Firearms Friday: A Time Of Contradiction

In the wake of the mass murder at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando this past weekend I didn't want to simply react to the tragedy but rather take the time to think and give the space to honor the memory of those who lost their lives. This is not a partisan issue, we should all be mourning their loss. After all those people who were murdered were human beings and fellow citizens of this county and should not be assigned or limited to a specific group or label. To me, right or wrong, it really is that simple. While there have been various halfhearted comments, disgusting accusations, and ludicrous statements made to date from a wide variety of groups and individuals, I have found the most succinct responses to this tragedy to be that of The Pink Pistols and that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  

What we should be doing now is not placing blame on any party, person, or group of people unrelated to the actions of the individual who committed this heinous act. These psychotic actions and other mass murders that have become and an unfortunate part of our collective conscious aren’t going to be cured by the rhetoric that is currently being bandied about. We will never truly know why these person did what they did. The fact of the matter is that we are facing an unprecedented crisis regarding mental health in this county.  

Those who wish to ascribe blame on these rampages on firearms are completely off base in their assertions as the PEW Research Center already noted that the “nation’s overall gun death rate has declined 31% since 1993. This total includes homicides and suicides, in addition to a smaller number of fatal police shootings, accidental shooting deaths and those of undetermined intent.” Additionally, nonfatal gun victimizations has dropped from 725.3 per 100,000 in 1993 to 174.8 per 100,000 in 2014. Max Ehrenfreund at the Washington Post noted that “Much of the decline in violence is still unexplained, but researchers have identified several reasons for the shift.” He subsequently listed five very plausible reasons for this decline which included more police officers on the beat, police using computers, decreased consumption of alcohol, decreased exposure to toxic lead, and an improved economy.

However, while overall gun violence has experienced a precipitous drop, the FBI has noted a marked increase in the number of active shooter incidents from 2000-2013 with the average number of incidents increasing from 6.4 from 2000-2006 to 16.4 from 2007-2013. This is in direct contrast to the decrease in the violent crime rate reported by the FBI which noted a 27.1% decrease in violent crime from 506.5 per 100,000 in 2000 to 369.1 per 100,000 in 2013. Consequently, questions must be asked as to why we have such a chasm between the two stats and why the numbers going down with regard to crimes committed with firearms and violent crime as a whole but active shooter incidents and mass killings are on the rise?

The truth is that firearms know no race, gender, age, height, weight, economic status, political viewpoint, national identity, immigration status, or sexual orientation. Firearms are inanimate objects that require the user to impose their will. This is why, despite the aggressive and illogical accusations of some to the contrary, the National Rifle Association’s slogan is indeed true: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Contrary to what many zealots may suggest, the increased frequency of these heinous acts has nothing to do with firearms or the politics related thereof.

The crisis that this country faces is that of mental health which has always been a matter of public safety since the first patient was admitted to the Public Hospital for Persons of insane and Disordered Minds in Williamsburg, Virginia in 1773. The sad fact of the matter is that care for the mentally ill is not a priority in this country today. While a touch dated, the evidence is clear that the mentally ill are not receiving the care that they need because the care simply isn’t available in the United States.

This is in large part due to various deinstitutionalization policies that have been wreaking havoc on the system for the past 60 years. A staggering statistic to exemplify this point is that “in 2005 there were 17 public psychiatric beds available per 100,000 population compared to 340 per 100,000 in 1955” which translates to a 95 percent reduction in the number of the beds in 2005 compared to 1955. For those unfamiliar with the term, The Treatment Advocacy Center defines it in the following way:

“Deinstitutionalization, the name given to the policy of moving people with serious brain disorders out of large state institutions and then permanently closing part or all of those institutions, has been a major contributing factor to increased homelessness, incarceration and acts of violence.”

Note the last part of that sentence. Further proof of that point in particular can be found in our prison system as a 2004 study, as reported in Mother Jones, suggested that “approximately 16 percent of prison and jail inmates are seriously mentally ill, roughly 320,000 people. This year, there are about 100,000 psychiatric beds in public and private hospitals. That means there are more three times as many seriously mentally ill people in jails and prisons than in hospitals.” Later in that same timeline, it is also noted that “In the aftermath of the Great Recession [2010], states are forced to cut $4.35 billion in public mental-health spending over the next three years, the largest reduction in funding since deinstitutionalization.”

