Saturday, November 7, 2009

More on the Iron Pipeline

America Magazine published an article scheduled for their next issue entitled simply enough, The Iron Pipeline.


Kristen Rand, legislative director at the nonprofit Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C., pointed out to America that such weapons all come from jurisdictions without strong laws like Chicago’s. “You can’t buy a handgun in Chicago or the District of Columbia legally, so traffickers go to states with weaker laws and then bring them to the cities that don’t allow their purchase.” For Ms. Rand and other gun control advocates, one of the worst aspects of a victory by those who mounted McDonald v. Chicago would be that it would remove what she called “the most effective measures to prevent handgun violence.” She observed that the Supreme Court in both Heller and now in McDonald is examining the issue solely as a question of constitutional law “and not in terms of the deadly effect on citizens of gun violence.” The court should know better than most that, as former U.S. Justice Robert H. Jackson said, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

Although most observers fear that the outcome of the Chicago case will be similar to that of the Heller case, one ground for hope is a bill introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey. It would mandate background checks for all private sales at gun shows. In the meantime, states with bad records of gun violence continue to allow gun show loopholes to remain open. The implications of the killing of 33 people at Virginia Tech in 2007 by a mentally deranged man who had no difficulty obtaining his weapons has faded too quickly from public memory. Virginia legislators who are once more resisting plugging the gun show loophole for private sales seem also to have forgotten. Closing this loophole could slow the deadly flow along the iron pipeline.

Rights have correlative duties. When individuals and localities do not meet those responsibilities, it falls to government to do so. Thus, if there is a fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms, there is also, as there must be, a fundamental responsibility to regulate their sale and use.

I'm not clear what Ms. Rand means by “the most effective measures to prevent handgun violence.” If the Court decides that Chicagoans can have guns in their homes, I don't see what will change as far as the "iron pipeline" goes. Certainly there won't be hundreds of FFL shops in Chicago immediately. I don't think that's the case in D.C.

Another question I had is using the VA Tech shooting in a discussion of the gun show loophole seems wrong. I think he bought his guns legally, didn't he?

The overall message of the article, though, I agree with wholeheartedly. The so-called gun show loophole, or better stated, the sale or transfer of firearms without a background check, should be stopped. My gun-enthusiast friends have failed to convince me that something is wrong with this. Usually they divert the discussion, questioning the meaning of the words "gun show loophole," trying to say that folks who use that expression don't know what they're talking about. That may be the case at times, but around here, everyone understands.

When pro-gun folks argue against this I believe they're showing their true colors. They're taking their cue from the NRA which preaches don't give in on anything, don't give an inch, never acquiesce. How rare is the pro-gun person who can admit unlicensed sales are the source of too many guns entering the criminal world and they should be stopped.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

17 comments:

  1. "My gun-enthusiast friends have failed to convince me that something is wrong with this."

    Something is wrong with it because the only way it can be effectively enforced is to register all guns, which will never happen. That means the closure of the "gun show loophole" will join the pantheon of useless gun laws we already have.

    "They're taking their cue from the NRA which preaches don't give in on anything, don't give an inch, never acquiesce."

    Since the NRA has given in on numerous occasions, you can't truthfully say that's what they preach.

    Can you placate a lion by letting him eat only your foot? Of course not. That is why I won't give an inch, even if the NRA decides to give a mile.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Brady Bunch and the VPC have already aknowledged that they will lose in McDonald vs Chicago.

    Deal with it.

    " one ground for hope is a bill introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey. It would mandate background checks for all private sales at gun shows."

    You are referencing legislation S 843 and its house companion HR 2324.


    "It would mandate background checks for all private sales at gun shows."

    Key phrase here is AT GUN SHOWS.

    The antis have got their base so riled up about the "gun show loophole" that this law, if passed, will only apply to private sales inside a gun show.

    Oregon passed a similar law back in 1995, but I can still buy all the guns I want without a background check OUTSIDE OF A GUN SHOW.

    Language will come back to bite you. Words matter.

    You have read S 843 and HR 2324, right?

    You do realize that compliance with S 843 violates the laws of physics, right?

    Here's a proposal MikeB. Read S 843 and show that compliance doesn't violate the laws of the universe.

    If you can, or any of your allies can, I will cut one of my handguns in half with a blow torch, post the video of me doing so and return here to provide a direct link to youtube showing the act.

    If you can not, then you must make a blog post about the wonderful taste of peanut butter.

