Meet Chris Bunch, Republican candidate for California's 10th Congressional District, a seat vacated by (F-rated gungrabber) Ellen Tauscher, who has taken a position in the Obama administration, where I guess she figured becoming Undersecretary for State Arms Control gives her the chance to effect even more disarmament.
This has necessitated a special election, to be held in November.
One example of the types of votes cast by Ms. Tauscher which earned her the NRA F-rating is this.
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
I can't think of a better example of legislation which saves lives and inconveniences the law-abiding minimally. But, of course, the pro-gun attitude acquiesces to nothing.
As Mr. Codrea rightly said, the new candidate has taken an unequivocal gun rights stance, something to be appreciated on both sides of the argument. Here are a couple of his answers to gun-related questions.
7. Do you support or oppose registration of weapons? Why?
OPPOSE, because registration attempts to undermine and neutralize the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which is to ensure that the government will fear becoming tyrannical towards the population. If the government can tell what a person has, then they can use that information to neutralize their rights. We must remember the deep fear and reservations that our founders had regarding the power of a central government. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to view our rights as a power (check) against the powers of the government.
8. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? Why?
I do not support licensing to own weapons. I only accept licensing requirements to carry as a point of compromise; this assumes that the licensing requirements are affordable to the population at large, that competency or training requirements are only there to ensure a standard of public safety, and lastly that any requirements enable at risk populations (women or the elderly) to have the skills necessary to use the weapons in a manner to protect themselves from a hostile agent. All that being said, you cannot regulate a right, that is why licensing must be something that enables our rights, the minute that licensing is used to prevent the free exercise of our rights it is no longer acceptable as a point of compromise.
Those are certainly unambiguous answers, but do they work? In question 7, is it fair to presume the reason for registration is to eventually confiscate guns? I believe this is a big jump, one based on paranoia and fear. I know what happened in Nazi Germany, but I honestly can't see that happening in 21st-century America, can you?
The real reason for such a registry would be exactly what its proponents say, to help diminish gun crime. For example, if it were on record where all the guns were and who owned them, wouldn't that force gun-owners to be more responsible in securing them? Wouldn't that make everyone involved in sales and transfers of firearms more careful to do it exactly right? I realize the great majority of gun owners already do this, but the small percentage who do not, would now be motivated to be more careful. This is an example of how proper gun laws do not require criminal compliance; if the law-abiding comply, the criminals have diminished access to guns.
The answer to question 8 is basically, "you cannot regulate a right." Well, I'd like to know who says. I'd like to know who invented that nifty response, which is not repeated frequently by almost every pro-gun person in order to peremptorily end all discussion. I say you certainly can regulate a right if there's a good reason to do so. The other day on Tamara K's wonderful pro-gun site there was a discussion of the frequency of poor muzzle control in gun shops among prospective buyers. It's frightening to imagine that many of those people join the ranks of the lawful gun owning public and in some cases continue with their sloppy gun handling ways. Wouldn't that be corrected at least in part with a licensing requirement? It sure would.
How people oppose these types of suggestions because of fearful presumptions or simply not wanting to be inconvenienced, is beyond me. What's your opinion?
Please leave a comment.
"I can't think of a better example of legislation which saves lives and inconveniences the law-abiding minimally."ReplyDelete
That's ignoring the fact that waiting periods are all but completely useless. The average time-to-crime for a gun is a year. So unless the waiting period is a year or more, you're not going to prevent many if any crimes.
"I believe this is a big jump, one based on paranoia and fear. I know what happened in Nazi Germany, but I honestly can't see that happening in 21st-century America, can you?"
It's already happened in 20th-century New York and California. And it's happened in 20th-century UK, Australia, and Canada. There is a lot more precedent out there for "registration=confiscation" than just Nazi Germany.
I have to disagree slightly. If you take ATF trace data as crime guns (which it is not by their own admission), then the average time to crime is greater than 10 years. 80% of "crime" guns have been away from their last FFL transfer for more than 3 years. Less than 3% have a time to crime of 3 months or less. So changing the waiting period from 3 days to 1 day would probably affect (not prevent - since there are many tools that can be used to commit crime) 0.03% of the gun crimes. Waiting periods actually inconvenience the law abiding far more (especially if it is a women who has a protective order that realizes it won't do much while her ex boyfriend is beating her) than stopping criminals. I guess you could say that waiting periods are bad news for women.
"In question 7, is it fair to presume the reason for registration is to eventually confiscate guns? I believe this is a big jump, one based on paranoia and fear. I know what happened in Nazi Germany, but I honestly can't see that happening in 21st-century America, can you?"ReplyDelete
Aztec Red has already covered this one. it has and does happen in the modern, Western world. I believe it is or is about to happen in New Zealand.
