MACON, Ga. — A Bibb County incident report says Quentavious Moore, 17, was killed after he and two other people attacked a fourth man at the Macon Mall.
The sheriff's office also says Moore was shot with his own gun.
He died in the hospital Sunday afternoon about an hour after being shot in the food court.
4029tv.com reports that hundreds of Arkansas laws have become effective on 28 July, 2021. Among those laws are several incremental reforms of firearms and self defense law, removing restrictions which were previously in place. The links below go directly to the Arkansas state legislative site, which has the exact wording of the new law. Here is a summation of the changes, with links.
Act 1024 removes the prohibition on carrying in places owned, controlled or overated by a local unit of government, if they have a carry permit, except for the following:
(i) A courtroom or the location of an administrative hearing conducted by a state agency, except as permitted by § 5-73-306(5) or § 5-73-306(6);
(ii) A public school kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12), a public prekindergarten, or a public daycare facility, except as permitted under subdivision (a)(3)(C) of this section;
(iii) A facility operated by the Division of Correction or the Division of Community Correction; or
(iv) A posted firearm-sensitive area, as approved by the Division of Arkansas State Police under § 5-73-325, located at:
(a) The Arkansas State Hospital;
(b) The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; or
(c) A collegiate athletic event; or
People with carry permits are still banned from local government places in buildings containing a place licensed to dispense alcohol for consumption on the premises.
Guns are still banned at football, baseball, soccer or other fields when an athletic event or practice is occurring. (Act 638 and Act 693)
Act 809 removes the requirement for an employee, who stores their gun in their locked car in a parking lot, from being in a separate locked container.
Act 433 removes prohibition on the possession of loaded center fire weapons in parts of Baxter and Benton counties.
Act 250 removes the requirement to retreat before a person may legitimately defend themselves. This sort of law has been called a "stand your ground" law.
These are the sort of reforms and improvements we see in more and more states around the country. Second Amendment supporters keep working on ways to restore rights and remove unnecessary restrictions. Many of the most effective organizations are state based. That is where most effective change is being made.
Most state legislators, with obvious exceptions such as California, New York, and Illinois; are not composed of professional politicians. They are subject, mostly, to their constituents desires, and even to reason and logic. While some key state legislators have been and are subject to foreign influence, special interests, and corruption, there are so many state legislators, effective, widespread corruption, by foreign actors and national special interest groups is more difficult.
State organizations of Second Amendment supporters have an advantage of being able to mobilize hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of local supporters on short notice. A state legislator may receive 10 emails on an ordinary bill. When he receives a thousand, he pays attention. Because of state groups proximity, they can watch the legislative process intently.
Small, incremental changes often do not gather national attention.
For these reasons, state organizations roll up success after success. Success becomes habitual and contagious. When a state organization finds a particular legislator who either blocks their desires or cooperates with them well, they are able to provide punishment and rewards.
At the state level, a dozen volunteers during a primary may make all the difference between success and failure.
The rise of the Internet has allowed state groups to organize and operate with much greater ease and impact than ever before in history.
©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
A trespasser who jumped into a swimming pool was held at gunpoint by the homeowner until law enforcement arrived on the scene.
The homeowner on Micro Racetrack Road in Fruitland Park used a .357-caliber snub nose revolver Saturday afternoon to detain 46-year-old Clayton Charles Glass until Lake County sheriff’s deputies responded to the scene.
Dean Weingarten in front of Supreme Court
Described as the first significant Second Amendment case to be heard in a decade, New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett, has, as expected, engendered a large number of amicus briefs.
Amicus (friend of the court) briefs are submitted by parties who wish to bring facts and arguments before the court, which might not otherwise be noticed by the court.
This is an important function. It has the potential to prevent absurdities such as happened in the first direct challenge to a federal law using the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller, 1939. That case challenged the National Firearms Act of 1934. It was sent back to the District Court, in part, because the Court ruled no one had presented evidence that short-barreled shotguns were useful to a militia.
In the New York case, 52 amicus briefs have been accepted by the Supreme Court. Amicus briefs are required to be submitted in a rigid format, with strict printing requirements, on a fixed timeline. This author was contacted to contribute to one of the amicus briefs. Unfortunately, events prevented such a contribution.
What appears to be the last amicus brief accepted was from the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid of New York City.
As with most amicus briefs accepted by the Supreme Court, it is well written and argued. The bar for acceptance is high.
