I-594 similar to start of UK Firearms Control

Guns Hidden from British Government, found and confiscated

 An important part of British gun control is to make it illegal for anyone to obtain a gun without government permission.  This did not happen all at once.  Airguns and shotguns were exempt under the system for almost 50 years.  The requirement in I-594 for government permission before a firearm may be acquired, is similar to the start of the British system.   The British system was made incrementally more and more restrictive over the years.   It has never been shown to be effective in reducing crime.

This summation of the UK gun control system was researched and written for the British Parliament about the year 2000.  In the UK system, the police have almost complete discretion.   That is not yet the case in most of the United States.  From publications.parliament.uk:

FIREARMS CONTROL IN THE UK—ESSENTIALS OF THE SYSTEM   73.  The basis of the system is the Firearm Certificate issued at the discretion of the police. Firearms and ammunition may not be purchased or acquired lawfully without the authority of a firearm certificate. Issue is dependent upon the police being satisfied that the applicant is a fit person to have possession of a firearm and that he has established a good reason for that possession in respect of each firearm he wishes to possess. The certificate lists each firearm possessed or authorised to be possessed, identified by calibre, type, maker's name and serial number. Ammunition holdings are specified by calibre[109] and quantity; maxima are specified for quantities which may be possessed and purchased or acquired at any one time.

  74.  Transactions, identifying the transferor, his authority to possess the items transferred and the nature and date of the transaction are entered on the certificate by the transferor.

  75.  The firearm certificate, which today costs £56, remains valid for five years unless revoked; it is a personal document which identifies the holder by name, address and a photograph certified by a third party. Certificate renewal requires a process similar to that of application. Both application and renewal require the completion of an application form (upon which the applicant identifies two referees), followed by interview and checks upon the applicant by the police (which take into account the comments of the applicant's referees)—which include one or more home visits when the applicant's provisions for the safe keeping of firearms and ammunition will be reviewed. The police may revoke the authorities granted by a certificate at any time; appeal against such a decision by the police may be made to the Crown Court.

  76.  The administration of the control system is based in three stages. The purpose of the first is to determine whether one who wishes to own a firearm (at one time a right in common law, but now probably lapsed) should be denied on specified grounds;[110] the second stage establishes the parameters within which the certificate holder may exercise the authority granted him; the third is a matter of maintaining a record of transactions set by those parameters. 

Firearms registration in England and Wales was never about controlling crime, and it was never effective for that purpose.   The purpose, from the start, was to enable confiscation of the firearms when the government decided to do so.  It is worth noting that the English constitutional right to keep and bear arms is mentioned "at one time a right in common law, but now probably lapsed".   That is clearly the direction that disarmists in the United States have in mind for the second amendment.

Gun Registration and Confiscation in England and Wales.

Definition of a disarmist

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

UNITED STATES V. MILLER: How the Second Amendment was Subverted

 

 Miller, of U.S. v Miller, photograph from Brian Frye

In 2008, Brian L. Frye published the seminal paper on the history of United States v. Miller, the single most important second amendment case before District of Columbia V. Heller.   While Miller no longer holds as much significance in second amendment cases as it used to, the way in which the government manipulated the case in order to deprive American citizens of their second amendment rights deserves detailed study.  In  "THE PECULIAR STORY OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER", Professor Frye's meticulous scholarship shows that much of what went on behind the scenes differs sharply from what we have been told.

Frye's essay consists of 34 pages, packed with footnotes documenting original sources.  He summarizes his conclusions in this early paragraph:

This essay suggests the conventional wisdom is only half-right, because Miller did less than generally supposed. Part I presents a brief historiography of Miller. It argues scholars have not provided an entirely convincing account of the Supreme Court’s holding in Miller, largely because they focus on the original meaning of the Second Amendment. Part II recounts the history of the case. It shows Jack Miller was a career criminal and government informant. It finds Miller was a Second Amendment test case arranged by the government and designed to support the constitutionality of federal gun control. And Part III analyzes Miller in light of this history.

I do not think that Professor Frye goes far enough.  The facts appear like a conspiracy to strip Americans of their second amendment rights through collusion of the judge, prosecutors, and defendant's counsel in the case.  The only bright spot was the actual Supreme Court decision which held that arms related to the militia were protected by the second amendment.   With appellate courts packed with Roosevelt appointees over his four terms, the appellate courts only interpreted Miller in ways to remove any protection for the second amendment.

Notice a couple significant points below.  First, that Miller and Layton were not allowed to plead guilty, and this was from Judge Ragon, who was the rabid equivalent of Charles Schumer of today.  Second, Judge Ragon appointed the defense counsel, Paul E. Gutensohn.

On June 2, 1938, Miller and Layton were both indicted on one count of violating 26 U.S.C. § 1132(c) by transporting an untaxed short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce. Both Miller and Layton pleaded guilty, but Ragon refused to accept their plea and appointed Paul E. Gutensohn as counsel.

Now Judge Ragon has the case he wants, the defendants he wants and the defense counsel that he wants.  Judge Ragon then creates the only defense for the case, his memorandum opinion.

On June 11, 1938 Miller and Layton demurred to the indictment, claiming that it presented insufficient evidence of a transfer requiring payment of a tax and challenging the constitutionality of the NFA under the Second and Tenth Amendments.  Surprisingly, Ragon immediately issued a memorandum opinion sustaining the demurrer and quashing the indictment. He held that the NFA violates the Second Amendment by prohibiting the transportation of unregistered covered firearms in interstate commerce.

Professor Frye goes on to provide details that explain much that seems peculiar, and even insane, about the 1934 National Firearms Act.  What sense is there to make short barreled rifles and shotguns, which are the functional equivalent of pistols, subject to insanely high taxes  ($200 in 1934 was equivalent to $4,000 in  2012) and to such extreme levels of regulation that it deterred the vast majority of people from even attempting to comply?  The answer is that the 1934 NFA was designed to make pistols as hard to get as machine guns.  Judge Ragon had pushed for legislation to do this while he was in congress.  Michigan had already provided a lesson for the drafters of the 1934 NFA.  In 1925, Michigan, with a strong KKK influence in Detroit, had passed a pistol licensing scheme, similar to those in the south that were designed to deter black people from being legally armed with concealable weapons.  In 1931, Michigan had outlawed short barreled rifles and shotguns.  What was the point of keeping black people from having pistols, if they could simply procure rifles or shotguns, saw off the barrel and stock, and have a functional pistol without having to go through the permit process that they were effectively barred from?

As originally proposed, the NFA also applied to pistols and levied a $1000 tax on manufacturers and importers. However, after the NRA and other firearms associations opposed the inclusion of pistols at the public hearings, the restrictions on pistols were eliminated.  The Ways and Means Committee approved the bill without reservation, and the Finance Committee recommended amending the tax on manufacturers and importers to $500, which the House accepted.  Congress explicitly disclaimed any intention to include “pistols and revolvers and sporting arms” because “there is justification for permitting the citizen to keep a pistol or revolver for his own protection without any restriction.”

The effective ban on short barreled shotguns and rifles was left in the legislation, because few people owned them at the time.

Before he became a judge, Ragon represented the Fifth District of Arkansas in Congress from 1923 to 1933.  As a congressman, he was a vocal advocate of federal gun control. In 1924, Ragon introduced an unsuccessful bill prohibiting the importation of guns in violation of state law, and vigorously supported another bill prohibiting the mailing of most pistols, which eventually passed in 1927.  Basically, Ragon wanted to prohibit firearms used by criminals, including pistols.  “I want to say that I am unequivocally opposed to pistols in any connection whatever. If you want something in the home for defense, there is the shotgun and the rifle, but a pistol is primarily for the purpose of killing somebody.”  And he specifically dismissed Second Amendment objections to federal gun control. “I cannot see that violence to the Constitution which my friend from Texas sees in this bill.”  If Arkansas could prohibit pistols, so could the United States.

