Image via Pixabay
Gun rights activists are in the fight of their lives. While there have been some wins in the last year or so, there have been a whole lot of setbacks. Perhaps the worst is that Democrats are once again emboldened to pursue anti-gun legislation, something they’d learned was a losing cause a while back. Now, we’re back at it.
Those who want to restrict gun ownership, however, aren’t getting an easy fight. Nor should they.
You see, there are some facts about violence in the United States–the reason typically cited for why we need gun control–that will keep anti-gunners awake at night.
As emotions morph from grief to anger to resolve, it is vitally important to supply facts so that policymakers and professionals can fashion solutions based on objective data rather than well-intended but misguided emotional fixes.
Are there ways to reduce gun violence and school shootings? Yes, but only after objectively assessing the facts and working collaboratively to fashion commonsense solutions.
Here are eight stubborn facts to keep in mind about gun violence in America:
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
- Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.
- The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings.
- A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
- Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.
- Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
- There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
- Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
- Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.
Each of these facts is firmly based on empirical data. Here’s a deeper look.
It’s also worth noting that the trend for violent crime decreasing tends to correspond to the liberalization of gun laws throughout the nation. While correlation doesn’t equal causation, if the claims of gun control activists had any merit, we’d see the opposite.
The fact of the matter is that violence is a complicated problem. Trying to separate gun violence from other forms of violence is pointless. No one feels better that their loved one was stabbed to death. Focusing on a tool used does nothing to combat the underlying issues, issues we only barely understand.
Every solution proposed by anti-gunners is the simple idea that if we somehow restrict law-abiding citizens from owning guns, we’ll somehow make the problem go away.
That’s not how it works.
If any of these people want to combat violent crime, then they’d at least be willing to talk about other potential solutions. After all, those eight facts show that the problem isn’t guns.
Yet practically none of them do. It’s like they want violence to continue or something.
The post Eight Facts That Will Keep Gun Grabbers Up At Night appeared first on Bearing Arms.
AP Photo/Lisa Marie Pane
Switzerland is one of the most gun-friendly nations in Europe. It has one of the highest rates of gun ownership per capita on the continent, and those numbers are probably skewed low because many households contain guns technically owned by the military as veterans keep their service weapons at home for rapid call-up purposes. (I haven’t been able to find a definitive answer as to whether those weapons are counted or not.)
Switzerland also isn’t part of the European Union.
However, the country does enjoy a good relationship with the EU. That relationship is threatened right now because the EU wants Switzerland to put tougher gun laws in place or else find its easy access to the rest of Europe cut off.
Now, the nation is set to vote on whether it should adopt new gun control measures, and opponents of the move are invoking a folk hero known for shooting tyrants.
In the eyes of rifle lover Andre Maury, centuries of tradition are under threat.
The 63-year-old is president of Geneva’s historic shooting club, housed in a gray stone building at the center of town. Sporting a blue sweatshirt emblazoned with the founding year — 1474 — he says shooting is a sport that requires autonomy and a willingness to stick to the rules. Those qualities are emblematic for Switzerland, whose folk hero William Tell, an expert marksman, launched a rebellion against foreign rule.
So it’s little surprise that Maury and his compatriots are up in arms about new restrictions, initiated by the European Union, on large-magazine semi-automatic guns. They’re looking to challenge them via a referendum on Sunday.
“It’s a bit like if we were to say today we’ll make it tougher to get a drivers’ license to prevent people from driving without a permit,’’ he said in an interview, before giving a tour of the club’s red damask-covered great hall.
A lot of this sounds like it could be taking place here in the United States.
A survey found that 52 percent of Swiss voters favor new restrictions, but 47 percent say they don’t, with one percent unsure. That’s well within the typical margin of error for a poll. Further, much of the support for the new gun restrictions have more to do with trade and tourism than any security concerns.
You see, Switzerland has ridiculously low crime despite its firearm ownership rate. There’s no perceived need for enacting gun control due to criminal activity because there’s not much of it.
Instead, the European Union is threatening to close the open-border policy between Switzerland and the rest of the continent. That means those who commute to and from Switzerland would have to deal with a passport check and may make the nation less attractive to European tourists. That’s likely to create some economic problems for the country.