    Care to take the challenge?

    I am.

    checkmate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If the Court decides that Chicagoans can have guns in their homes, I don't see what will change as far as the "iron pipeline" goes. Certainly there won't be hundreds of FFL shops in Chicago immediately. I don't think that's the case in D.C.

    Except potential owners would be able to legally go to another Illinois city that does have gun shops.

    Another question I had is using the VA Tech shooting in a discussion of the gun show loophole seems wrong. I think he bought his guns legally, didn't he?

    Cho may have lied on his form, but he transferred his guns through a legal, in-state dealer--in the same way that would be required if the gun show loophole were closed. This is a tactic many of us complain about--anti gun articles that use trickery and deception, implying that "if only we had closed the gun show loophole, Virginia Tech would have been safe".

    The so-called gun show loophole, or better stated, the sale or transfer of firearms without a background check, should be stopped.

    Illinois already requires a Firearms Owner ID card that requires a background check in order to legally purchase a firearm. Is that sufficient for you, or do you insist on a separate background check for each and every transaction?

    ReplyDelete
  4. “You can’t buy a handgun in Chicago or the District of Columbia legally, so traffickers go to states with weaker laws and then bring them to the cities that don’t allow their purchase.”

    No doubt about it. That is why they are criminals. They break laws. Stopping lawful citizens from legally buying firearms does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from breaking the law. At best you can divert the source to somewhere else is all and even that is debatable. Does anyone really believe that a gun smuggling criminal is going to think "hmmm, all the good guys are registering their guns and doing background checks so I had better mend my criminal ways now."

    "She observed that the Supreme Court in both Heller and now in McDonald is examining the issue solely as a question of constitutional law"

    What else should a Supreme Court Justice use? They are merely judging the law based upon the constitution--that is their task. Anything else would be criminal. Typical whining liberal wants everyone to use thier feelings instead.

    "Another question I had is using the VA Tech shooting in a discussion of the gun show loophole seems wrong. I think he bought his guns legally, didn't he?"

    I think you are starting to finally see the deception that the anti's use. Throw in dead kids into their argument whether it applies or not. Joe average citizen remembers Virginia Tech so yeah, gotta close that dreaded gun show loophole. Never mind that the criminal did not buy his guns at a gun show at all and bought them legally from a gun shop. Ignore that less than 2% of crime guns are purchased at gun shows. Throw up some dead kids and yell ban. That's all they got. When rational thought it used, they have nothing.

    "When pro-gun folks argue against this I believe they're showing their true colors. They're taking their cue from the NRA which preaches don't give in on anything, don't give an inch, never acquiesce."

    AztecRed already said it. The NRA is hardly a picture of non-compromise. It is still the leading group in the fight regardless. It is only the pro-gun people that ever compromise. Whenever there is a compromise, it is us that are giving ground, always. How about compromising the other way a while?

    "How rare is the pro-gun person who can admit unlicensed sales are the source of too many guns entering the criminal world and they should be stopped."

    Very rare because it is a silly thing to say. How does a sale between me and my brother that is "unlicensed" stop a gun from becoming "illegal". Are all of the "illegal" guns floating around out there never been "licensed" or registered. Of course not. Criminals break laws. Honest people are the only ones that jump through the hoops.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So, you can't even risk the possibility of making a post about the wonderful taste of peanut butter?

    Very telling.

    Like I said, if any of your anti friends can take up the challenge, my offer still stands.

    checkmate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. kaveman, Thanks for your challenge, but as Joe Huffman and big bad Kevin can tell you, I don't accept challenges, especially tricky ones.

    I would be curious to know what you mean by "violate the laws of the universe." It seems a bit of a stretch connecting that to a bill about background checks.

    About the wording of the bill which would limit it to gun shows only and not other private transfers, I've heard the criticism from pro-gun folks that Lautenberg is being duplicitous in that he ultimately plans on more stringent laws and this one is just a stepping stone.

    You seem to be inferring he's too stupid to write what he means. I don't buy that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "kaveman, Thanks for your challenge, but as Joe Huffman and big bad Kevin can tell you, I don't accept challenges, especially tricky ones.

    I would be curious to know what you mean by "violate the laws of the universe." It seems a bit of a stretch connecting that to a bill about background checks.

    What's tricky about it?

    You have read it, right?

    The bill violates the laws of physics.