The bit about using shotguns for self defense could have come directly from the mouth of Vice President Joe Biden.  Perhaps VP Biden left off the rifles in his comments, because the Obama administration is trying to ban many rifles.

Judge Ragon was closely tied to the Roosevelt administration, and had been appointed to his judicial seat by President Franklin Roosevelt.

A prominent Democrat, Ragon endorsed Roosevelt in 1932 and helped push the New Deal through the Ways and Means Committee.  In return, Roosevelt made him a district judge.  The NFA was part of Roosevelt’s New Deal program, enacted with broad support shortly after Ragon took the bench. But the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 was stirring up popular opposition, much of it based on the Second Amendment.  The government needed to silence the complaints, and Miller was the perfect vehicle. Ragon had presided in an O’Malley prosecution, so he knew Miller was a crooked, pliable snitch, who wouldn’t cause any trouble. And Gutensohn was a comer who knew the game and got his due.  Ragon’s memorandum opinion presented no facts and no argument. With no defense muddying the waters, it was the government’s ideal test case.

In an extremely rare move, the government appealed the case directly to the Supreme Court.   I do not believe it could happen today.  Perhaps a legal scholar can explain how the government lawyers were able to jump over the appellate court.   Then the defense attorney, Gutensohn, (remember, appointed by Judge Ragon) steps away from the case, and does not participate in oral arguments or a written brief.

Supreme Court Clerk Charles Cropley wrote to Gutensohn on March 15, informing him the Supreme Court had accepted the appeal and expected to hear oral argument on March 31.  Gutensohn wrote back on March 22, asking why he had not received the record or the government’s brief and emphasizing that he represented Miller and Layton pro bono.

Cropley replied on March 25,informing Gutensohn that the government had submitted a type-written brief and he could do the same. In the alternative, Cropley suggested the court could postpone oral argument until April 17.

But on March 28, Gutensohn replied by telegram: “Suggest case be submitted on Appellants brief. Unable to obtain any money from clients to be present and argue case = Paul E Gutensohn.”

With no one but the government presenting any evidence in the case, a decision was made, based on the presented "facts", which included the effective lie that short barreled shotguns were not used by the military.

The decision came quickly. On May 15, 1939, Justice JamesClark McReynolds “drawled from the bench: ‘We construe the amendment as having relation to military service and we are unable to say that a sawed-off shotgun has any relation to the militia.’”

The New York  Times, reliably "progressive" provided journalistic cover for the judicial coup.  Note that this is seven years after the New York Times ran a series by Walter Duranty effectively covering up the mass murder in the Ukraine by the Soviet Union. 

The unanimous vote was 8-0, as Justice Douglas was recused.The papers were bemusedly pleased. The New York Times noted, “The record in the case of Miller and Dayton [sic] does not show for what purpose they were taking the sawed-off shotgun across State lines. Government officials felt, today, however, that the McReynolds decision had given them a new instrument with which to fight bank robbers, gangsters and other criminals, whose favorite arm is the sawed-off shotgun.” 

In a pattern that we see followed today, a congressman called for even more draconian gun laws, and had the gall to say that they would not hamper people from "purchasing or possessing a firearm".

And Jackson soon asked Congress to enact legislation requiring the registration of all firearms, in order to foil subversives: 

“’It is to be particularly noted that the legislation, the enactment of which I recommend, would in nowise improperly limit the freedom of action of peaceful, law abiding persons. The contemplated legislation would not hamper or hinder any person from purchasing or possessing a firearm. It would merely require him to register the firearm and to record any transfer of the weapon.’”

As often happens with snitches, Miller met an unhappy end a short while later.

At about 9 a.m. on April 3, two or three men in a car picked up Miller at his home in Ketchum, Oklahoma. 

The next day,around noon, a farmhand named Fisher discovered Miller’s bullet-ridden corpse on the bank of the “nearly dry” Little Spencer Creek,nine miles southwest of Chelsea, Oklahoma. 

Miller was shot four times with a .38, twice in the chest, once under the left arm, and once through the left arm. The .45 automatic next to him had been fired three times.

Miller's confederate did much better.  He got a sweetheart deal for his part in the charade.

On January 8, 1940, Layton pleaded guilty to the reinstated NFA charge and Ragon sentenced him to five years probation. 

 Judge Ragon did not live to see the political rewards for his conspiracy against the second amendment and the American people.

Ragon expected an appointment to the Eighth Circuit, but died suddenly of a heart attack on September 15, 1940.

We owe a great deal to the scholarship done by Professor Frye.  This is the definitive work on how the Miller case was set up to deprive the American people of their second amendment rights.   It is worth reading in its entirety in order to see the nuances and the attention to detail in the original sources.

Link to THE PECULIAR STORY OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER

Update: Judge Heartsill Ragon, the trial judge who set up the case for the Roosevelt administration, was endorsed by the KKK when he first won his seat as a congressman in 1922. 

"Shadow of Ku Klux Klan Grows Larger in Congress and Nation" , N.Y. TIMES , Dec. 10,1922, at 116 (Ragon was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan and succeeded H.M. Jacoway).

Update: Edited to reflect that  New York Times does not award the Pulitzer Prize. 

Update:  The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller appears to have been published more than a year before D.C. v. Heller.  

From the link above:  "Date posted: April 24, 2007 ; Last revised: April 18, 2008"
I suspect that the Supreme Court Justices were well aware of this article when they made the Heller decision.


©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Citizens Report from Second Amendment Rally at AZ State Capitol (8 February, 2013)

Pro-Constitution and Second Amendment Rally at Arizona Capitol, 8 February, 2013

I attended the Rally on 8 February at the Arizona Capitol that was aimed at protecting the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment. I and my brother arrived about half an hour early and were able to find parking. Some other reformers looking to protect the Constitution and roll back some of the infringements on citizens rights were arriving just as we got there. They had an extra Gadsden flag for my brother to carry, and I had brought a megaphone because of the lack of organization and an audio system at the last rally. Next time, I will bring a soap box.

The rally seemed completely spontaneous from various calls for a rally on the internet. There was no organization. There were no invited speakers. A couple of people had written speeches that were heartfelt and valid, but it was clear that they were ordinary citizens who felt compelled to come forward, not practiced politicians or public speakers.

The media wanted a spokesperson, and I was wearing a suit and carrying a megaphone, so I was drafted. I wish that I had been better prepared. My remarks were extemporaneous. But I have had a bit of public speaking experience. They were well received by the crowd. I answered a number of questions by the media. I think I did not make horrible mistakes, because I did not see any of that footage used. I tried to keep it to a few simple points. We are here to protect the Constitution and the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights all protect each other. We are using our First Amendment rights to protect the Second Amendment. Universal Background Checks are unacceptable because they move toward registration and confiscation. Governments are far more dangerous than individual criminals.

I only found one report on the local news. They showed the rally and had a few words from me, and they quoted my brother as well. I said an attack on the Second Amendment is an attack on all the Bill of Rights.

My brother said we were there to stop infringements on the Second Amendment.

Then they gave a coverage to an anti-rights politician from the legislature.