Despite that, it seems the Swiss aren’t willing to roll over. A lot of them, at least.
Yes, the polls indicate a lot of support for the new measures, but not as much as we here in the U.S. might have thought. The legacy of William Tell–a Swiss folk hero who was known for his marksmanship–is still alive.
The post Swiss Activists Invoke William Tell In Their Defiance Of Potential Gun Rules appeared first on Bearing Arms.
Image via Pixabay
Once upon a time, YouTube represented the best of what the internet can be. Anyone could post anything they wanted, and you could go and watch videos on pretty much anything.
Sure, they were crappy videos most of the time–something that, in fairness, hasn’t changed all that much–but it was like almost anything that wasn’t porn was fair game.
Then YouYube became big business. People started making money on the platform. As a result, YouTube figured it had a say in who could make that money. After all, it calls the shots, right?
Over the last few years, gun channels have come under fire from YouTube, though. Firearm YouTubers have had to take the blame for mass shooting after mass shooting, all despite the fact that no evidence has been presented that any of these people had anything to do with gun YouTubers.
But it doesn’t matter. The platform’s cracking down yet again.
In pertinent part, the email reads (emphasis added):
We want to help keep people safe both online and offline, so we don’t allow the promotion of weapons-related content that may lead to damage, harm, or injury. For this reason, ads may not be placed on videos that feature modified, 3D-printed or DIY weapons and ammunition, or provide instruction on how to obtain any of these. Videos that facilitate the sale of firearms or their modifications or otherwise provides instruction on how to obtain or build them are no longer monetizable on YouTube.
Furthermore, videos featuring firearm use can only take place in appropriately safe and controlled environments such as shooting ranges in order to monetize. You may not monetize videos depicting improper usage of guns. For more information please visit: https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/1348688?hl=en#Weapon-related_content
Now, you can remove these if you wishes to run ads on your videos, so we can take another review on your videos.
Hope to hear from you soon.So, YouTube appears to have informally implemented a new, unspoken policy (i.e., I could not find this in the content guidelines) whereby it will demonetize videos which aren’t shot in a “controlled environment” such as a “shooting range.”This raises a lot of questions, not the least of which is:
- How does YouTube determine what usage is improper? Is there someone at YouTube with proper training on safe gun handling who will implement these policies?*
- How will they know when someone is in a “controlled environment” or not, and who has the authority to reach that conclusion?
- Is a shooting range, in fact, safer and more “controlled” than the creator’s private property such that this policy needs to be implemented, to begin with?
- WHAT IS A MODIFIED WEAPON?
- Who do you think you are?
- What gives you right?
Now, again, it’s YouTube’s site. It can do what it wants.
However, there’s a question that needs to be answered by YouTube and other social media companies: Are they publishers or platforms?
You see, there’s a legal distinction between the two. Stephen Crowder has talked about it on his show, and he’s got a vested interest in the discussion, but it’s a fair question.
You see, a publisher is responsible for the content on its network. It can be sued for defamatory content, but it also is allowed to essentially censor content as well for any reason it wants. (I use the term “censor,” but that’s not to imply that I’m saying it’s censorship as most of us think of the term. No government is censoring. Private entities can censor, as in this instance.) It gets the power to censor as it wishes, but because it does, it’s responsible for everything published.
A platform, however, bears no responsibility for what is done on its network. In a recent video, Crowder used the example of a cell phone company. The cell phone company isn’t responsible for what transpires on its network. On the other hand, it doesn’t get to decide what is discussed on its networks, either.
YouTube and other social media companies have enjoyed some of the best of both worlds, and that’s a problem.
You see, these social media giants routinely censor content. Anyone who has had posts yanked from Facebook has been witness to this. It dictates content all the time, much like a publisher. However, it also hides behind the shield of being a platform.
In this case, YouTube is carving an exclusionary policy to hurt gun channels, thus trying to massage what content is being produced. That’s the act of a publisher, not a platform. If YouTube is going to be a publisher, that means it’s responsible for defamatory statements made on the platform, and there have been a ton of them. After all, something like 300 hours is uploaded to YouTube every minute. If YouTube’s going to be a publisher, that means it needs to check all of that for any potentially defamatory content.