This brief spotlights the enormous human costs of the routine violation of Second Amendment rights by the State of New York.
Those who have been involved in the fight to restore Second Amendment rights are familiar with those costs: Innocent lives destroyed, lives lost, years in prison, property lost, children lost, marriages destroyed, all because governments have been unwilling to recognize the exercise of Second Amendment rights, and courts have been unwilling to enforce those rights. Here is the summary of the amicus brief. From the supremecourt.gov:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The incorporated Second Amendment affords the people “the right to keep and bear arms.” U.S. Const. amends. II, XIV McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S.742 (2010)District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Despite the clear text and this Court's precedent, New York's licensing regime does the opposite. It deprives everyone of that right, only returning it to those select few who manage to first secure a firearm license from the police. For everyone else, possession of a firearm is effectively a “violent felony,” punishable by 3.5 to 15 years in prison. N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.03; 70.02(1)(b). New York’s licensing requirements criminalize the exercise of the fundamental Second Amendment right with rare exception.
As a result, each year, we represent hundreds of indigent people whom New York criminally charges for exercising their right to keep and bear arms. For our clients, New York’s licensing regime renders the Second Amendment a legal fiction. Worse, virtually all our clients whom New York prosecutes for exercising their Second Amendment right are Black or Hispanic. And that is no accident. New York enacted its firearm licensing requirements to criminalize gun ownership by racial and ethnic minorities. That remains the effect of its enforcement by police and prosecutors today.
The consequences for our clients are brutal. New York police have stopped, questioned, and frisked our clients on the streets. They have invaded our clients’ homes with guns drawn, terrifying them, their families, and their children. They have forcibly removed our clients from their homes and communities and abandoned them in dirty and violent jails and prisons for days, weeks, months, and years. They have deprived our clients of their jobs, children, livelihoods, and ability to live in this country. And they have branded our clients as “criminals” and “violent felons” for life. They have done all of this because our clients exercised a constitutional right.
Therefore, we ask this Court to answer the question presented in a way that will protect the Second Amendment for all the people: by holding that Petitioners’ license denials violated the Second Amendment because New York’s licensing regime is unconstitutional.
This correspondent has a minor issue with the argument in the second paragraph.
New York enacted its firearm licensing requirements to criminalize gun ownership by racial and ethnic minorities.
The sentence is true. It does not go far enough. A primary purpose of the New York scheme was to prevent people from fighting back against organized crime in New York City. The proponent of the scheme, Big Tim Sullivan, was one of the leaders of the Tammany Hall Gang. Extortion does not work as well if your victims are armed.
Over the decades, this correspondent has seen innocent people arrested, jailed, sent to prison, their property confiscated, their lives ruined, their children taken, their careers destroyed, all for exercising their Second Amendment rights. A fair number have been killed.
No system is perfect. The Constitutional system of ordered liberty with checks and balances to limit governmental power, has been shown to be the best implemented thus far. It allows for continual improvement.
Much progress has been made in restoring the legal exercise of Second Amendment rights. Much more needs to be done.
©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
POMONA, Wash. — A Yakima County homeowner fired at a burglar’s getaway vehicle after she caught him hiding out in her garage.
According to a press release issued by the Yakima County Sheriff’s Office, the homeowner on the 1900-block of E Pomona Rd called 9-1-1 at 3:16 p.m. on July 30 while she held the burglar at gunpoint. The suspect then fled the garage and hopped into a commercial “Snap-On Tools” truck, which had been reported stolen from the City of Yakima roughly a half-hour earlier.
Officers say when they arrived on scene the woman they found said she shot Tolbert in defense after altercation.
The shooting occurred around 6:30 p.m.
The two men were at a residence at the above address when one of them pulled a gun and threatened to shoot the other. That second male produced his own gun and shot the other male. Paramedics transported the wounded male to a hospital.
The shooter was questioned and subsequently arrested for a charge pertaining to a separate case.
No charges have been filed at this time in the shooting. The investigation is continuing.
HB 957, the new silencer/gun muffler/suppressor law, will become effective in Texas on 1 September, 2021. On that date, the Attorney General, Ken Paxton, will be able to accept written notification by a United States citizen who intends to make a firearms suppressor as per Section 2.052 of the new law. The Attorney General shall then seek a declaratory judgement from a federal district court.