The power of the editor was awesome. Our words were more convincing if they were written down and read, but the anti-rights politician was shown strolling with the reporter, relaxed, full body shot, with complete questions and answers given in complete sentences. His only real answer was "we must do *something*, without any explanation of how the *something* would do any good. He claimed that "universal background checks" would not keep anyone from owning guns who should not. Our responses were of close up head shots of extreme short cuts of a few words. It made us look much less credible. The visual appearance that was given was old extreme white guys versus reasonable leftist legislator.

I did not go up to give a statement. But, the point of the rally was to show opposition to the unconstitutional laws that are being pushed. Once there, and seeing that the rally was virtually spontaneous, with no organization, I felt compelled to try to make the best of it.

Lessons learned: Be prepared to give a statement. Know that you will be edited. The words were not bad, the dress was decent, but the editing of the visuals was biased. I will lose the hat while being interviewed next time. The shot of me shows the hat tilted back (no mirror), and barely shows me wearing a suit.

This morning, I saw the written story to accompany the visual clip. The written story was relatively balanced, and we came out fairly well.

Dean Weingarten

Link to video report of AZ Second Amendment Rally on 8 February

European Murder Rates Compared to the United States: Demographics vs Guns

When the subject is gun control, those who demand more for the United States always point to Europe. Europe, they say, has more gun control than the United States, and lower murder rates. Europe, of course, is a diverse place. Some places have lots of guns and low murder rates. Some places have few guns and higher murder rates. The reason that many developed European countries have murder rates much lower than the United States is not guns or gun control. It is demographics.

In 2006 the Department of Justice issued a report on violent felons in large urban counties. It covered the period from 1990 to 2002, and included the 75 most populous counties in the United States. The study accounted for over half of all the murders in the United States in the covered period.

Revealed in the study was a simple breakdown of the demographics of the murderers that is not commonly available. Murderers were divided into three groups. Blacks were the most numerous at 46%. Hispanics were next at 27 percent. Non-Hispanic whites were last at 23 percent.

While the study does not account for all murders in the period studied, it accounts for more than half and almost certainly slightly understates the percentages of Black murderers, because the latest FBI statistics (for 2010) show that when all the murders in the U.S are taken into account, the percentage of Black murderers is over 53 percent.

No one would dispute that there are several distinct cultures among the American black population. No one would dispute that none of these cultures exist in Europe in any statistically significant numbers. Some of the Black American subcultures probably have very low murder rates. We cannot tell because we do not have the data to distinguish between them.

Similarly, there are a number of distinct Hispanic cultures in the United States. These are all derived from cultures in Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. They are not Spanish or Portuguese. No one would argue that any statistical number of these populations exist in Europe. No doubt, some of these cultures also have very low murder rates, but without data, we cannot separate them out.

Where does that lead us? If we take the 23 percent figure for non-Hispanic whites to be representative for the entire population (remember, it is likely a good bit lower), then the number of murders committed by non-Hispanic and non-black people in the United States for 2010 would be 2989.

The population of non-Hispanic whites for 2010 was 196.8 million. Applying the 2989 murders to this population gives a murder rate of 1.52 per 100,000 population. We cannot get a more precise figure unless we have more demographic data than that given. Asian-Americans, for example, have historically had very low murder rates, but we do not have the data. The 1.52 per 100,000 murder rate is right in the middle of the murder rate of developed European countries. Add the Black and Hispanic numbers back into the mix and apply to the entire United States population, and the murder rate goes up to 4.8 per 100,000. Guns or gun control simply do not correlate to higher murder rates, particularly when you consider that non-Hispanic Whites own guns at much higher rates than do Blacks or Hispanics in the United States.

There are huge numbers of German-Americans, English-Americans, Greek-Americans, Italian-Americans, Scandinavian and Swiss-Americans in the United States. There are no statistically significant numbers of African-American or Hispanic-Americans in Europe.

As a check, you might consider a non-European example. Japan has extreme gun control and extremely low murder rates. The FBI used to track murders by Japanese-Americans before 1980, when access to firearms was relatively easy.  The murder rate of Japanese Americans was less than half that of Japanese in Japan.

Murder rates are driven by cultural background, not by the instrument used.

European murder and gun ownership rates: Link

Department of Justice Study with demographic data: Link

FBI homicide statistics, 2010: Link

Japanese and Japanese American murder rates: Link

Household Gun Ownership Rates: Link

Link to Teen Homicides by Ethnicity, 2010 

"In 2010, the homicide rate for black male teens was 51.7 per 100,000, more than 22 times higher than the rate for white male teens (2.4 per 100,000). Rates for other groups were 17.9 per 100,000 for Hispanic males, 11.9 per 100,000 for American Indian males, and 3.2* per 100,000 for Asian and Pacific Islander males. (Figure 3)"

Update: Here is a chart showing murder rates during the Middle Ages in Europe. Murder rates then were close to what is seen in African American cultures in the United States today, indicating that it is a cultural, not a racial relationship.
 Link: Homicide Rates Before Guns?


Update: Murder victims in DC support the hypothesis, given that the vast majority of murder is intraracial:

In fact, white residents face a lower homicide victim rate in the District than the nation as a whole. Nationally, 2.7 white residents are homicide victims per 100,000 white residents. But, among DC white residents, this figure is lower both when looking at data from either of the most recent two years (zero and 1.3 in 2009 and 2010, respectively) or the latest 5-year average (1.5). 

Here is a Yale study showing that cultural links are the biggest factor in predicting homicides:

Yale Study Shows Culture the biggest factor in Homicide (2013)

 Overall, the community's five-year homicide rate was 39.7 per 100,000 people, which was still much higher than the averages of other areas of Chicago (14.7 per 100,000). But being a part of that network of co-offenders, essentially just being arrested, raised the rate to by nearly 50 percent, to 55.2 per 100,000. What's more, being in a network with a homicide victim increased the homicide rate by 900 percent, to 554.1 per 100,000.

Here is some more data from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (CDC).  This data covers the period 1999  to 2007:

Tables for Homicide rates 1999 to 2007 by ethnicity:

Link to article with above graph


Update: Article that shows that mass murderers are not committed disproportionately by white men:

Link to article: Are Most Mass Murderers Really White?

Update: Family Structure and crime

Although there is a large disparity between the crime rates of whites and those of African-Americans,¹⁴ any perception that this is based solely on racism quickly evaporates when family structure is considered in the data. When researchers control for marriage, the rates of crime for whites and blacks in each family group are very similar.

Update: Another author comes to the same conclusion, but when you factor in illegal aliens, the murder rate drops even further.

Murder Most Swedish at the American Thinker

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Local police chief continues to reject 'gun control' for public safety

Recently, we discussed St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch, who upset some people in the fields of both law enforcement and education, by suggesting that the only real security against school shooters is the presence of armed decent people prepared to stop them. Those who found that argument upsetting will likely be no less unhappy about his latest contribution to the debate.

Fox 2 St. Louis reports that Chief Fitch is now arguing that new "gun control" laws will do nothing to reduce violence (see sidebar video):

President Barack Obama and others favor re-instating the ban on assault weapons and outlawing ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Chief fitch [sic] says it’s way too late for any of that.

Chief Fitch says the rush to buy guns after the massacre of schoolchildren in Newtown shows that it’s too late for any new gun control laws to have any real effect. Fitch says with hundreds of millions of guns already in the hands of private owners in the United States, that it’s already easy for anyone who wants to have a gun to get one.

Police Chief Says New Gun Control Laws Won’t Do Any Good Police Chief Says New Gun Control Laws Won’t Do Any GoodPolice Chief Says New Gun Control Laws Won’t Do Any Good

That "rush to buy guns"--particularly just those types of guns most demonized by the gun prohibitionists--is certainly apparent. Fitch's "that horse is already out of the barn" argument--that it is simply too late to "control" guns--is also well taken.