I’m sure that’s a road it doesn’t want to go down.
The other side of that, however, is to be a platform and make it clear that you aren’t going to censor videos in any way, shape, or form and that trying to do so means you also have to control every other video being uploaded to some degree.
That means leaving gun channels the hell alone.
AP Photo/Carlos Osorio File
Medical marijuana is legal in several states. People can obtain it and use it and not worry about the cops busting down their door. They’re complying with local and state laws, after all.
However, marijuana is still illegal at a federal level. This can create some…complications.
One Minnesota medical marijuana patient is trying to deal with one of those complications right now. In particular, he’s trying to get his right to keep and bear arms restored.
Patrick McClellan was on the front lines in the fight to make medical cannabis legal in Minnesota. He was one of the first to be issued a medical card to use marijuana. He says it helps him live with a rare form of muscular dystrophy.
McClellan is fighting mad. After years of fighting for Minnesota to legalize medical cannabis, he was surprised to learn his effort made it illegal for him to own a gun.
“When I wanted to sign up for the class, the instructor told me that I could not take the class when I revealed I’m a medical cannabis patient,” McClellan said.
Federal law prohibits any person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance from shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition. Marijuana is listed in the Controlled Substance Act as a Schedule I controlled substance, and there is no exception in federal law when used for medical purposes.
I’m sympathetic, but I also have to point out that the prohibition isn’t anything new. It’s been there for a while, and there’s been a number of other cases where people had their Second Amendment rights taken when they took on the role of medical marijuana patient.
However, the effort now appears to be something that would make a difference and not just for McClellan but medical marijuana patients throughout the nation.
They’re hoping to get marijuana downgraded from a Schedule I controlled substance–which means it has no legal medical use–to a Schedule II. As a Schedule II, it would technically be legal to be prescribed at the federal level, even if individual states still ban it. That would mean patients in states that have legalized it would then be able to maintain their Second Amendment rights.
This solves a ton of issues, especially for people in rabidly anti-gun states who love to use this as a pretext for gun confiscation. It will rob those states of their pretext, which is enough reason alone to want to see this change made.
Medical marijuana patients are obeying the laws of their communities but are being denied their constitutionally-protected rights. While few support the idea of drug addicts buying guns, the laws designed to prevent this are also keeping law-abiding citizens–and they are–from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
That needs to change. I get the law, and I get the court rulings upholding governments acting against medical marijuana patients, but this is getting ridiculous.
The post Medical Marijuana Patient Fights To Restore Gun Rights appeared first on Bearing Arms.
AP Photo/Lynne Sladky
Despite having some of the toughest gun laws in the country, Illinois played host to a deadly mass shooting in an Aurora, Illinois warehouse when a former employee came in and shot up the place. An additional spotlight on the state came into play when it was learned that the killer was a convicted felon who followed all of the state’s requirements to purchase a handgun, including obtaining a Firearm Owners Idenficitaion card.
Now, lawmakers are scrambling to close whatever loophole allowed the killer to arm himself in the first place.
Only, they’re not.
What’s happening is that they’re using the shooting and the hysteria around it, to justify further encroachment into the gun rights of law-abiding Illinois residents.
State Rep. Kathleen Willis (D-Northlake) is backing Senate Bill 1966. Willis said the bill comes in response to the Henry Pratt workplace shooting at an Aurora factory which resulted in the death of five employees. Several responding police officers were also injured.
“We were shown the glaring need for this legislation earlier this year when a man who should never have been allowed to obtain a firearm killed five people and wounded seven more – including our brave first responders,” said Willis. “A serious approach to keeping our communities safe starts with properly enforcing gun safety laws. This bill makes it clear that we are serious about keeping guns out of the wrong hands.”
The legislation would close so-called background check loopholes, institute universal background checks, require all gun sales to happen through licensed dealers, increase the period for approving or denying gun owner licenses to 90 days and allow for cancellations, require mandatory fingerprinting for all gun owner applications and renewals, and increase information sharing about prohibited gun owners or gun revocations among police.
