely means scary looking guns.

Gun sales up, injuries down

The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which records each time someone buys a gun, showed that background checks hit a record high of 16.5 million in 2011. Gun sales have been steadily on the rise.

A recent report from the California Attorney General found that the more guns that have been sold in California, the fewer gun deaths and injuries there have been.  According to figures compiled by department officials, gun dealers sold nearly 600,000 guns last year, almost double the 350,000 sold in 2002.

And gun-related injuries and deaths have gone down.

According to hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health, the number of California hospitalizations due to gun injuries fell by nearly 4,000 a year to approximately 2,900, a drop of about 25 percent, the Sacramento Bee reported.

The attorney general’s office reported that the number of deaths from firearms fell from 3,200 a year to about 2,800, an 11 percent decline, according to California health department figures.

“Most of the drop in firearm-related injuries and deaths can be explained by a well-documented, nationwide drop in violent crime,” the Bee reported.

Despite this data, Feinstein still plans to introduce stricter gun ownership legislation.

Here is the Summary from Feinstein’s website. Read it carefully, and notice the much broader definition of “assault weapons”:

Summary of 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Legislation

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

• 120 specifically-named firearms
• Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
• Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
• Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
• Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

• Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
• Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes
• Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

• Background check of owner and any transferee
• Type and serial number of the firearm
• Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint
• Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law
• Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

By Katy Grimes

Within minutes of the most recent Colorado and Wisconsin massacres, breathless reporters and opportunistic lawmakers began calling for more gun control laws.  In their haste for politically correct stories, and with visions of legacy legislation dancing in their heads, they neglected to ask the right questions — questions about the nut jobs who committed these heinous crimes.

National media asked how and why James Holmes had the guns he used in the Colorado theater shooting, instead of asking how and why a graduate student would shoot up a theater.  For the media, it was all about the guns he toted, and the tactical gear he wore, not about the man who made the decision to kill.

The guns didn’t kill the people in the theater. The guns did not slay the members of the Seik temple; deranged men made the decisions to kill.

Members of the media and politicians should be asking how these two obviously deranged men were living alongside normal, ordinary people.

Guns don’t kill people; crazy people kill other people.

The weekend following the shooting, the Denver Post reported that the the Colorado Bureau of Investigation approved background checks for 2,887 people to purchase a firearm; a 43 percent increase over just the previous weekend, and a 39 percent increase over the first weekend in July.

All of America sees similar spikes in gun purchases after such violent tragedies.

But if guns are so dangerous, why then do ordinary people purchase make gun purchases immediately after the senseless murders of innocents?

Harvard study

A Harvard study found that that the oft-repeated notion that more guns in the hands of ordinary citizens means more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths, is full of “misconceptions and  factual error, and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.”

After Russia forced a complete disarmament of its people in the 1960-1970’s, the Harvard study showed that “manifest  success  in  keeping  its  people  disarmed  did  not  prevent  the  Soviet  Union  from  having  far  and  away  the  highest  murder  rate  in  the  developed  world.  In  the  1960s  and  early  1970s,  the  gun‐less  Soviet  Union’s  murder  rates  paralleled  or  generally  exceeded  those of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply  declined,  however,  Russian  murder  increased  so  drastically  that  by  the  early  1990s  the  Russian  rate  was  three  times higher  than  that  of  the  United  States.  Between  1998‐2004  (the  latest  figure  available  for  Russia),  Russian  murder  rates  were  nearly four  times  higher  than  American  rates.  Similar  murder  rates  also characterize  the  Ukraine,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  and  various other  now‐independent  European  nations  of  the  former  U.S.S.R.”

Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland’s murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe.

Wrong focus

With the Colorado shooting, the media obsessed over how and why gun control laws need to change, since James Holmes had such an arsenal.

But no one asked how Holmes, an unemployed graduate student, could afford the arsenal he had, or the expensive tactical gear he wore. The national media instead focused solely on the guns — an AR 15, a 12-gauge shotgun, and two .40 caliber Glock handguns.