Registration can only be enforced if there is a criminal penalty for failing to register a firearm. Criminals are not bound by these laws and cannot be charged with possessing unregistered weapons. To force a criminal, who is prohibited under Federal law as well as the law of every state from possessing a gun, to register his guns would deprive him of his 5th amendment rights. There is already Supreme Court precedence that says so. Therefore, registration and the penalty for failure to comply can only be levied on the otherwise law abiding citizen. Registration is ludicrous, evil and serves no purpose other than to criminalize a law abiding citizen so that their ability to lawfully possess a firearm is diminished.
"For example, if it were on record where all the guns were and who owned them, wouldn't that force gun-owners to be more responsible in securing them? Wouldn't that make everyone involved in sales and transfers of firearms more careful to do it exactly right?"
You are correct in that most gun owners already do this. But how would registration force anyone to "be more careful?" Person A has his gun stolen, it is registered with the state. Said gun is now in the hands of a criminal. Person B has his gun stolen, it is not registered. Said gun is now in the hands of a criminal. What did registration accomplish?
"The answer to question 8 is basically, 'you cannot regulate a right.' Well, I'd like to know who says."
Well, Chris Bunch for one. There are others too: David Codrea, Thomas Jefferson, Fatwhiteman, James Madison, the list goes on.
"The other day on Tamara K's wonderful pro-gun site there was a discussion of the frequency of poor muzzle control in gun shops among prospective buyers. It's frightening to imagine that many of those people join the ranks of the lawful gun owning public and in some cases continue with their sloppy gun handling ways."
These people need educated, pure and simple. There is also a phenomenon that I call "professional blindness". This is where people turn off their own common sense when in the presence of someone they consider their better and regard as all knowing. Sort of like a child that relaxes and trusts their parent. People that would never handle a weapon that way suddenly believe that the dealer would not let a loaded gun in their display case and if the dealer handed it to them, it must be ok and all training and sense is left at the counter while they are there. These people also suddenly trust a cop to be all gun knowing and handling when in fact they often time are not. This is a natural condition where the sheep like to feel safe when guarded by the sheepdog. Of course, it can also just be piss-poor gun handling.
In question 7, is it fair to presume the reason for registration is to eventually confiscate guns?ReplyDelete
No, it isn't Unless you absolutely refuse to study history. Throughout the history of humanity, the registration of weapons has in many cases lead to the confiscation of those weapons.
Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.
I can't think of a better example of legislation which saves lives and inconveniences the law-abiding minimally.
Have any proof that waiting periods save lives?
The CDC has reported they can find no evidence that gun control laws are effective in saving lives. What evidence do you have to offer that they can't find?
if it were on record where all the guns were and who owned them, wouldn't that force gun-owners to be more responsible in securing them?
What exact mechanism will make people follow that law?
Are you going to make it a crime to have your firearms stolen?
Are you going to make it a crime not to secure your firearms in such a way they can't be stolen?
Do you know how safes- vaults are rated?
The safes are rated in length of time it would take a criminal to break into it. No safe is unbreakable.
So, what are you going to do? Make it a crime for criminals to steal property from me?
Stolen cars are used in crimes, yet you don't see the owners being punished for that. Isn't it bigotry to single out gun owners for special punishment for the actions of criminals?
This is an example of how proper gun laws do not require criminal compliance; if the law-abiding comply, the criminals have diminished access to guns.
Now, you are contradicting yourself. You have said that too many legal gun owners commit crimes so you want to reduce the total number of firearms. Now you say if legal owners do everything right that crime goes down.
f the law-abiding comply, the criminals have diminished access to guns.
So, let me see if I have this right.
You want legal gun owners to have to 1.) wait to purchase firearms, 2.) Undergo a background check for every firearm purchased, 3.) register every firearms (how are you going to get criminals to do that?), 4.) Require legal gun owners to account for every gun bought or sold, 5.) secure their firearms in such a way that criminals can't steal them --- all of this so that criminals will have a harder time breaking the laws they don't obey anyways?
Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the bloody criminals in the first place????? How about when we catch violent criminals we keep them in jail for a very long time. If they repeat their violent crimes, we don't let them out. Doesn't that reduce crime ??
The answer to question 8 is basically, "you cannot regulate a right." Well, I'd like to know who says.
I have a right to breathe. Pass a law telling me how many times a minute I have to breathe. Or Where I can breathe.
People have a right to have procreate....try regulating that right.
Hey, I have an idea. Suicide is illegal, so let's pass a law saying that people don't have a right to die without government approval. If the government thinks it can tell me how I can protect my life, don't they have the power to tell me how and when I end my life?
Wouldn't that be corrected at least in part with a licensing requirement?