It should be noted, yet again, that the Aurora killer passed all of his background checks before buying his firearm. Not just the FOID check, but also the NICS check performed by the gun store that sold him the weapon. It wasn’t that the check didn’t come back, so they sold the gun. No, he passed the check.
So why this push?
Easy. Willis and her cohorts know and understand that not everyone has access to a facility to apply for a FOID. Currently, they can do so online. By requiring fingerprinting, they remove that option completely. That means it will become virtually impossible for some Illinois residents to legally purchase a firearm without traveling at their own expense to the nearest facility, which could be a goodly distance away.
That means an increase in the expense for these people to legally purchase a firearm. Once again, that creates an undue burden on the poor, like a lot of other recent anti-gun proposals.
The thing is anti-gun lawmakers don’t care. They don’t care about anyone’s Second Amendment rights. All they care about is putting controls in place so that gun ownership becomes untenable so they can brag about how they’re “doing something” about Chicago’s problems with violence.
Meanwhile, violence will continue unabated because nothing being proposed will stop it, nothing at all.
Nor will it stop the next Aurora, either.
The post Illinois Bills Show Anti-Gun Knee-Jerk Reactionism appeared first on Bearing Arms.
AP Photo/Michael Conroy
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is one of the longest-shots for president getting media attention right now. The only other long shot I can think of is the mayor of Miramar, Florida, who seems to think he has a chance. Anyway, Buttigieg is running and is getting at least some media attention, enough so that one can’t rule him out as a candidate completely.
The fact that he’s following Sen. Cory Booker’s lead on guns, however, just might.
After months of mounting criticism for lacking policy specifics, Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg has finally fleshed out his position on 27 different issues with a new issues page on his website, divided among the three major themes of his campaign: democracy, security and freedom.
The South Bend, Indiana, mayor is staking out a new position in favor of creating a nationwide gun licensing system, or registry. This puts Buttigieg in line with Cory Booker’s proposal and among the most liberal positions on gun control in the Democratic race. Previously, Buttigieg had been criticized by gun control advocates for being too soft on guns or being wishy-washy.
So, he combats that “wishy-washy” and “soft” label by going full-on stupid.
How many different ways do we have to tell these people that licensing only creates burdens on law-abiding citizens, negatively impacts the poor, and increases the overall bureaucracy while doing nothing to stem the tide of criminals obtaining guns?
For the learning impaired–and this apparently applies to every Democrat running for president–criminals don’t go to gun stores, by and large. They know they won’t pass a background check. So, they use other means. According to the Department of Justice, that’s going to the black market more often than not.
Guess who doesn’t require a license or a background check?
Look, I get the desire to try and keep guns out of criminals’ hands. I get it. I do.
If I honestly thought any of these measures might help, I’d be more than willing to at least discuss them. But the truth is that we’ve seen criminals continue to get armed and no law does anything to stop them from doing so, all while we are left with the burden.
People who want to purchase a firearm get treated like criminals. People like Buttigieg and Booker want us fingerprinted, have mugshots taken, and interviewed, all so we can exercise a constitutionally-protected right. It’s obscene, especially since we all know that the criminals won’t be affected.
“Oh, but if we make it more difficult for law-abiding people to get guns, that’ll make it harder for the criminals by extension,” someone might argue.
My answer is to point out the drug problem in this country. These drugs have been outlawed for decades, and yet, criminals still get those easily enough. Who’s stupid enough to believe that those same pipelines wouldn’t bring guns into the country?
None of those guns would require licensing either.
Buttigieg and Booker can pontificate about licensing gun owners all they want, but it’s not going to happen, it’s not going to work, and it’s not a winning strategy, no matter how they try to spin it.
The post Buttigieg Joins Booker’s Call For Licensing Gun Owners appeared first on Bearing Arms.
AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko
All over the country, communities are making a stand. They’re sick of big city politicians deciding they know what’s best for rural communities, especially when it comes to gun control.
As time has marched on, so have the numbers of towns and counties who are refusing to capitulate to anti-gun dictates handed to them by urban elites.
Foster, Rhode Island is one of the most recent communities to make a statement in support of the Second Amendment.