“The suspect in the mass theater shooting availed himself of an unregulated online marketplace that allows consumers to acquire some of the tools of modern warfare as if they were pieces of a new wardrobe,” the Huffington Post reported.

Now the Internet is to blame. Expect to see new legislation prohibiting the online purchase of ammunition.

The HuffPo writer then interviewed several gun enthusiasts about the process for acquiring weapons and ammo and tactical gear, but offered no suggestion anywhere in the story that Holmes is to blame for his psychotic rampage.

Weapons bans don’t work

Using facts and data, the Harvard study easily debunks the cry for bans on assault weapons as the answer to violent crime.

During the two decades that Britain was making lawful firearms ownership increasingly difficult, more than 25 states in the U.S. passed  laws  allowing  responsible  citizens  to  carry  concealed handguns.  There  are  now  40  states  where  qualified  citizens  can obtain a handgun permit.

“As a result, the number of U.S.  citizens  allowed  to  carry  concealed  handguns  in  shopping malls,  on  the  street,  and  in  their  cars  has  grown  to  3.5  million men  and  women,” the study found.”

Economists  John  Lott  and  David  Mustard have  suggested  that  these  new  laws  contributed  to  the  drop  in homicide  and  violent  crime  rates.  Based  on  25  years  of  correlated  statistics  from  all  of  the  more  than  3,000  American  counties,  Lott  and  Mustard  concluded  that the adoption  of  these  statutes has  deterred  criminals  from  confrontation  crime  and  caused murder  and  violent  crime  to  fall  faster  in  states  that  adopted this policy than in states that did not.”

Gun ownership, homicide and suicide

The Harvard researchers found that the comparison of “homicide  and  suicide  mortality  data for  thirty‐six  nations, including  the  United  States, for  the  period  1990–1995”  to gun  ownership  levels  showed  “no  significant  (at  the  5 percent level)  association  between  gun  ownership  levels  and  the  total  homicide  rate.”  Consistent  with  this  is  a  later  European study  of  data  from  21  nations  in  which  “no  significant  correlations  [of  gun  ownership  levels]  with  total  suicide  or  homicide  rates were  found.”

The  determinants of murder and suicide are social, economic, and  cultural  factors, not  the  prevalence  of  available weaponry. But this is an uncomfortable subject for politicians who avoid discussions of personal responsibility.

Gun ownership does not drive someone to kill himself, or others.

“In  this  connection, recall that the American jurisdictions which have the highest violent  crime rates are precisely those with the most stringent gun controls,” the Harvard researchers reported.

There is also a pattern of violence in most violent crimes. Ninety percent of adult murderers have adult criminal records, with an average adult criminal career of six years or more, including four major adult felony arrests. We need to take the recidivist out of society, rather than removing the guns. It is the social, economic, and  cultural  factors, which determine the criminal mind, and not the weapon of choice.

The SUV does not cause car accidents.

Murder rates soar after gun bans

Gun controls actually encourage  crime  by  depriving  victims of the means of self‐defense, the Harvard study found. And the researchers found that the explanation of this correlation  is most likely political rather than criminological: “Jurisdictions  afflicted  with  violent crime  tend  to  severely  restrict  gun  ownership.  This,  however,  does  not  suppress  the  crime, for  banning  guns  cannot alleviate the  socio‐cultural  and  economic  factors  that  are  the real determinants of  violence and  crime rates.”

Ordinary people and guns

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the  rubric that  murders mostly involve ordinary  people who kill because they  have access to  a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well  increase where people have  ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.

And that’s the rub–media and gun control activists pushing for gun bans are operating from pure emotion and ignorance. The bumper sticker, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” is accurate.

Studies show that more than half of the guns used by 18-24-year-olds were purchased illegally from middle men. How would a gun ban prevent this?

There is no evidence to support the notion that, if there were more guns available, the murder and suicide rates would be higher; and in fact, the Harvard study proves just the opposite.

Gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive. Guns owned by private, ordinary owners have deterred far more crimes than they have assisted.