That is something we discussed nearly four years ago, quoting Professor Nicholas J. Johnson's Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem. In that study, Professor Johnson pointed out that with over 250 million privately owned firearms already in circulation in the U.S., not even the most draconian, oppressive gun laws imaginable can make acquisition of firearms particularly difficult, the oft-touted "success" of such laws in other countries notwithstanding:

This is far more guns than the countries in any of the cross-cultural comparisons—far more private guns than any other country ever. Americans own close to half the private firearms on the planet. Plus, our borders are permeable, and guns and ammunition are relatively easy to manufacture. So achieving the supply-side ideal is not just a matter of channeling enough outrage to finally get the right words enacted into law.

More Here

More or fewer guns? The experts are divided

By James Rainey, Los Angeles Times

December 20, 2012, 5:34 p.m. Two governors, a congressman, various state legislators and a host of conservative commentators joined the chief executive of the Gun Owners of America this week in suggesting that the country needs more guns, in the right hands, to prevent mass murders like the one at a Connecticut elementary school.

Such opinions strike many blue-state Americans as absurd. Gun control advocates often cite studies showing higher rates of suicide and homicide in firearms-permissive cultures, with strikingly lower rates in nations with strict controls on weapons.

But there is no scientific consensus on the effect of gun restrictions in America, and many residents of one small Georgia town say their experience bolsters the idea that putting more guns in the hands of the "good guys" will stem gun crimes. Kennesaw, Ga., population 30,175, mandated in 1982 that "every head of household … maintain a firearm together with ammunition."

more here

Proof the Left Wants All Guns Outlawed

It has been said that to identify a liar, look for contradiction, because it’s hard keeping lies straight.

It’s no revelation that leftists would like to effect gun confiscation (except for themselves and their bodyguards, of course), but they generally maintain plausible deniability so that the world’s Dirty Harry Reids can convince the flyover-country bitter clingers that they believe in the Second Amendment. And they certainly do — the way the Devil believes in God. Nonetheless, leftists sometimes tip their hand, and such is the case with a recent New York Post editorial.

The paper posits the idea that the “application of modern military design to civilian firearms” has produced weapons so dangerous that the Second Amendment is rendered obsolete. Of course, the editors are referring to what are incorrectly called “assault weapons,” such as the AR-15-type rifle Adam Lanza used to do his evil in Newtown. And they take, or at least imply, a position that low-information voters would consider reasonable: They don’t propose to outlaw all guns, just those dreaded “assault weapons” (that aren’t). These, the editors say, are so deadly that it’s “time to get rid of them.”

Now we come to where they betrayed themselves. When describing Lanza’s arsenal earlier in the op-ed, they noted that he had his rifle and, as they put it, “two equally deadly handguns.”

Well, well, if they’re equally deadly, why pick on the AR-15? Some guns must be more equal than others.

If the “assault rifles” (that aren’t) are too deadly to be legal, and the handguns are equally deadly, it follows that the handguns are also too deadly to be legal, no? Or did I just commit the sin of applying white male linear logic?

Actually, the Post’s implicit position is the only consistent one. As the editors correctly point out — and I’ll give them a smidgeon of credit for understanding that the AR-15 is not a machine gun — the rifle fires only one round with each trigger pull. In other words, its function is semi-automatic, just like that of the handguns. (This is why it’s not actually an assault weapon, which would have a “special fire” feature allowing it to be operated fully automatic, semi-automatic, or in three-shot bursts.)

Semi-automatic — just like most guns owned in the United States today.

But consider what that implies. If semi-automatic handguns are too deadly to be in circulation, and most all guns in the United States are semi-automatic and, presumably, equally deadly, then…

So what are we left with? The possible exception of small-caliber, low-power firearms? Maybe not. Sirhan Sirhan murdered Robert F. Kennedy with a .22 revolver.

So what’s the end game, libs? You never do say. You never tell us your vision: How many programs, laws, mandates, and regulations will be enough, nor what should be allowed for self-defense. Bolt and lever-action firearms?

more here

NRA’s Press Conference of 12/21/12: An almost masterful strike. (Part 1)

Read this, and compare it to the coverage of the event by the media

I caught the press conference live like many people did and by the time it finished I could not stop but smile thinking that the old coots can deliver harm to the politicians and play a mean game of PR chess to the Media and the Opposition.

David Keene set the tone by telling the Media that no questions would be taken after LaPierre’s words and that the NRA would be available for questions starting Monday. This pretty much said to the boys and girls of the press that: 1) We know you don’t like us so fuck you and sit pretty, 2) By Monday, regular people would have time to digests our proposal and 3) We really don’t care what you say and you’ll probably shoot yourself in the foot

I am going to analyze point by point using the transcript of Wayne LaPierre’s speech available at the NRA’s website:

Out of respect for those grieving families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment. While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent.

I still think too much time passed for the NRA to come out. A week in our modern communications time is forever. The only advantage was that the “conversation” coming from the Opposition was stuck in the forever old talking points. Plus plenty of Gun Rights activists took on the Social Media and the Blogosphere helping to counter the B.B.

Now, we must speak … for the safety of our nation’s children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?

Ouch! Game changer. For the whole week, the only crap we heard and read was the chant “GunControlGunControlGunControlGunControlGunControlGunControlGunControl” but little if nothing on what to do now. Average Mom & Dad are not particularly worried about future discussions in Congress but if they are gonna see the kids again after dropping them in school in the morning.

The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them. And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.…….We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers. Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!

Two distinct points here: Repetition that the imaginary force field called Gun Free Zones is not working and that politicians were responsible for creating such stupidity and they know it doe not work because instead of trusting their lives to the imaginary force field, they gave armed people taking care of them. To summarize: Politicians have not given 2 craps about your kid’s life since the introduction of the Gun Free Schools program.

The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them. They walk among us every day……….

This whole paragraph has been reviled in the media. In fact the moment it came out, the Twitter feeds exploded with accusations of Fear-mongering and Paranoia by the NRA. The problem is that they (and everybody else) know damn well another attack like that will happen but having the NRA throw it at their faces was not something they enjoyed.

How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a national media machine that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave — while provoking others to try to make their mark?

This is ” Dear Media: We know you don’t like us so fuck you and sit pretty,” Part 2. From now on we can say foam was literally coming from the mouths of almost every journalist in the country that has been covering Sandy Hook or any other school attack or mass killing. A well deserved spanking IMHO and one the Media cannot deny.

Killers, robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country. Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40% — to the lowest levels in a decade. So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years!

It is the Executive’s turn to taste some. A direct accusation saying “you talk about “gun violence, but you ain’t doing squat about it!”

In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.

And here we have the broadside against the Media. Some have decried the bundling of the video game industry with the rest of the media, but they are indeed part of the same people who have no problems both calling us killers and they selling violence while washing their hands in the whole process. Are video games responsible for the violence? In my opinion they do not create killers but the already scrambled in the brain pan may be overly influenced by them. But there is no doubt that Hollywood has a long and wide strip of hypocrisy denouncing violence while making cash fist over hands with it. Pointing out is a way to make them look stupider than usual.

Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: “More guns,” you’ll claim, “are the NRA’s answer to everything!” Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word “gun” automatically become a bad word?

“Dear Media: We know you don’t like us so fuck you and sit pretty, Part 3.” No need to expand much.

A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the President isn’t a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn’t a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your 6 living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won’t be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.

So why is the idea of a gun good when it’s used to protect our President or our country or our police, but bad when it’s used to protect our children in their schools?