Foster is the fourth Rhode Island town, including Burrillville, Hopkinton and West Greenwich, to became Second Amendment sanctuary towns in response to Gov. Gina Raimondo’s proposal for stricter state gun laws. Raimondo bills propose a ban on assault-style weapons, a limit on the number of bullets allowed in a clip, and prohibiting guns from school ground unless carried by a police officer.
Glocester and Richmond are expected to pass similar resolutions this week.
So that’s one more that has joined the ranks, and two more in Rhode Island expected to follow suit.
Not too shabby.
However, it’s not just happening in Rhode Island. At least one Maine community is considering such a measure.
During the public comment session at a Paris Board of Selectmen meeting on May 13, Paris resident Dennis Creaser asked the board to consider a resolution designating the town as a second amendment sanctuary.
Creaser said he was inspired to bring the proposal to the board after reading of several Rhode Island towns that have recently adopted similar resolutions. One rural town in the northwest corner of Rhode Island, Burrillville, recently adopted such measures.
Creaser said his motivation is largely the same as the Rhode Island towns; he thinks that gun laws are tightening, and the “slippery slope” could one day slide to full-scale gun confiscation.
“I felt that with the current atmosphere in Augusta regarding gun rights, now might be a good time to try and implement our own similar resolutions, and possibly inspire other communities to do the same, and send a message to Augusta that we really don’t find this acceptable,” said Creaser during a May 14 interview at his store, Creaser’s Jewelers in Paris.
“Pending legislative has nothing to do with preventing unlikely gun violence in Maine, but everything to do with special interest and lobbyist groups using Maine as practice and testing grounds for gun control efforts,” said Creaser. He said the term specifically references so called sanctuary cities that violate, prohibit, or discourage local efforts to enforce immigration laws. He said that if local, state, or federal entities infringe on second amendment rights, the citizens should be able to send a message. And he said a second amendment sanctuary designation does just that.
This is glorious.
Now, I’m a law-and-order type, by and large. I’ve typically felt that the laws on the books should be enforced, even if I disagreed with them. However, I’ve also come to realize one important thing, and that is how the other side has been counting on that. They often pick and choose what laws should matter, heavily enforcing some and completely ignoring others, and we’ve been playing with one hand tied behind our back.
So, they wanted to ignore immigration law by not cooperating with federal authorities.
Now, local officials are saying they won’t enforce anti-Second Amendment laws. All’s fair in love, war, and politics.
If these cities want to show us that they respect the law, then end their version of sanctuary cities. At least our version protects American citizens.
The post More Communities Join Second Amendment Sanctuary Debate appeared first on Bearing Arms.
Image via Pixabay
Gun control is touted as a solution to so-called gun violence on a daily basis. Entire presidential campaigns have popped up this year centered primarily on this one issue.
Yet we’ve seen in England that getting rid of the guns doesn’t erase the problem. It simply shifts it to another form. Whereas the U.K. was worried about guns, now it has to deal with both that and an increase in knife crimes. So much so that the nation now considers kitchen cutlery as deadly weapons.
It supposedly got rid of the guns, but the violence has remained.
So what can America do? After all, while violent crime rates have been trending downward for decades, no one is going to be satisfied with a violent crime rate above zero. Nor should we. Violent crime is something no society should tolerate, and we don’t.
Where we run into problems is what should we do about it.
I’ve long maintained that the first thing we have to do is get to the roots of violence if we want to combat it. If we figure out the societal triggers for violence and combat those, then we won’t need gun control or knife control or any other laws that restrict the law-abiding citizen. Further, we’ll also be preventing countless deaths, injuries, psychological issues stemming from trauma, and many other ills in this world.
All without infringing on people’s rights.
The problem is, there doesn’t seem to be anyone interested in trying to figure out why people become violent. At least, that’s been my assessment.
It’s probably not a fair one, though.
You see, violence is a complex issue. There’s no one cause for violence in our society. From a 2011 post at Psychology Today:
We used to think that extreme violence took place only in city streets and in countries at war; we now know that violence manifests in churches, schools, rural areas, and small towns. It claims millions of victims all over the world every year. But where does this hostility stem from and how do we make sense out of what are seemingly senseless acts of aggression?