    Care to refute me?

    checkmate...or are you just an uninformed asshole?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "kaveman, Thanks for your challenge"

    What do you have to lose?

    Do you have a phobia about writing a post that peanut butter is delicious?

    That's all you have to do if proven wrong.

    Me? I would have to destroy one of me pistols.

    The fact that you can't even take on this "risk" is very telling.

    Like I said, if any of your allies can do it, my offer stands,

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mike, Why do anti-gun advocates, both laypeople like yourself, as well as Government officials, and paid advocates and professors, have no interest in actually SHOWING that such laws work?

    Why is it when some professional attempts to discuss the good of removing freedom, they are CRUSHED by the arguments of mere laypeople?

    You posted a video of Richard Dawkins. I met the man once, he took many questions from the crowd (I had little to question him on, as I agree with his positions, if not his methods of presenting them), and he did a damn good job defending his positions.

    Also his books are loaded with support and findings for his work, and he can present data to whoever questions him. His data also survives scrutiny from the scientific community.

    Why is it there are no people like Dr. Dawkins in the Gun Control world?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh and I'll add that there are dozens of people like I describe in the Gun Rights field.


    Also there aren't anybody like that in the creationism field...

    ReplyDelete
  11. So you think no more sexual activity outside of marriage - to insure that there are two loving adults that love the baby that may be produced?

    Regulating anything for reasons of it may do harm if one doesn't -- normally don't work. Have you been sniffing cocaine again - you do see how well that has worked.

    ReplyDelete
  12. AztecRed said, "Something is wrong with it because the only way it can be effectively enforced is to register all guns, which will never happen."

    Thanks for saying that. I agree that is the way for it to be truly effective. I'm not so sure about it never happening. We'll have to see about that. A long-gun registry like they have up in Canada seems pretty stupid to me, but maybe the handguns can and should one day be registered.

    The benefits to law enforcement would be tremendous. Imagine every gun linked to a particular licensed owner. Straw purchasers would be at grave risk of detection when the jack-booted ATF guys come around to check up on the recently-bought handgun.

    ReplyDelete
  13. No, Mike AztecRed isn't speaking ideologically about an inclusive gun registry never happening, he's speaking logistically.

    Here in Mass ALL guns must be registered. But when the registry was passed do you think they all got registered? Hell probably there are pistols and rifles and shotguns tucked in people's attics that won't be found until their relatives clean the house for sale. There were people who just decided the law was a dumb one and didn't register their guns. There were people who possibly never heard about the law...or heard about it years later and were afraid they might be punished for registering late.

    Canada suspects a huge chunk of their guns are not registered despite the registry.

    Of course it's been ruled that a criminal is under no legal obligation to register their firearms as it constitutes a violation of the 5th Amendment.

    So while Aztec and I don't believe a gun registry is a good idea (and myself living under them I can assure you it does NOTHING in the real world) but we also believe that weather a law is passed or not it will never be successful.

    ReplyDelete
  14. California banned all private party transactions more than fifteen years ago. That means that all firearms sold must go through a Federally licensed firearms dealer and the requisite fees and background check. In addition California has a ten day waiting period before a purchaser can take possession of any firearm; this law has also been in effect for at least fifteen years.

    Bottom line: it doesn't work. These laws have had no measurable results in reduced violence with firearms. It's snake oil social policy.

    Brad

    ReplyDelete
  15. Brad, same with Massachusetts. The only difference is in Mass we may lawfully sell between other licensed gun owners in state, but a valid gun permit must be shown and recorded (The permit is essentially a background check, as if you ever were to be in a situation where you would now fail a NICS your permit is revoked by the courts)
    and the state must be informed of the transaction in the form of a legal paper form.

    That's how it's done, and our crime rate has only grown.

    You'll note that MikeB doesn't want to talk about that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "A long-gun registry like they have up in Canada seems pretty stupid to me, but maybe the handguns can and should one day be registered."

    Canada's long gun registry has a 50% compliance rate. Their handgun registry is rumored to not be much better.

    They're already considering scrapping their long gun registry, simply because it hasn't helped the police do much of anything, yet costs Canadians $3 million per year. Keep in mind, the US has 3 times as many guns as Canada. And probably fewer willing participants.

    Like Weer'd Beard said, it would be a logistic nightmare. It would also be a political nightmare.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't accept challenges, especially tricky ones.

    Well yeah, why would you accept a challenge you don't have a shot in hell of winning?

    ReplyDelete