“What makes you so special you can have all the security you want, but my babies are supposed to have none?” This one has to hurt. No mater what kind of explanation you can come up with, trying to counter the argument will result in you appearing to be a callous jackass who does not care for kids.

More on the next post. Trying to keep it at a somewhat digestible size.

Source

John Lott: Gun Restrictions Leave People Vulnerable and Helpless

When bad things happen with guns, the desire to ban guns is to take away guns is understandable. But doing that can often make problems worse.

For example, it might seem obvious to protect people by banning guns in areas. But law-abiding citizens, not those intent on committing terrorist acts, obey these bans. Instead of making places safer, disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks. With just one single exception, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the United States in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

This isn't random. If it were, 98 or 99 percent of the attacks would occur in areas where people are allowed to carry concealed handguns for protection. Yet, all these attacks are squeezed into the tiny areas where guns are banned.

Take the Aurora, Colo. tragedy. There were seven movie theaters showing the premiere of the Batman movie within a 20-minute drive of the killer's apartment. Only one banned guns, posting signs warning permit holders that their guns weren't allowed. Yet, the killer didn't go to the theater that was closest to his home. Nor did he go to the largest theater. He went to the single one where he didn't believe that others would be able to protect themselves.

There is a simple way of understanding this point. If a violent criminal were ever stalking you or your family, would you put a sign in front of your home announcing that you didn't own a gun? Probably not. Yet, even though no one puts up those signs in front of their homes, we put up those signs on all sorts of other areas.

more here

F16 to Muslim Brotherhood, Ban Guns for US Citizens

More Here

While President Obama is sending the F-16 to the Muslim Brotherhood, he has not yet directly said that he wants to disarm the U.S. population all at one time.

Video: “It doesn’t matter if gun violence is down”

Katie flags this quote from CNN anchor Don Lemon, who won’t allow facts to complicate his righteous public emoting about US gun laws (expanded transcript via Breitbart):

Listen, for the past three days, I have been on the verge of tears every second, and most of the people here have been crying 24 hours straight. Yes, we need to address mental health, but mental health in this particular issue — let’s not get it twisted — is a secondary issue. If someone who has a mental issue did not have access to guns that should only be available in war zones, we would not be dealing with this. Who needs a bullet piercing, armor piercing bullet to go hunting? Who needs an assault rifle to go hunting? You can’t even use the prey that you kill with an assault rifle if you indeed do it. no one needs an assault rifle to go out and shoot a deer. … That’s the issue that we need to deal with. So to say that gun violence is down does not make sense. To me, it’s insulting to everyone who lost a loved one here and who was dealing with that. It doesn’t matter if gun violence is down. 20 children are dead here and 6 adults are dead, and the mother of a person who was not mentally — who is mentally challenged in some way is dead. so to say that gun violence is down — we need to talk about mental health, yes. mental health is a secondary issue. We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets. They should only be available to police officers and to hunt al Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt children.

Let’s set aside Lemon’s purported role as a newsman, and ignore the callow and manipulative implication that anguish alone somehow bolsters the legitimacy of an argument. Truth be told, I am among those Americans who are conflicted over guns and gun policy. In the immediate wake of Friday’s nightmarish slaughter, I tweeted some of the complex thoughts I’ve harbored on the subject for some time, drawing heated responses from both sides. On one hand, it seems indisputable that firearms — high-powered, high-capacity ones in particular — make these sorts of horrors significantly easier to perpetrate. Yes, other weapons have been used in acts of mass violence, but guns are an especially efficient tool to wreak human carnage. The body counts in Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown would almost certainly have been substantially lower if those deranged individuals were wielding knives, to pick one example (click the previous link and look for the death toll). On the other hand, there’s considerable evidence that higher gun ownership actually diminishes violent crime in the aggregate. I’ve also internalized the truth that malevolent actors will often find a way to get their hands on firearms one way or another, so disarming the overwhelmingly law-abiding public would amount to a unilateral disarmament — rendering innocents virtually defenseless in the face of in-progress gun violence. Waiting for the police to arrive mid-rampage isn’t much of a solution for imminent targets. It’s also a fact that strict gun laws do not magically solve the problem of gun violence. See, for instance, the horrific Chicago bloodletting. Indeed, the Newtown shooter reportedly used weapons that were purchased legally and dutifully registered by someone else (his mother), who lived in a state with restrictive laws. Should Congress pass the ‘Don’t-Let-Your-Psychotic-Son-Steal-Your-Guns-To-Kill-You-And-Others’ Act of 2012? What would that accomplish, exactly? And beyond these legitimate practical concerns, there’s also that pesky detail called the United States Constitution, and the individual liberties it enshrines.

Unlike many conservatives, I don’t reflexively bristle at the term “common-sense gun control.” The mere notion of placing some limits on the types of guns average people can purchase does not offend. Calls for legislative action to keep certain weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people strike me as reasonable. I also recognize that myriad regulations along these lines already exist, and I’m skeptical that proposing more grief-fueled laws is a meaningful solution. And even if one could accurately project that passing Gun Law X would save Y number of lives, where do Constitutional rights come into play, and who gets to weigh those factors? If curtailing the First Amendment could also be scientifically proven to save some quantifiable number of lives, would we tolerate additional government limits on those core, specifically-enumerated freedoms? These are extraordinarily difficult questions. In fact, even the mental health discussions that crop up after these tragedies can lead down some worrisome paths regarding civil liberties and the public good. I’m heartbroken over Newtown, I’ve been grappling with these quandaries for days, and I admittedly have no clean answers. But as one of those citizens who does not hold especially dogmatic views on guns, I’m repulsed by Lemon’s emotionally-charged diatribe, which explicitly rejects empirical evidence. It’s dishonest and exploitive. It is troubling that many of the voices clamoring loudest for a “national conversation” about gun policy already seem to have their minds made up about what sorts of guns should be available, and to whom. If that’s how one feels, one should at least be intellectually honest and make open calls for sweeping bans and “confiscation.” Let’s see how that “conversation” goes.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.

Source

Disastrous Gun Law Sparked School Shootings

From 1900 to the late 1990’s, there were no mass shootings in schools. Lest it be thought that guns were uncommon in schools, that was not the case. Guns were commonly brought to school for shooting competitions, hunting after school, for teachers to trade or show to each other or their students, or for show and tell. Guns were even made in shop class under the supervision of the shop teacher. Guns were common in gun racks in pickup trucks in the school parking lot. Even today, many schools provide special dispensation for students to take off from school for deer hunting season.

During the height of gun control fever during the first Bush Presidency, the Congress passed the Gun Free School Zones act of 1990. It was designed to make it impossible for ordinary people to carry guns most places, because it forbid the carrying of guns within a thousand feet of a school. If you overlap the 1000 foot gun free zones that surround schools in most cities and towns, no one can go about their daily business without intersecting one of these zones at some time.

The Gun Free School Zone act was quickly challenged in the courts, and found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court under the interstate commerce clause, in U.S. v. Lopez, 1995. The reasoning was simple: If merely possessing a gun within a thousand feet of a school was interstate commerce, and therefore subject to federal regulation, what could possibly be construed as not interstate commerce? Virtually everything would then be controlled by the federal government. As the Constitution means something, the interstate commerce clause must mean something. If all of life can be controlled by the federal government, the clause means nothing.

President Clinton blew a gasket when the Gun Free School Zone act was found unconstitutional. He fiercely lobbied congress to pass a replica act, slightly modified. He threatened to keep congress from adjourning to go home to run for office if they did not pass the replica act. They passed the new Gun Free School Zone act in 1996. Since then, federal prosecutors have been very careful not to prosecute many cases under the act, not wanting to present the Supreme Court with another test case.