In my 30 years of experience and research, I have identified numerous factors that determine our behavior and whether a person is at risk for developing violent tendencies. These factors include biological traits, family bonding, individual characteristics, intelligence and education, child development, peer relationships, cultural shaping and resiliency.
Each factor of a person’s life or make up can affect and be affected by another factor. When the accumulation of negative factors (such as maltreatment, chaotic neighborhoods, or psychological problems) and the absence of positive factors (such as opportunities to be successful, adults who provide encouragement, or a resilient temperament) reach a threshold, that’s when violence is more likely to erupt as a means of coping with life’s problems.
As such, there probably isn’t any one-size fits all solution to violence.
However, we can look at violence in our communities and see that it can be categorized in various ways, based on a number of factors. After all, it’s not like all violence stems from someone reaching some threshold, right?
For example, we do have studies indicating that cities are more violent than rural areas. That means if we want to combat the murder rates, as well as the rates of other violent crimes, cities are the logical place to target efforts.
Further, we can look at the cities and find a large chunk of homicides are attributed to gang activity. The National Gang Center reports that 13 percent of all murders are gang-related. Combatting gangs would prevent somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 murders each year.
Additionally, gangs account for a large number of non-fatal violent crimes in American cities as well.
Combatting gangs would go a long way toward preventing violence in this country.
Of course, this is easier said than done. Efforts to combat gang violence have been going on for decades, with varying degrees of effectiveness, but most seem to focus on giving people an alternative to the gang lifestyle.
The LAPD reports that people join gangs for one or more of five potential reasons:
- Identity or recognition
- Fellowship or Brotherhood
- Due to Intimidation
- Criminal Activity
Anti-gang efforts often include activities that are meant to provide some of these in an alternative format. There’s not much a church group can do to help someone who wants to engage in criminal activity, but they can provide alternatives to those seeking fellowship with others or a sense of identity.
And these programs have probably helped a good bit.
You see, when we start trying to prevent violence at the roots rather than creating laws dealing with the weapons themselves, things get murky. It’s difficult to tell when something is working. We don’t get to hear stories about arrests or read about ATF raids of black market warehouses that tell us someone is doing something.
Instead, we just don’t.
People don’t get shot. They don’t get killed. They continue with their lives, oblivious to the fact that their life was at risk and are just as oblivious to the fact that it was saved.
Additionally, the would-be perpetrator turns into a contributing member of society. Yet another life saved by intervention.
The problem is that while gangs account for a sizeable portion of the violent crime in our nation, they don’t account for all of it. There’s still a lot more out there, and while it’s easy to look at gangs and blame all of the problems on them, that would be lazy to an extreme.
If only we could stop bickering about the tools these people use and start talking about the people themselves, trying to figure out how to prevent them from becoming violent offenders in the first place, we might save even more lives.
The post To Combat Violence, We Must Get To The Roots Of It appeared first on Bearing Arms.
AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File
Democrats like to position themselves as the party of the poor and minorities. They lash out at Republicans at every opportunity, claiming that the GOP cares nothing for the downtrodden and instead want to make the wealthy wealthier. Democrats, on the other hand, say they want to help the poor and the oppressed unless it comes to guns.
The poor and minorities of this nation are more likely to be the victims of a violent crime. For many, that means they want to have a gun so they can defend themselves.
However, the Democrats running for president are advocating for policies that would hurt those poor and minority voters the most.
Name a gun control regulation, and you’ll find Democratic presidential candidates who enthusiastically support it.
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., promised Wednesday that if she becomes president she will use executive orders to mandate background checks on the private transfers of guns, revoke the licenses of gun makers and dealers whose guns are used in crimes, and ban the importation of many semi-automatic guns.
Her proposals follow Sen. Cory Booker’s push for licensing gun owners and an even longer list of gun regulations. Like Harris, Booker, D-N.J., is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.
The regulations Harris and Booker are proposing would hit low-income Americans – many of whom live in high-crime neighborhoods – particularly hard, because the regulations would effectively prevent them from owning guns for protection by making gun ownership more expensive. Black Americans would be disproportionately affected because of their disproportionately high poverty rate.
The truth is that every time we see a gun control proposal pop up, it’s always claimed to be about stopping criminals, but all it does is stop law-abiding citizens. At most.