Law enforcement officers are licensed. Yet you, rightfully in some cases, complain they break the law, they shoot innocent people. Study the statistics that have been presented to you. CHL holders do a better job of not shooting the bystanders than the licensed officers.
Why are you focused on restricting people's rights and ability to defend them selves.
Show me one idea you've proposed in here that actually stops a criminal from getting a firearm, either by force or by lying. All you do is propose punishing the law abiding.
You think that there are a significant number of murderously violent people who don't already have access to guns, have a clean enough criminal record to pass NICS, and just impulsive enough that a couple hours or a day will not matter, but three days will? And that there are more of these people than potential victims without guns who might get attacked before the waiting period is over?ReplyDelete
Are there any gun restrictions you do not support?
I'm not sure what waiting periods are supposed to accomplish other than inconveniencing buyers and sellers. I already have lots of guns. What is a waiting period doing for me? Anyone who can stay in a murderous rage after filling out all the paperwork and going through the background check is planning a murder, and will plan around the waiting period.ReplyDelete
Also, on the matter of registration for what you claim you want it for, you already have it. If one of my guns is recovered a crime scene, they can trace it back to me, usually in a matter of hours, since all but the dealer records are computerized. There's no reason the government needs to see what guns I have. None.
Sevesteen and Sebastian, I think these waiting periods do exactly what they're supposed to do: prevent impulsive use of newly acquired weapons. Of course this wouldn't apply to someone who already owns guns. But, the inconvenience to legitimate gun buyers is an undesirable, and minor I might add, side effect.ReplyDelete
The idea that a gun buyer would not sustain his murderous rage while filling out the forms and spending the hour or two necessary to actually take possession of his new gun, doesn't work for me. I can easily see the betrayed husband or the disgruntled employee sustain such an attitude for a number of hours, an entire day perhaps. Some of these guys would cool off after a night of sleep or two. Some of them would realize their folly by the time a three-day waiting period expired, for example.
The suicides are an even better example. Many non-gun owners who decide to take the ultimate exit might experience a lessening of the depression and achieve the ability to think better of their decision if they had a few days. I think Prof. Wintemute proved that, but I wouldn't be surprised if you know his work better than I do and dispute it. To me it makes perfect sense, though.
"The suicides are an even better example. Many non-gun owners who decide to take the ultimate exit"ReplyDelete
So a non-gun owner who wants to off himself is going to bother finding out where an FFL is, purchase a gun, do the background check, pay a transfer fee etc. just to kill himself?
Seems like a waste of time when there are plenty of household items he already has access to with which to do the deed.
Sevesteen's other question: "Are there any gun restrictions you do not support?"ReplyDelete
Generally I support gun control initiatives, but thanks to some of the comments I've received I realize and agree that some of them are non-effectual and foolish. An assault weapons ban that is so badly worded as to be easily circumvented I don't support. The one-gun-a-month law in Jersey where the requirements are already strict enough to prevent too frequent acquisition also seems foolish to me.
The laws we badly need, starting with background checks on all transfers I would support.
It seems you are a little inconsistent.
You are all over the woman who purchased 24 firearms over 3 years, yet here you say that one gun a month is ineffective.
So, how many firearms a month/year is the right number for a person to buy?
You keep going back and forth.
Bob, Can you never quote me accurately? I said the NEW JERSEY one-gun-a-month law is FOOLISH.ReplyDelete
You changed the whole thing to my saying that one-gun-a-month laws are ineffective.
You should try playing fair, Bob. We already disagree on plenty, there's no need for you to exaggerate what I say for us to have a great discussion.
Generally, I think the laws which limit the number and frequency of firearm purchases do exactly what they purport to do. They interfere with the gun flow from the legitimate gun dealers to the criminals. And furthermore, they inconvenience the law-abiding minimally.
Why you would oppose it so strongly is the only mystery around here.
Generally I support gun control initiatives, but thanks to some of the comments I've received I realize and agree that some of them are non-effectual and foolishReplyDelete
Your words, not mine BUB!
Why it is foolish eh? Because it doesn't work, therefore it is INEFFECTIVE.
Why I oppose it so strongly is that you are trying to interfere with my rights. I oppose all such efforts strongly. The question is why are you trying so strongly to interfere with my right by imposing something you think is foolish.
A previous story had a woman buying 24 firearms in 3 years, you thought that was too many. Now you say that 1 gun a month is foolish.
So, some where in between you feel is an acceptable number of firearms to be purchased. Or should people be allowed to purchase as many firearms as they like as long as they give up their right against unreasonable searches?
Generally, I think the laws which limit the number and frequency of firearm purchases do exactly what they purport to do.
You think, another way of saying it is your opinion. And we all know that opinions are like arm pits -- everyone usually has two and they usually stink!
You are trying to restrict people's rights. Have anything more than your opinion to go on?