There is strong Supreme Court precedent that the federal government may not command a state to enforce federal law, known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
HB 957 goes far beyond
anti-commandeering. It sets up a test case to undermine the pernicious
doctrine which has crept into the federal judiciary over the last 80
years. The doctrine is: all commerce is essentially, interstate
commerce, and may be regulated by the federal government. From HB957 (now law):
Sec. 2.052. NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION. (a) A firearm suppressor that is manufactured in this state and remains in this state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation,including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
(b) A basic material from which a firearm suppressor is manufactured in this state, including unmachined steel, is not a firearm suppressor and is not subject to federal regulation under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce as if it actually were a firearm suppressor.
Sec. 2.053. MARKETING OF FIREARM SUPPRESSOR. A firearm suppressor manufactured and sold in this state must have the words "Made in Texas" clearly stamped on it.
Sec. 2.054. ATTORNEY GENERAL. On written notification to the attorney general by a United States citizen who resides in this state of the citizen's intent to manufacture a firearm suppressor to which Section 2.052 applies, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from a federal district court in this state that Section 2.052 is consistent with the United States Constitution.
The United States Courts have created the precedent, since 1942 in Wickard v. Filburn, that all commerce may be regulated by the federal government, because all commerce affects interstate commerce. The precedent was established by courts overwhelmed with justices who were ideological Progressives.
Several cases, starting in 1995, with U.S. v. Lopez(1995), then U.S. v. Morrison(2000), and even "Obamacare" NFIB v. Sebelieus (2012) establish a different precedent, that the power of the United States government to regulate commerce has some limit.
The most problematic of theses sort of cases is Gonzalez v. Raich (2005). In Raich, the Supreme Court held that people growing Marijuana in their own home for their own use affected interstate commerce and was subject to regulation by the federal government.
Justice Thomas wrote a famous dissent in Raich, which was decided 6-3. Justice Thomas is the only member of the court which created the Raich decision who is still on the court.
The National Firearms Act (NFA), which is the base federal law used to regulate silencers/gun mufflers/suppressors, is a good test case to work to advance the precedent to limit the federal power to regulate all commerce.
The historical record is clear. The taxing power was
used, in the case of the NFA, to avoid the limitations on the federal
government placed by the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, the
Fourteenth Amendment, and the commerce clause. The legislative intent is well documented.
There are numerous precedents that using government power to restrict fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, is invalid. For example, newspapers may not be taxed more than other, similar establishments.
In other cases, the federal courts are reluctant to restrict taxing powers.
The logical problem is, if you allow taxation of the exercise of Constitutional rights, you grant the government the power to violate those rights.
Silencers are the weakest part of the NFA. There was virtually no legislative history to give intent for the extreme tax on silencers. The tax is not popular; it taxes a safety device, there are numerous examples and statistics to show the tax does not reduce crime.
Silencers are increasing in popularity, while their use in crime is negligible. There are over 400,000 legal silencers in Texas.
Federal courts, and especially the Supreme Court, have been reluctant to restore constitutional checks and balances, and, especially, limits on federal power, after 80 years of Progressive infringements. The best approach is to offer the court small, incremental steps restoring rights, rather than "all or nothing" efforts which require the courts to invalidate vast expanses of law all at once.
This correspondent believes the way to expand the doctrine of limiting federal power over the commerce clause, and to invalidate the NFA, is to argue that a person making a silencer for their own use, in their own state, is not "commerce" as defined in the commerce clause of the Constitution.
If everything is commerce, the commerce clause allows the federal government to invalidate the concept of federalism, by invalidating state power to regulate its internal affairs; and to invalidate the Second Amendment by allowing the federal government to selectively apply excessive taxation to a disfavored, fundamental right.
Arguing an individual, making a safety device, for their own use, which has virtually no effect on interstate commerce, is beyond a reasonable interpretation of the original meaning of the commerce clause, has a chance of being accepted by the federal courts.
Arguing a business, selling a commercial product inside a state, is beyond the federal power, is much harder. It has a much lower chance of succeeding.
Limits on federal power, which have been stripped away by Progressive courts over the last 80 years, are unlikely to be restored all at once. They can be restored, incrementally, over time.
This correspondent recommends the examples used by AG Paxton be selected with care. Sympathetic examples are best; perhaps poor, minority, single mothers can be found. Selecting sympathetic clients has become a major part of jurisprudence in the federal courts.