The results of the Gun Free School Zone act’s passage have been devastating. The first mass shooting in a school since before 1900 occurred in 1997. As prominent researcher John Lott has noted, mass shooters are attracted to defenseless victim zones. While zones that ban armed citizens are a tiny percentage of the nation’s area, according to Lott, only one of the “successful” (four or more victims) mass shootings in the past thirty years occurred outside of a defenseless victim zone (gun free zone).

Why do mass shooters chose defenseless victim zones? Because they want the fame that goes with the media attention that a mass killer gets, and to get the attention, they have to kill a lot of people. If they are stopped by an armed citizen, they lose their chance to make the “record books”, and there is no point in mass killing.

Armed citizens stop about one in ten of mass killings before they become “successful”, but they are rarely mentioned because of this fact. Most of these life saving actions occur outside of defenseless victim zones.

Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens Link

We have a real world counterexample to the Gun Free School Zone act in Israel. Israelis were confronted with a similar problem after the Maalot massacre in the 1970s They responded by allowing teachers, responsible older students, and volunteer parents to be armed in their schools. They have not had a child shot in a school since.

Israeli School Solution Link

Since the Gun Free School Zone act was passed for the second time in 1996, 13 mass school shootings have occurred. This unconstitutional law has been a disaster and should be repealed.

Note: The Frontier Middle School shooting, which happened in 1996, does not make most lists of mass school shootings becaue only three people were killed before the shooter was subdued by gym coach Jon Lane. It occured in the breif period after the 1990 law was struck down by the Supreme Court and before the 1996 Gun Free School Zone Act was passed.

Dean Weingarten

Update: Ever wonder why we have these insane zero tolerance policies about guns in schools? You know, where an eagle scout and honor student has his life ruined because he tried to do the right thing?

The 1996 Gun Free School Zone act is the reason. If schools do not implement "zero tolerance" policies, they lose federal funding, so school administrators are scared to death of being accused of not following the insane "zero tolerance" rules. Just another cut at cultural genocide of the gun culture (a fair proxy for Western Civilization) by the left.

Correction: It is not the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1996, as listed above, it is the Gun Free School Act of 1994, which is a separate law passed two years earlier, during the Clinton regime.

Mass Shootings, Political Correctness, and Magical Thinking

Speaking in Newtown, CT yesterday, President Obama said:

We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. [...] Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief [...] then surely we have an obligation to try.

It was a comforting speech for the victims of a tragedy, so it would be unfair to criticize the arguments from the point of view of logic. However, it is worth analyzing the issue of mass shootings as a problem that might be addressable with public policy.

I would start by measuring the magnitude of mass shootings as a problem. How does it compare to other issues such as preventable diseases, regular crime, terrorism? I searched for data, and found out that in the past 30 years, 543 people have been killed in 70 mass shootings. That’s an average of 18 deaths per year. For comparison, three times as many die from lightning strikes.

The New Republic article linked in the previous paragraph states “I can’t say exactly why mass shootings have become such a menace over the past few years, and especially in 2012.” Given the low numbers, it’s likely that it is just a random fluctuation without statistical significance.

To put things in perspective again, half a million Americans die every year from tobacco use. Two hundred thousand die from medical errors. Those numbers are large enough that it’s possible to track changes with statistical significance, and evaluate the effect of public policy. There must be a fair amount of low-hanging fruit. For example, it’s feasible that a 100% tax on the price of cigarettes would save thousands of lives ever year. Why is this not attempted? Probably because the special interest group that controls tobacco sales is powerful enough to stop it.

For mass killings, the numbers are already so low that the logical question would be: is it worth doing anything to try to reduce even more the chance of mass killings? What could be the undesired side effects of implementing policies to that effect? For example, let’s say that someone came up with a vaccine that guaranteed that a child who received would never be a mass killer. However, one child in 100,000 dies from an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Clearly the vaccine itself would cause more deaths than mass killings, so it’s a net negative if we are trying to minimize unnecessary deaths.

At this point, I have to disagree with Barack Obama. I don’t think we have the obligation to try to reduce the incidence of mass killings because there are high chances that an intervention would be iatrogenic: the cure be worse than the disease. This is not a politically correct thing to say, so you won’t hear politicians say it. That doesn’t mean our legislators will do anything, of course. Mass killings are as inevitable as lightning deaths, and they will continue to be news precisely because they are infrequent and horrible.

Who knows, maybe doing nothing is the right thing. There are medical procedures that are not recommended anymore because they have potential complications, and they offer no measurable benefits when compared with inaction.

What makes matters more complicated is that mass shootings bring up the issue of gun ownership in the US. If this killing had been a bombing nobody would be talking about gun control. However, many people who normally don’t think about gun crime are emotionally moved by mass shootings. From a logical viewpoint, we should be more concerned with gun crime in general. If gun crime is a significant problem, then gun control could be a solution to that problem. Surely gun control would have side effects, but it’s likely that those side effects would not offset the gains.

So, is gun crime a problem? In the US there are about 3 gun homicides for every 100,000 inhabitants every year. That means about ten thousand people are shot to death in the country. For the average American, the odds of being murdered with a gun are 1,000 times higher than those of dying in a mass shooting. His/her odds of dying of cancer are “only” 60 times higher than those of being murdered with a gun, so the problem is not insignificant.

Let’s say that we believe that the cost of implementing gun control is less than the benefits. Perhaps we can save four thousand lives every year if we make it harder for criminals to obtain guns. More importantly, we can do it without taking any resources away from the fight against the main causes of death: cancer, heart disease, and accidents. How would we go about it?

The US is a very unique place when it comes to guns. As of 2009 there were 310 million non-military firearms in the country. It is possible to make it illegal to produce and buy new ones, but what do we do with the existing ones? What kinds of imbalances would be created if those who would only use guns to protect their property could not own them? What if most potential murderers kept their guns, and all the guns turned in (say, for cash or tax breaks) were the ones less likely to murder anyone? What kind of black markets might arise for guns and bullets?

I’m not even going to try to answer those questions, because they are extremely complex. I personally hate guns. I have never owned or even fired one. I wish they didn’t exist, but they do. However, believing that gun control would immediately save lives is magical thinking. It might work in the long run if implemented correctly for the US, but it when it comes to reducing murders it would not be a silver bullet (pun intended).

The other issue that many bring up when mass killings happen is mental illness. There is little question that those responsible for mass killings fit most definitions of “mentally ill.” However, they are a minuscule minority. At the same time, mental illness is a horrible condition that causes an enormous amount of suffering. It affects millions, and there is no question that it would be a good idea to address it through public policy. This might have the bonus of preventing the odd massacre in which the potential perpetrator could have been under treatment for a condition such as paranoid schizophrenia. However, not all sufferers of this condition would seek treatment. Norway has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and that didn’t stop Anders Behring from killing 77 people. Some conditions are asymptomatic for a long time, and manifest themselves too quickly. “He seemed like such a nice, quiet guy. I don’t know why he flipped out.”

If there is one point I’d like to make with this long rant is that public policy should not be dictated by emotions. Minimizing unnecessary deaths and appeasing public opinion are different things. Most human beings do not understand concepts such as statistics or iatrogenics, so they will clamor for immediate feel-good action. I wish I lived in a world where people (or at least leaders) would always analyze issues rationally. Where they would act to maximize public good instead of their chances of being re-elected. All I can do is ask my readers to try to understand all sides of a delicate issue before forming an opinion, like I attempted to do in this post.