The further reduction in funds has had a significant impact on the mental health system in this country which was noted in a report from The Treatment Advocacy Center titled “No Room at the Inn: Trends and Consequences of Closing Public Psychiatric Hospitals”. The reality we currently face is that there was an additional reduction in the number of beds available between 2005 and 2010 by 14 percent with the current per capita falling to a level not seen in this country since 1850 at 14.1 beds per 100,000 with additional decreases having been experienced since then. To put this is further perspective, the consensus target for providing minimally adequate treatment is 50 beds per 100,000 (the ratio in England in 2005 was 63.2/100,000). This has resulted in “states that closed more public psychiatric beds between 2005 and 2010” to experience “higher rates of violent crime generally and of aggravated assault in particular.”

There is plenty of blame to go around, in both political parties, across decades, as to the insufficient mental healthcare system that we have in place today. And, at this point, I would like to make it very clear that while the institutional system is by no means perfect, it clearly makes a difference regarding the evil acts that are perpetrated by the mentally unstable. And the degradation of this system and the care available overall to the mentally ill population is something that we need to address if we are truly motivated to change the climate in which we live. In the end, the slaughter of innocent people was committed by an individual who was clearly mentally ill and motivated, by self-proclaimed during his 911 call, by a group that preys on the mentally malleable. That is where your finger should be pointing.

Firearms Friday: A Tale Of Two States

The laws that have been proposed, speeches given, and legislation that has been passed over the past few years is troubling to say the least and unconstitutional at worst. While we have been able to fight and defeat many of these bogus promises of safety, there are a few that managed to get on the books and have been restricting the rights of second amendment practitioners ever since. One of the more egregious and confusing laws which was brought to my attention recently is one that comes from, don’t be shocked, California.

A number of years ago (effective January 1, 2001), legislators in the Fool’s Gold state enacted PC 12131 which established the “Safe Handgun Roster.” While sold to the public as a means to limit the sale of unsafe firearms in the communist bloc, the reality of the legislation is that it was a means to shake down the firearms industry by imposing unnecessary testing and exorbitant fees on an annual basis. No wonder why Leland Yee turned to the black market!

The definitions of those firearms that meet the criteria to get on this list was then expanded upon in 2007 as “legislators passed AB 1471 which mandated that all semi-automatic pistols must employ microstamping technology.” What this now means is previous generations of firearms are safely housed on this arbitrary list while new generations are considered un-safe. A perfect example of this is the cluster that one law enforcement finds themselves in as they attempt to transition to the 4th generation Glock 19 as their service weapon. According to the Attorney General, the office of which previously exempt law enforcement from selecting from the list, they are a generation too late and therefore cannot use their newly purchased roster of service side arms.

There is a much more comprehensive blog post on Full30 at the following link, which was referenced for much of the material above, if you would like to read more about this SNAFU: https://blog.full30.com/ca-gun-law-stupidity-knows-no-bounds/.

However, not all the news recently makes you want to slam your head against the wall repeatedly. Come to think of it that might make that a semi-automatic assault wall which would also be illegal in California. It also used to be illegal in Maryland until the good news was handed down by the Maryland 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Kolbe v. Hogan decision. The case challenged the 2013 Maryland arms prohibition statute which bans the sale of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and also bans many firearms, by labeling them as “assault weapons.”

Some of the important highlights which were reported in the Washington Post include:

In a 2-1 decision written by Chief Judge Traxler [appointed by President Clinton in 1998], the Fourth Circuit held that strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for bans on common arms, such as those at issue in Kolbe. The case was remanded to the district court, which had applied the wrong standard, namely a weak version of intermediate scrutiny. The Maryland attorney general announced that he will seek en banc or Supreme Court reversal of the Kolbe decision. Below is a summary of the most important parts of the Kolbe decision.

Why the arms are part of the Second Amendment

Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “common” and “standard.” There are more than 75 million of them in the United States. Indeed, “most pistols are manufactured with magazines holding ten to 17 rounds.” In fact, “Virtually every federal court to have addressed this question” has found that magazines over 10 rounds are in “common use,” and thus are covered by the Second Amendment.

Why strict scrutiny is appropriate

First, because the prohibition “burdens the availability and use of a class of arms for self-defense in the home, where the protection afforded by the Second Amendment is at its greatest.”