If you believe you could be helpful to AG Paxton, you may want to contact him.
The law is set up so the AG can challenge the federal law before any items are made in Texas, under the new law.
This correspondent suspects such efforts are already underway. It is likely the briefs to be filed in federal court are already sketched out.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is not a fool.
It would be poor judgement to set up a shop and start to manufacture and advertise "MADE IN TEXAS" silencers/gun mufflers/suppressors before the Texas AG legal challenge is completed.
Privately made and discreetly held gun mufflers, on the other hand, will be much harder for federal or local authorities to find and/prosecute under the new law, because state and local authorities will be risking their budget to do so. Federal authorities mostly depend on local authorities to find cases.
©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Officials said the incident turned into a fight between the homeowner and the intoxicated intruder. An incident report stated the altercation led to shots being fired before officers arrived.
When officers arrived on the scene they made contact with Thaddeus Wallace, 53, who identified himself as the homeowner.
Police said they discovered 44-year-old Brian Stone unresponsive and suffering from a gunshot wound to the head. A 9mm Kel-Tec P-11 pistol was recovered from the scene, according to reports.
On the evening of 22 September, 2005, a hunting guide and his hunter, who was from Ohio, were attacked without provocation, by a grizzly bear in the Shoshone National Forest in the northwest corner of Wyoming. The details of the attack were found in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response to AmmoLand. This correspondent has not found any other published account of this attack.
The hunter had been drawn for an archery tag for elk, with his friends. The hunter had been assigned a guide by the licensed outfitter. On the morning of 22 September, the guide had decided to take the hunter to the Elizabeth Creek area to pursue elk. They took two pack mules and their riding horses, and left a little later than normal, because the guide thought they might encounter elk along the way.
They saw elk, but noticed horses from another party were tied in the area. They kept traveling rather then interfere with the other hunters.
When they arrived at Elizabeth Creek, they heard a bull elk bugling below them. They started to hunt the bull, waiting in expectation the bull would bed down, hoping they would be able to spot him. If they were unable to spot the bull, they expected to leave the area about 6-6:30 p.m.
At about 15 or 20 minutes before six, the guide saw a sow grizzly bear with a cub. He told the hunter they needed leave the area. When they had traveled about 200 yards, the guide remembered he had left his cow call. He told the hunter to wait while he retrieved the call.
As the guide was returning to the hunter, he noticed the hunter was watching something. The guide thought it was probably elk. When the guide was about 50 yards from the hunter, the hunter yelled "Look out!" The guide looked and saw movement through the trees. He suspected it was the bull. A different sow grizzly with two large cubs burst into the clearing. The guide attempted to warn the bear off by making himself large, yelling, "Hey Bear, get out of here!" and waving his arms. The bear charged straight at the guide, roaring.
The guide attempted to draw his .44 magnum revolver, but the pistol hung up on the trigger guard. The bear was very close, so the guide dodged behind an eight inch birch tree, to avoid the bear. The guide estimated he spent 40 seconds dodging the bear around the tree, until the bear grabbed him by the right side, and threw him to the ground.
It is common for time to appear to stretch out when in a life and death situation.
With the guide on the ground, the bear worried him for a short period, then left him and ran at the hunter, who was armed with a crossbow. At ten yards, the hunter shot the bear in the chest with his bow. At the impact of the bolt, the bear stood up, and started back toward the guide, then lay down.
The hunter shouted to the guide, "She's dead, I'm all right!" The guide got up and asked where the bear went. The hunter said "She is right next to you, about 6-8 feet away." The guide determined the bear was still breathing, so he shot her in the back of he head with the .44 magnum. Then he looked around to see what was happening with the two large cubs. (estimated two years old) The cubs were not seen.
After a few seconds, the guide and hunter left the area.
On 23 September, 2005, a Warden interviewed the guide and contacted the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Special Agent. The Warden confirmed the Guide had several puncture wounds to his right side and the right front of his stomach.
On 6 October, 2005, the Special Agent and the Warden took a helicopter flight to the area, in an attempt to find the dead grizzly. The search was severely hampered by 12-14 inches of new snow.
Given the circumstances, the Assistant United States Attorney declined criminal prosecution on 28 July, 2006. The Office of the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior for the Rocky Mountain Region declined to pursue a civil penalty on 6 November, 2006.
©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
The incident happened around 11 p.m. Wednesday at a home on N. San Ignacio Avenue near W. Commerce Street.
