One Strike You're Out

Updated again (see number 7)

Updated by popular demand from the original tongue-in-cheek post which read like this:

In accordance with newly enacted legislation, the gun owner will permanently forfeit his right to own guns, spend 10 days in jail and report to a probation officer for 10 years, submitting to regular and random home inspections, to ensure compliance. The new law signed by the governor earlier this week is called the "one strike you're out gun law." Supporters are optimistic that this year alone thousands of lives and millions of dollars will be saved.

What I'd like to clarify is exactly to whom this sanction should apply. The simple answer is anyone who does anything wrong with a gun.

1. dropped gun
2. negligent discharge
3. improperly stored weapon in the hands of a child
4. improperly stored weapon stolen
5. brandishing
6. lost gun
7. bringing a gun to the airport because you forgot you had it

Obviously, each of these can have a wide range of consequences and should not all result in the same exact punishment.  A judge would have discretion concerning the appropriate jail time, fines, etc., but the forfeiture of gun rights is not up for bargain.

Memphis Cop Loses Leg after Gun "Accident"

ABC News reports

"I really don't remember it," he says. "I just know I'm here now. I'm taking it day by day."

Griffin is a 16-year veteran of the Tunica Sheriff's Department. He was leading the Emergency Response Team, Tunica's equivalent of SWAT, when his gun went off by mistake.

"He accidentally slipped and he had his hand, his rifle in his hand. It was an M-16 and he said his reflexes kicked in and he automatically grabbed something and his finger pulled the trigger," says his wife Angela. She says the bullet caused too much damage to his leg for doctors to save it.

You know who has "accidents," tripping by accident, pulling the trigger by accident, people who are clumsy, people who are distracted, people who are ill-prepared.

Leaders of Swat teams and any other person entrusted with a firearm cannot afford to be like that.  If they are, number one, they should take responsibility for their actions and stop calling it an "accident."  Number two, they should relinquish their right to own and use guns in the future. No second chances.

Does that sound too severe?  Is it too unforgiving?  Well, ask yourself why not?  Why not be severe and unforgiving when dealing with gun handling? 

Let's take Officer Griffin, for example.  Do you think in his 16-year-career, this is the very first time he's had an "accident."  I doubt it.  People who are distracted and clumsy and ill-prepared have frequent instances of "accidents," usually not with the dramatic results as this one.

Replace the word "accident" with the more appropriate and accurate "negligence," and it becomes clearer.  Negligent gun owners lose their right to own guns, period.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Oklahoma is OK with the Mentally Ill Buying Guns

The Republic reports

According to a 2011 report by the gun control advocacy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Oklahoma lags behind other states in supplying mental health records to the national database used for these types of background checks. Though federal law attempts to motivate states to submit these records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), Oklahoma has only sent three mental health records since 2009, the group reported.

This is the disgraceful situation that happens in many states.  Although I don't believe the NRA can be blamed directly for this, they aren't actively orchestrating the bureaucratic mess that allows this to happen, they aren't doing anything to help either.  They aren't spending any of their money to lobby for changes. They're sitting back and just watching like everybody else.

The funny thing is, this may be the very thing that tips the scales of public opinion eventually.  Allowing mentally unstable people to purchase guns as freely as they do guarantees an increased number of the headline-grabbing mass shootings that we've seen lately.

Sooner or later, the general public which is mainly apathetic about gun rights, will become sufficiently outraged to demand changes.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Carlos Santana - Europa

A Harlem Mom Who Supports "Stop and Frisk"

CBS reports

Repeal the 2nd Amendment

via The Salt Lake Tribune Opinion by Jeff Clawson

The Second Amendment is dead — a victim of its own making. It has been killed over and over again. It’s been dying since the mass murders at the University of Texas Clock Tower, 101 California in San Francisco, McDonalds in San Diego, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Trolley Square, Fort Hood Army Base, and now Aurora, Colo. It only remains to be declared DOA and repealed — plain and simple.

If we add up all the sorrow, injury, disability, terror, and death caused by guns in this country, compared with the good that personally owned guns have proven to be since 1776, there cannot be any other conclusion. On this one, the Founding Fathers might have had an initial idea, based on their active revolt from the British, and the need for everyone to have a single-shot, barrel-loaded gun at the ready, just in case.

But this gradually disappeared, as a need for the populace to grab a gun and overthrow the oppressors became no longer valid. The chances of this type of "defense of freedom" uprising happening today is not only slim but none. The Communists, North Koreans, Nazis, and various comic-book villains, are not coming for us.

Two hundred years of experiencing this constitutional mistake should be enough to end this death-causing, not freedom-protecting, clause. The self-protection aspect of this thing is incredibly weak — just ask Trayvon Williams in Florida. In the past month alone, we saw two infants shoot themselves in the head and die from guns owned by their grandfather and father, respectively.

I'm not convinced repeal is what's needed. I've always thought, sooner or later, the citizens of the US will wake up to the obvious and relegate the 2nd Amendment to the scrapheap of irrelevance.

But, maybe Jeff's right.  Maybe it'll take something stronger than gradually shifting public opinion.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

The Glendale Arizona Gun Show Where the "Gun Show Loophole" is Alive and Well

Local news reports

 

Gun show vendors require background checks when selling guns, sort of.

All licensed dealers do check your criminal history and it usually only takes a few minutes, said Mike Reber of Arizona Arms.

However, private dealers, people who sell their individual guns to buyers at gun shows, don't have to perform such a check as long as they're "reasonably sure you're not a felon," Reber told ABC15.

Reber has a booth this weekend at the "Crossroads of the West Gun Show" in Glendale, and is expecting a large turnout.

While the gun owners and gun sellers are offering facile inane bullshit like "if guns kill people how does anyone come out of a gun show alive?" the NRA and the gun lobby is spending millions to keep the lax laws the way they are.

For years we've been hearing ridiculous arguments justifying the private-sale loophole, and what's been done?  Nothing.

Is it going to change?  What's your opinion?

Please leave a comment.