Second, because the burden is substantial, “not merely incidental.” For example, the statute imposes “a complete ban” on “AR-15 style rifles—the most popular class of centerfire semi-automatic rifles in the United States.” Notably, the ban “also reaches every instance where an AR-15 platform semi-automatic rifle or LCM [large capacity magazine] might be preferable to handguns or bolt-action rifles–for example hunting, recreational shooting, or competitive marksmanship events, all of which are lawful purposes protected by the Constitution.”

Strict scrutiny was also appropriate for the magazine ban, because “a citizen’s ability to defend himself and his home is enhanced with an LCM.” For example, the inherent difficulties of some defense situations mean that citizens often need the ability to fire multiple shots, and changing magazines while under violent attack may not be possible.

A statute that “completely prohibits, not just regulates, an entire category of weaponry . . . might be ‘equivalent to a ban on a category of speech.'” (Quoting D.C. Circuit Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent in the Heller II case.) The extensive prohibition is “akin to a law that ‘foreclose[s] an entire medium of expression.’ City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 55 (1994). Such laws receive exceptionally rigorous review in the analogous context of the First Amendment, id., and we see no reason for a different method here.”

Unlike some other courts that have upheld magazine and firearms bans, the Kolbe majority did not purport to be expert in gun-fighting tactics, or to claim that judges know what law-abiding citizens “need” for self-defense. To the contrary, the 4th Circuit recognized that under the Second Amendment and Heller, choices about self-defense are reserved to the defenders. For “whatever reason” particular arms are preferred by particular law-abiding citizens, “The right to self-defense is largely meaningless if it does not include the right to choose the most effective means of defending oneself. . . . The extent of danger—real or imagined—that a citizen faces at home is a matter only that person can assess in full.” (Quoting 7th Circuit Judge Manion’s dissent in Friedman v. Highland Park).

In the short term, this reestablished the second amendment rights of the citizens of Maryland but that it the short sighted measure of this case. The reaffirming ramifications of this decision could potentially be applied across the nation serving as the judicial support, firepower if you will, sometimes needed to protect and defend affronts to our Constitutional rights. Nicely done Maryland. Glad there are some in the courts will to take a stand and do something that the President refuses to do… defend the Constitution of the United States of America!

Firearms Friday: Talk To And With The People

The politics we percolating this week as the President delivered the State of the Union on Tuesday and the first Republican Presidential Debate of the year was held last night. There were a lot of words bandied about and a heck of a lot of rhetoric disguised as unity earlier in the week. However, there were some moments and some lines that caught my attention last night when common sense prevailed as the topic of the second amendment was brought to the forefront of the debate (note that the full transcript can be found at The Washington Post).  

Bush: “…I have an A plus rating in the NRA and we also have a reduction in gun violence because in Florida, if you commit a crime with a gun, you're going away. You're going away for a long, long while…And that's what we should focus on is the violence in our communities. Target the efforts for people that are committing crimes with guns, and if you do that, and get it right, you're going to be much better off...”

Trump: “If we had guns in California on the other side where the bullets went in the different direction, you wouldn't have 14 or 15 people dead right now. If even in Paris, if they had guns on the other side, going in the opposite direction, you wouldn't have 130 people plus dead. So the answer is no and what Jeb said is absolutely correct. We have a huge mental health problem in this country… The guns don't pull the trigger. It's the people that pull the trigger and we have to find out what is going on.

Rubio: “Look, the Second Amendment is not an option. It is not a suggestion. It is a constitutional right of every American to be able to protect themselves and their families… criminals don't buy their guns from a gun show. They don't buy their guns from a collector. And they don't buy their guns from a gun store. They get -- they steal them. They get them on the black market. And let me tell you, ISIS and terrorists do not get their guns from a gun show.”

Christie: “I don't think the founders put the Second Amendment as number two by accident. I don't think they dropped all the amendments into a hat and picked them out of a hat. I think they made the Second Amendment the second amendment because they thought it was just that important.

Cruz (When asked “So what is the answer, Senator Cruz, to stop mass shootings and violent crime, up in 30 cities across the country?”): “The answer is simple. Your prosecute criminals. You target the bad guys… Listen, in any Republican primary, everyone is going to say they support the Second Amendment. Unless you are clinically insane that's what you say in a primary... I've got a proven record fighting to defend the Second Amendment. There's a reason Gun Owners of America has endorsed me in this race. There's a reason the NRA gave me their Carter Knight Freedom Fund award and there's a reason, when Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer came after our right to keep and bear arms that I led the opposition, along with millions of Americans -- we defeated that gun control legislation.”