Police said a 17-year-old boy broke into the home armed with a rifle and a handgun. The home had four people inside. At some point, one of the people inside the home opened fire on the suspect who was trying to rob the house.
Police responded around 2:40 a.m. to the incident on the 300 block of Worthy Street. When they arrived, family members told police that the man, Terry McKenzie, had assaulted members of the family before he pulled out a gun and shot at them multiple times, according to officials.
Another family member then returned fire, hitting McKenzie once. He went inside to a home where a 1-year-old baby and 6-year-old child were asleep, and did not come back out. Officials say they tried to contact him, but were unable to get him to respond, leading them to believe he had barricaded himself inside the home.
The police department then asked for help from Fort Worth's tactical team to deal with the situation, officials said. They eventually entered the home after trying to get into contact with him, but found he had died.
Author shows CZ pistol with arm brace for the American market at Shot Show in 2015
In 2015, after the series of Paris Jihadi Terrorist attacks, the bureaucrats in the European Union found an opportunity to further restrict the ownership of firearms in European countries. They created extremely restrictive new protocols which further restricted the ownership of common arms.
The Czech Republic had some of the least restrictive firearm laws in the European Union. To the Czech people, the ability to own firearms, and use them for protection, was a significant measure of freedom, which they did not have when they were part of the Soviet Empire.
The move for the amendment started in 2015, after the terrorist attacks in Paris. By the middle of 2016, Czech President, Miloš Zeman was suggesting citizens should be armed "over the long term" and carry pistols in public, to defend against terrorist attacks.
The move to amend the Constitution, and add a protection for the right to defense of self and others, with arms, has continued, with some variation. From expats.cz:
The complementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms arises from a petition signed by 102,000, including many senior politicians.
The final version appears to be relatively short. From laprensalatina.com:
The amendment states that “the right to defend one’s life or the life of others, even with the use of weapons, is guaranteed.”
The lower house of the Czech Parliament passed the amendment on 28 June with a 139 to 9 majority.
On 21 July, 2021, the Senate passed the amendment, with 54 of 74 senators voting for it.
“The proposal is not only symbolic in nature but can also serve as insurance for the future,” said Senator Martin Červíček on behalf of the submitters.
Červíček pointed to the tendency of some EU countries to ban carrying any objects that could be used as a weapon. According to Červíček, the disarmament of the population will not bring greater security, as criminals will obtain weapons illegally.
The amendment will take effect some time from 1 August to 1 September, 2021.
Czech lawmakers approved an amendment that will enshrine the right to use a weapon in self-defense in the Czech constitution – a new right that will be included in the country’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.Many people have suggested the amendment does not have any teeth, because the European Union rules override it. At a Youtube site, a Czech citizen explains how they expect the strategy to be expanded. From a comment by František Krbec at Happy gun news:
Maybe you ask why this additional constitution law helps us to secure our civil gun ownership against EU restrictions, because EU restrictions are more powerful than basic laws of EU countries - this constitutional right is just first step. The second step, which will follow and already is in our parliament and senate for discussion is, that the our government - especially our Ministry of Interior affairs in, collaboration with Ministry of Defense, make a project which is called "defined state backups" and that means that all gun owners can sign to a special training with guns covered by state armed forces. This course should deepen the civil gun owners skills to defend lives before special police forces arrives. It is our reaction on terrorism and the cases with active shooter in schools, public areas, etc. We know that the police cannot be everywhere. That means that all the gun owners which undertake this training and make a promise, will become let's say part of interior security. The interior security is one of a fields where EU has no rights and then we can say - OK, you cannot tell us which kind of guns or size of magazines we can have, because this is strictly in our competition for our internal safety.
This shows a sophisticated way to maintain a right to arms and self-defense for the people of the Czech Republic. When you provide a means for all citizens who are willing, to become part of the state defense agencies, which includes the right to arms, you have short circuited many of the state sponsored restrictions.
This correspondent has often considered a similar provision could be used in the United States, to push back against federal power.
State legislatures could define any person with a carry permit to be a member of the state militia, on duty; they could make it an option available with a few hours training; they could proclaim that federal NFA laws do not apply to state militia members on duty. It is a powerful tool the states have not yet used.
In Western Civilization, it was considered an obvious, natural part of existence, that people had a right to defend themselves. Part of that natural right was the right to weapons to defend themselves with.