Source

Switzerland Gun Control and History

So let's take a step back, and look at Switzerland's unique gun laws and culture.

"While traveling around Switzerland on Sundays, everywhere one hears gunfire, but a peaceful gunfire: this is the Swiss practicing their favorite sport, their national sport. They are doing their obligatory shooting, or practicing for the regional, Cantonal or federal shooting festivals, as their ancestors did it with the musket, the arquebus or the crossbow. Everywhere, one meets urbanites and country people, rifle to the shoulder, causing foreigners to exclaim: 'You are having a revolution!'" These words were written by General Henri Guisan, commander in chief of the Swiss Militia Army, the year before World War II began.

Having participated in Swiss shooting matches for over a decade, Stephen Halbrook can attest to the continuing validity of this statement. Throughout the country, people are free to come and go for shooting competitions, and competitors are commonly seen with firearms on trains, buses, bicycles, and on foot.

In 1939, just before Hitler launched World War II, Switzerland hosted the International Shooting Championships. Swiss president Philipp Etter told the audience, which included representatives from Nazi Germany:

There is probably no other country which, like Switzerland, gives the soldier his weapon to keep in the home.... With this rifle, he is able every hour, if the country calls, to defend his hearth, his home, his family, his birthplace.... The Swiss does not part with his rifle.

Switzerland won the service-rifle team championship. The lesson was not lost on the Nazi observers.

Halbrook details in Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II, the Swiss militia policy of a rifle in every home deterred a Nazi invasion. A Nazi attack would have cost far more in Wehrmacht blood than did the easy conquests of the other European countries, whose governments had restricted firearm ownership before the war. Many hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Swiss — and refugees who found sanctuary there — were saved because every Swiss had a rifle, and was prepared to resist.

To this day, every male, when he turns 20, is issued a full automatic military rifle and required to keep it at home. Universal service in the Militia Army is required. When a Swiss is no longer required to serve, he may keep his rifle (converted from automatic to semi-automatic) or his pistol (if he served as an officer).

American Founding Fathers such as John Adams and Patrick Henry greatly admired the Swiss militia, which helped inspire the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — the preference for a "well regulated militia" as "necessary for the security of a free state," and the guarantee of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Late in the 19th century, the American military sent observers to Switzerland in hopes of emulating the Swiss shooting culture.

The American Founders also admired Switzerland's decentralized system of government. Switzerland is a confederation in which the federal government has strictly defined and limited powers, and the cantons, even more so than American states, have the main powers to legislate. The citizens often exercise direct democracy, in the form of the initiative and the referendum. The late political scientist Gianfranco Miglio said the Swiss enjoyed the "last, real federalism in the world," as opposed to the "false and/or deteriorated" federalism of Germany or America.

For centuries, the Swiss cantons had no restrictions on keeping and bearing arms, though every male was required to provide himself with arms for militia service. By the latter part of the 20th century, some cantons required licenses to carry pistols, imposed fees for the acquisition of certain firearms (which could be evaded by buying them in other cantons), and imposed other restrictions — albeit never interfering with the ever-present shooting matches.

In other cantons — usually those with the lowest crime rates — one did not need a police permit for carrying a pistol or for buying a semiautomatic, lookalike Kalashnikov rifle. A permit was necessary only for a non-militia machine gun. Silencers or noise suppressors were unrestricted. Indeed, the Swiss federal government sold to civilian collectors all manner of military surplus, including antiaircraft guns, cannon, and machine guns.

In 1996, the Swiss people voted to allow the federal government to legislate concerning firearms, and to prohibit the cantons from regulating firearms. Some who favored more restrictions (as in other European countries) saw this as a way to pass gun-control laws at the federal level; those who objected to restrictions in some cantons saw it as a way to preempt cantonal regulation, such as the former requirement in Geneva of a permit for an air gun.

The result is a federal firearms law that imposes certain restrictions, but leaves virtually untouched the ability of citizens to possess Swiss military firearms, and to participate in competitions all over the country.

The Federal Weapons Law of 1998 regulates import, export, manufacture, trade, and certain types of possession of firearms. The right of buying, possessing, and carrying arms is guaranteed with certain restrictions. It does not apply to the police or to the Militia Army — of which most adult males are members.

The law forbids fully automatic arms and certain semiautomatics "derived" therefrom; but Swiss military assault rifles are excluded from this prohibition. (The exclusion makes the prohibition nearly meaningless.) Further, collectors may obtain special permits for the "banned" arms, such as submachine guns and machine guns.

In purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer, a permit is required for handguns and some long guns, but not for single-shot rifles, multi-barrel rifles, Swiss bolt-action military rifles, target rifles, or hunting rifles. Permits must be granted provided the applicant is at least 18 years old and has no disqualifying criminal record. Authorities may not keep any registry of firearms owners. Private persons may freely buy and sell firearms without restriction, provided that they retain a written agreement, and that the seller believes the purchaser is not criminally disqualified.

A permit was already required for manufacturing and dealing in firearms, but now there are more regulations still. Storage regulations exist for both shops and individuals. During the Cold War, the government required every house to include a bomb shelter, which today often provide safe storage for large collections of firearms (and double as wine cellars).

Criminal penalties depend on intent. Willfully committing an offense may be punishable by incarceration for up to five years, but failure to comply through neglect, or without intent, may result in a fine or no punishment at all.

Before 1998, about half the cantons (like 33 American states) allowed all law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for protection in public; in some cases, an easily obtainable permit was needed. The new federal law makes permits necessary everywhere, and, so far, permits have been issued restrictively. (Still, one can freely carry a handgun or rifle to a shooting range, and there is one in every village, nook, and cranny.)

Zug, site of the September murders, had always been a difficult place to obtain a handgun carry permit (Waffentragschein). Even if permits had been issued readily, it might not have made a difference on September 27, since, as one of our Swiss friends put it: "the mental climate of Zug was entirely peaceful. While I would — before the outrage — not at all have been surprised to learn that in the Uri or Ticino or the Grisons assembly there were members carrying arms, in Zug I would have been surprised indeed. This is exactly what the mad felon exploited, a state of mind. There are more parallels between the hideous September crimes than first meet the eyes!"

Any proposed new restrictions on peaceable firearm possession and use will be opposed by the Militia Army; by shooting organizations, such as the Swiss Shooting Federation; and by the gun-rights group ProTell, named after William Tell, who shot an apple off his son's head. Their allies are the political parties that support free trade, federalism, limited government, non-interventionism, and remaining independent from international organizations such as the European Union or United Nations.

Supporters of firearm restrictions tend to be socialists and Leftists — including those who wish to abolish the Militia Army, to strengthen the central government to be more like Germany, and to join the European Union. Ironically, the Swiss Socialist Party went through a similar period at the beginning of Hitler's rise. But the Swiss socialists soon recognized the danger, and in 1942 — when Switzerland was completely surrounded by Axis dictatorships — the Socialist Party resolved that "the Swiss should never disarm, even in peacetime."

Since September 27, the European media have been complaining about this "armed country" where every citizen is a "potential sniper." But the fact is, Switzerland is just as safe as countries where firearms are far more restricted. In 1994, the homicide rate in Switzerland was 1.32 per 100,000 in the population. Of those, 0.58 (44 percent) involved firearms. Compare this to Italy 2.25 (1.66 firearms), France 1.12 (0.44), and Germany 1.17 (0.22).

The Swiss household gun-ownership rate is 27 percent excluding militia weapons. Contrast this with the household gun-ownership rates (at least for households willing to divulge gun ownership to a government-affiliated telephone pollster) of 16 percent for Italians, 23 percent for French, and 9 percent for Germans.