The other candidates on stage did not contribute to this part of the debate. And while I was satisfied with many of the answers I think I was most impressed with those coming from Senators Cruz and Rubio. When taking into account their track records on the subject, Cruz would be the one that I cast my vote for in the primary. When taking all other issues into account, the divide becomes more pronounced and I, once again, vote for Cruz. With that said, that statement pertains to those on the main broadcast.

Of course I still believe that Rand Paul is the best candidate still in the race (and not just because of his ardent support of the Second Amendment) but there is clearly a lack of support for his campaign which was evident in his absence from the stage. However, his presence was still felt last night as the crowd chanted “We want Rand!” during the broadcast and, throughout the evening, Paul was answering questions coming directly from the voters via Twitter with the hashtag “#RandRally”. So, while the punches were being thrown (and dodged) on stage, a unique dialogue was taking place between a Presidential candidate and the people. What a novel concept.

Firearms Friday: Definitions

Today there was an article in the Washington Post stating in the title that “There have been 204 mass shootings — and 204 days — in 2015 so far”. What the headline doesn’t immediately tell the reader is that the definition has been changed in order to satisfy the author’s agenda. Five paragraphs deep into the article the means of miscalculation is finally revealed:

“The Mass Shooting Tracker is different from other shooting databases in that it uses a broader definition of mass shooting. "The old FBI definition of Mass Murder (not even the most recent one) is four or more people murdered in one event," the site's creators explain. "It is only logical that a Mass Shooting is four or more people shot in one event."”

Buried even further in the fantastical story was this little gem: “There have been 10 in Ohio, 14 in California and 16 in New York.” Did you catch that? While the author may have glossed over those ‘statistics’ the reality remains… 30 ‘mass shootings’ occurring in the two states with the strictest gun laws. Put another way, excessive regulation had no impact as nearly 15% of these tragedies occurred in these liberal strongholds.

Of course, this is nothing new. Redefining terms is something that the left takes pride in… quite literally recently. From redefining marriage to media attempts to reclassify all semi-automatic rifles under a rather limited, by definition, term of assault weapons. It is because of this pattern that I wasn’t surprised to read such blather from an uniformed writer (sorry, can’t use journalist for this one).

And don’t think about doing the same thing if your views are anything but liberal. That would be racist, radical, homophobic, illegal, or just downright silly. Don’t try to reinforce current definitions either because that can sometimes be worse… you might be the devil if you do that. Unless you want to be labeled, you just have to sit back, take it, and watch as the nonsense continues to destroy the country.

Don’t watch a drunk driver careening down the highway hitting car after car and call it attempted mass manslaughter. Don’t read the news about knife wielding assailants and call it a mass stabbing. Don’t listen to the excuses on the radio and call abortion doctors mass murderers. You would be skewing the facts and that is just wrong… and somehow you would be a racist too.

And, G-d forbid, don’t speak up for the rights of all law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Don’t voice your support for the military and law enforcement. Don’t call out those who refuse to accept facts or responsibility for their own actions. You will certainly be deemed a radical homophobic racist or something else like that. But, you know what, that is fine with me. I know it’s not true. Just don’t call me a liberal democrat.

Did You Get My Emails?

Blackberry included. Order yours today!

Every once in a while I will run into issues with my work and lodge email accounts. It happens to everyone. Most of the time it is a quick fix or I am able to step away from the screen for a few minutes while the computer reboots. This is the simplest solution and usually it works. However, there have been times when I have lost access for a day or two (usually on the antiquated lodge system) which is frustrating but there are ways to work around it as I have most of the contacts loaded into my personal email and so I am able to maintain productivity even without direct access. So long as I CC the main account, I don’t have any problems keeping accurate records.

While I can’t say for certain, this seems to be the generally accepted practice in the business world. It might even be acceptable at government agencies but, again, I can’t say for certain. This is what has made the recent news from the former Secretary of State so baffling. Every person that I know in the corporate world would have been fired for using their personal email without backing it up to the company server/email. It is simply a matter of accountability and maintaining an accurate record of all communications/records. Heck, there is even an entire legal subset of specialists focusing on e-discovery for just this reason. A former client, Evidox, comes to mind in this instance.

Maintaining an accurate communications record is what allows a company, or in this instance a government department, to ensure transparency. That idea sounds familiar doesn’t it? While the President may not have noticed the odd address, hdr22@clintonemail.com, and found out about this whole debacle “like the rest of us: through news reports this past week” it still calls into question the bar that has been set in this administration. And this hasn’t been the first time that the concept of transparency has been questioned.