Many of these proposals seek to add additional expenses to the purchase of a firearm.
For a middle-class gun purchaser, an additional $100 expense for a license is annoying and burdensome, but probably doable. It’ll delay them purchasing their gun, and that delay may prove fatal, but realistically, it’ll put off the purchase for a little while.
When someone is very poor, that $100 may be a barrier that might as well be insurmountable.
A poor gun owner isn’t buying an H&K or similarly priced gun. They’re going for the Hi-Point. These are $100 to $150 guns. Requirements like this being proposed by people like Booker would add cost to these inexpensive firearms, placing them out of reach for certain individuals.
As noted above, this will have a disproportionate impact on the black community.
And this doesn’t even figure in some of the other expenses Democrats want to lump into the mix.
Democrats argue that requiring voters to shows free IDs discriminates against minorities. But the universal background checks that Harris and Booker want for gun purchases don’t come cheap. In Washington and New York City, checks on private transfers of guns start at $125.
That’s an excellent point, and one I don’t expect either Harris or Booker to address any time soon.
However, let’s be realistic. The moment a poor person or a minority decides they want a gun, they no longer count so far as anti-gun candidates are concerned. They’ve taken a step to leave the plantation, and these candidates are notoriously down on anyone who doesn’t stick to their place in the grand scheme of things.
They don’t care that poor people won’t be able to get guns for self-defense. They don’t view self-defense as a thing. They’re so isolated and protected by professional bodyguards that they forget how most of us can’t afford to outsource our protection. If a poor person is too poor to do so, that’s their problem.
For the rest of us, we should remember this when they begin their rhetoric about helping the poor and downtrodden. When Democrats start that, ask them why they want to make it more difficult for the poor to have guns for personal defense.
Somehow, I don’t think you’ll be welcome in their presence after that.
The post Dem Gun Control Proposals Would Hurt Poor, Minorities The Worst appeared first on Bearing Arms.
Image via Pixabay
New York City’s bizarre gun rule that prohibits gun owners from transporting their guns outside of the city is facing the ax via the Supreme Court. It’ll probably be struck down. The law makes no sense from a constitutional standpoint.
Then again, it makes no sense by any other criteria one can think of.
Now, the Department of Justice is joining in the chorus asking for the Court to overturn the law.
The Justice Department on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to overturn a New York City gun law that regulates where licensed handgun owners can take their firearms.The justices are poised to hear the Second Amendment case next term, and it will be the first substantive gun rights cases the court has heard since Justice Antonin Scalia’s landmark opinion in 2008 holding that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep a gun at home and a follow up case in 2010.Supporters of gun rights fear that the Supreme Court may have decided to weigh in now because Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation last year solidified a 5-4 conservative majority.“New York City’s transport ban infringes the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd and 14th Amendments,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in a friend of the court brief Wednesday.
The law prohibits individuals with so-called “residential licenses” from taking their guns out of their home to transport anywhere other than a small handful of authorized gun ranges within the city.
The problem is that it bars people from taking them to a second home, to ranges outside of the city, or to shooting competitions not at those specific ranges.
Frankly, this law needs to be struck down and struck down hard. I’d argue gun control advocates should want this law struck down too.
You see, if you adhere to the belief that more guns somehow equal more crime, then the last thing you should want is a law that makes people keep guns in the city rather than taking them away from the city. This law prevents the number of guns within the city from dropping in some cases.
For a gun control advocate, that should be a deal breaker.
However, I think we all know that’s not how the gun control crowd thinks. For many, it appears to be less about combatting violence and more about controlling guns for the sake of controlling guns.
It doesn’t matter, though. The Supreme Court will hear this case. It’ll listen to arguments and likely overturn the law.
What I look forward to reading is what justification is used to defend this law in the dissenting opinion — assuming, of course, that there is one.
I can’t fathom a single constitutional argument that can rationally be used to defend a law like this for existing, yet here it is, and it’s been defended all the way to the highest court in the land. I’ll read the opinion from start to finish. I like good comedy as much as the next guy.
The post Department Of Justice Urges SCOTUS To Strike Down NYC Gun Rule appeared first on Bearing Arms.