The far left has been demanding massive new gun control, and prohibition on keeping militia rifles in the home. The Defence Minister has ruled out such changes, however. The Justice Department will push for an amendment to the federal gun law which would abolish private firearms transfers; all private transfers would require police approval.

While most of Switzerland's less-armed neighbors are as peaceful as Switzerland, danger emanates from the Balkans — the former Yugoslavia and Albania — not to mention from the chaos that's followed the breakup of the Soviet Union. Political terrorists and organized criminals are swamping Europe. Indeed, the same terrorist organizations that murdered Americans on September 11 operate in all European countries, including Switzerland. The new Swiss federal-weapons law is in part a reaction to this turmoil. But given that terrorists may buy black market AK-47s from the former Red Army in all European countries, the Swiss federal law impinges more on law-abiding Swiss than it does on foreign miscreants.

One wonders whether more gun laws will do as much good for Switzerland as would imprisoning people who threaten bus drivers with a gun, or improving supervision of released felony sexual predators against children.

Source

Swiss Gun Murders Lower Than Reported

Whenever international comparisons of homicide rates are studied, it is mandatory to consider Switzerland. Not only does Switzerland have very low homicide rates, it has one of the highest levels of gun ownership in the world.

As I attempted to find out what the gun homicide rate for Switzerland was, I ran into a curious phenomena. The most commonly quoted figures for gun homicides were for both gun homicides and attempted gun homicides. In one source, this led to the startling conclusion that gun homicides for a given year were greater than total homicides. At the site gunpolicy.org, the total homicides for 2009 are listed as 51. The total gun homicides are listed as 55.

Though a little research, I found that what most writers are seeing is the composite figure for both attempted and fatal gun homicides. As the attempted gun homicides outnumber the fatal gun homicides, this has a large impact on the number of total gun homicides claimed and on the rate of firearm homicides claimed in Switzerland.

Because of the referendum on gun control held in 2010, figures were published giving the actual gun homicides for four years. These were 1998, 2007, 2008, and 2009. The number of attempted homicides with firearms was given for 2009.

Here are the numbers:

In 1998, 53 homicides with firearms for a rate of .75/100,000

In 2007 27 homicides with firearms for a rate of .35/100,000

In 2008, 20 homicides with firearms for a rate of .26/100,000

In 2009, 24 homicides with firearms for a rate of .31/100,000

In 2009 the number of attempted homicides with firearms was 31.

These are exceptionally low rates. They are lower than the rates of Australia and Canada, both of which have much more restrictive gun control schemes. They are slightly higher than France and Sweden, though the overall homicide rate (Which, after all, is the more important number) is slightly higher in those countries, again, with much more restrictive gun control.

Here is a link to the source for the actual number of homicides with firearms. You have to subtract the suicides with firearms from the total number of homicides and suicides with firearms to find the actual number of fatal firearm homicides.

Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation

The holy grail of the anti self defense and anti rights special interest groups is gun registration. This is because once your gun is required to be registered, it is in effect, already confiscated. Only a little thought will reveal to you why this is so. The Government will know who has legal possession of each firearm. They will know where the firearm is stored. When physical possession of the gun is desired, they can order you to turn it in. This has happened repeatedly. The historical examples include NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, and Cambodia. Recent examples include Kosovo, Great Britian, Australia, New York, and California. Not having possession of the firearm registered to you can be grounds for criminal action. If you have reported the gun stolen, and it is then found in your possession, you can be charged with obstruction of justice.

It is a truism that once all guns are required to be registered, the only people who will legally possess guns will be those who have registered them. If you choose to follow the course of civil disobedience, and not register your firearms, mere possession of an unregistered gun can put you at grave legal risk. Civil disobedience has been the most common course of action in California and Canada, where it has proven impossible to enforce the laws requiring registration. If you choose this course of action, you would now be at the mercy of any informant who discovers that you possess a gun illegally. Children in the public schools are already being trained to tell the police if there is a gun in the house. Doctors are being urged to ask children if there are guns in their home. A warrant was issued in California for a SWAT raid based on the mere picture of people holding unidentified guns which were legal. The picture had been sent to the police by an informant in the film developing company. If you are not on the list of those who have registered, you have become a criminal. If you are forced to use the gun for self defense, you will have committed a serious crime. It will become extremely difficult to train your children in firearms safety or to bring friends or relatives into the gun culture. In a few years, the number of people with personal knowledge of guns will be much smaller. The people who urge gradual or immediate gun registration are attempting cultural genocide of the gun culture.

The common practice, once guns are required to be registered, is to gradually tighten the requirements of registration to reduce the number of gun owners. When the number is low enough to limit effective political action by the members of the gun culture affected, the remaining guns can be confiscated with little effort.

Gun registration has proven to be universally ineffective in reducing crime. In fact, crime is likely to increase because of the transfer of police resources from crime fighting to administer and police the political requirements of the gun registration scheme, and because of the reduced number of people willing or able to use their firearms for self defense. Self defense is never acknowledged by the anti rights special interest groups because it trumps their arguments for disarming the people. The primary purpose of gun registration has always been to reduce the political power of the people rather than reduce the crime rate.

The current attempt at requiring gun registration started in 1968, when congress required gun dealers to obtain a federal license, and purchasers of guns from federally licensed dealers were required to fill out a form 4473 to take possession. Congress forbid the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from constructing any national gun registration list from this data, although a registration scheme of purchasers of more than one handgun within a week has been kept on the grounds that it was started before the congressional action forbidding such, and is therefore "grandfathered". In 1994, Congress passed the Brady bill, which required handgun purchasers to undergo an instant check or a five day wait to purchase a handgun. While parts of this act were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, a little known part of the bill went into effect in 1998, requiring all purchasers of firearms from licensed dealers to undergo an "instant check" before taking possession. Two safeguards had been built into the bill to insure that it would not be used to develop a national registration of firearms. First, the FBI was forbidden to keep any records of instant checks that allow purchase. Second, the instant checks only applied to dealers, not to private sales. Since any gun owner could sell their firearm whenever they wished, without government permission, no registration list could effectively be developed, and effective gun confiscation was prevented.

During the last year, both of these safeguards have been under attack. The FBI has refused to immediately destroy the instant check information, although required to do so by law. Recently a three judge panel in Washington, D. C. has voted two to one to uphold their ability to do so. Both judges voting for gun registration are Clinton appointees. The Clinton administration has been vociferously promoting the elimination of the other safeguard, private sales, which they call the "gun show loophole". Once private parties are forbidden from selling guns without government permission, it is only a matter of time before all guns and gun owners who are not registered are illegal.

I find particularly troubling the emphasis during the last decade on guns that are seldom used in crime, but are quite useful in military service. The same people who stated that they were only interested in limiting handguns, now call for limiting the ownership of military style rifles. Many models of guns which are almost never used in crime, are now illegal for people to own in some locations. The latest outrageous attempt to remove power from the people is to place severe restrictions on the sale of .50 caliber rifles. The authors of this bill don't even claim that these guns are used in crime. They want to ban them because they have a military purpose! The clearest reason for the Second Amendment to the Constitution is to insure that the people retain a large measure of military power, to balance the power of the government. The republic is in grave danger when congressmen openly state that they fear military power in the hands of the people.

The only purpose of gun registration is gun confiscation, whether it is done individually and piecemeal, as the legal requirements to own a gun become more and more difficult, or en mass, when the government feels the necessity to disarm its citizens in order to further its control.

Governments that push for gun registration distrust their people, and have earned the people's distrust.

I wrote this essay in 2000.

Dean Weingarten