While it may not have solved the problem or answered all the questions, turning over the entirety of her email archive would have at least been a step in the right direction. After all, as was reported in The Christian Science Monitor, “Once the controversy became known, Clinton tweeted: “I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.””

However, this is not going to be the case as the records are incomplete to say the least as emails have been deleted and physical prints provided rather than electronic copies making the search-ability of the existing correspondences cumbersome and laborious at best. From the same article:  

The problem is, that review could take weeks or months. Those e-mails total 55,000 pages, and as Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post wrote the other day, “Those are the e-mails that Clintonworld decided should be turned over…. not exactly the classic definition of transparency.”

So now we wait to see what is there and what no longer exists in the records provided… I’m pretty sure she deleted the limited emails from her husband (now his would be an interesting account to look at). I guess we will never know all the details of her workout routines, whether or not she is secret pen pals with Monica Lewinsky, if she really approved of her daughter’s groom, or if she originally thought that Benghazi was a Japanese art form rather than a giant situation best described as FUBAR. I’m pretty sure all of those emails are long gone.

‘Unbiased’ Coverage Of The Safe Carry Protection Act

This past week there was a huge decision made in Georgia that didn’t ripple across the national news… it swept across all media channels like a tsunami. When the southern state came to the realization that more common sense needed to be injected into the national firearms debate, there wasn’t a single silent voice on the subject. However, there was a clear difference in how the new law was reported in a variety of ‘unbiased’ media sources. While it may not be as clear to some, it is rather obvious when you take a second look at the language that is used.

Time Magazine can be balanced on a rare occasion and this was definitely not one of those instances as the first word in the article colored the remaining prose. Here is the title and tag line for the story:

Georgia Passes Sweeping Expansion of Gun Carry Laws

Radical new gun legislation signed into law on Wednesday allows licensed owners to carry guns in more public locations than ever before, as places like churches can opt in to permit the weapons and bars can opt out if they want them banned

The Washington Post offered a little more balance to what is written as they accurate described the expansion of the rights afforded to law abiding citizens:

Law expands rights on carrying guns

Gov. Nathan Deal (R) signed a broad expansion of gun-carry rights into law Wednesday, allowing legal gun owners to take weapons into bars, churches and government buildings under certain conditions.

The measure, which will take effect July 1, also permits hunters to use silencers and authorizes schools to allow staff members to carry weapons on campus.

What you don’t see in this second example is the photo that was selected and prominently displayed at the top of the page before a single word is read. The caption to the photo of a grieving family standing over a casket reads, “Judith Skinner, mother of Indianapolis police officer Kim Carmack, and Dustin Carmack, son of Kim Carmack, take one last look at the casket after the burial services at Crown Hill Cemetery in Indianapolis on Wednesday. Carmack was slain by her ex-husband and fellow officer who then killed himself.” The story itself was a great piece of reporting but during the process that took place between the writing of the article by and the posting of the story was skewed by someone who clearly disagrees with the new law.

The law (House Bill 60 or the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014), supported by politicians from both sides of the isle in the Georgia legislature (including President Jimmy Carter’s grandson) “specifies where Georgia residents can carry weapons. Included are provisions that allow residents who have concealed carry permits to take guns into some bars, churches, school zones, government buildings and certain parts of airports.” Essentially, those with carry permits (having no criminal background and are familiar with and accept the responsibility of carrying a firearm) will have greater freedom to carry in a variety of previously restricted places.

Is it a perfect bill? No, there are a few flaws in my view namely with the inability of law enforcement to question those carrying. However, if you are driving a car down the road a police officer needs just cause to pull you over and ask you for your license so, in that regard, I understand and accept this aspect. Honestly, I would rather lean on the side of individual rights and freedoms rather than control and fear mongering that seem to be so prevalent in the vocal views of the minority.

What do you expect from a group of people who have their priorities confused? While they teach children to fear firearms they teach them to respect and even revere an overbearing government. It should be the exact opposite… teach the next generation to respect firearms, treat them responsibility, and revere life. Fear those who strip you of your rights and freedom. Maybe if this fundamental formula was embraced by all we wouldn’t be having this debate and objects wouldn’t be feared because of the actions of criminals, law abiding people wouldn’t be punished for the monstrous acts of the insane. Maybe people should be our focus and the next generation should be our passion.