The right to self defense with weapons was significantly eroded, starting with England in 1920. The new gun laws did not allow self defense as a legitimate reason for owning arms. Much of Europe followed. In Canada and Australia, and now, New Zealand, when a person applies to obtain a permit to own firearms, self defense is not allowed as a legitimate reason.
The Czech republic has recaptured the essence of that right with this amendment. While not as strong as the American Second Amendment, it is the strongest protection in the European Union.
©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
SCSO was called to the scene on Dan George Road around 9 p.m. Monday where a caller says a naked man was attempting to break into her mother’s home next door.
The caller’s husband went next door and confronted the man.
After a fight, the naked man was shot in the torso and arm.
CLEVELAND, Ohio — Police are investigating after a man was shot to death by a woman who says the victim was assaulting her.
The 33-year-old woman tells police the victim, identified by the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner’s Office as Andre Bello, 41, of Cleveland, was the father of her child and that she had a protection order against him.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Campaigning against the Confirmation of Justice Amy Barrett in 2020 Wikimedia commons CC 2.0
Those who wish to disarm other people have a disconnect with reality. They refuse to believe some things are not possible. This creates problems.
One of the reasons people push to disarm others is they refuse to arm themselves. Having made that decision, or, having had that decision made for them; they personally see no cost to their disarming of others.
Disarm that guy over there. He is not me. It doesn't hurt me.
This is how ideologues who refuse to accept reality get elected again and again. Consider Kirsten Gillibrand, U.S. Senator from New York. From the nydailynews.com:
A measure to create a federal gun trafficking crime failed to make it through the Senate in 2013, on the heels of the devastating shooting that killed 20 schoolchildren in Newtown, Conn. Still, Gillibrand said she was “very hopeful” the legislation will pass this time around.
“Guns travel up the iron pipeline along I-95 from states like Florida or Georgia or Pennsylvania where gun laws are far less strict,” Gillibrand said in the news conference. “The percentage of illegally trafficked guns in New York State has continued to grow in recent years, but I refuse to believe that we can’t stop these illegal guns from coming into our state.”
She plans to reintroduce the legislation this week, according to her office. Adams praised Gillibrand for her dogged decade-long effort on the bill.
It is already illegal to buy a gun outside of New York, bring it to New York, and sell it in New York, without going through a federally licensed dealer. It is a felony in both federal law and New York State law. Gillibrand seems to think making those actions somehow more illegal, with more law, will work where the current laws do not.
Consider her self-admitted mindset:
I refuse to believe that we can’t stop these illegal guns from coming into our state.
The laws have been in place for more than 50 years. It is part of the framework of the 1968 Gun Control Act. Homicide skyrocketed after the 1968 GCA was passed. The legal restrictions have not worked the whole time. In New York, in 1967, the murder rate was 6.5 per 100k. It was rising rapidly. It reached a peak of 14.5 in 1990. Then it started falling. the current rate, 2.9 is the lowest since 1965. Gun laws in the rest of the nation became less and less restrictive since 1987.
You cannot have a free republic, with the limits and checks on government which we have, and do what Gillibrand wants done. Nor is there any evidence what she wants done would have any effect on the number of people murdered.
The latest numbers, from 2019, show 7,363 guns were traced in New York State in 2019. The largest category were taken simply for illegal possession (3,395), some may have been from gun "buybacks" (Orwellian speak for gun turn-in events). Of the guns whose state of origin could be determined, New York was the largest number, 1,048 of 4,974, or 21%. At most, 6315 guns of all types came from outside of New York.
That is an average of about 17.3 guns a day from outside of New York. It is a tiny amount of guns. Only 18 guns would be required to be smuggled per day into New York, in the millions of vehicles which enter New York every day, to keep up this number. The time from when the guns were purchased, until they were traced in New York averaged 11.25 years.
Consider the guns traced from Mexico. In 2019, there were 13,387 guns from the United States traced from Mexico. The border with Mexico is much more tightly controlled than the border with New York. There are many more people in Mexico than New York. Gun control in Mexico is much more intense than it is in New York. The homicide rate in Mexico is much higher in Mexico than in New York. In 2019 it was Mexico 29 per 100K population. In NY it was 2.9, only 10% of that in Mexico.
There is plenty of evidence the number of legal guns in a population does not affect the murder rate.
Brazil, India, and China all have roughly the same number of illegally owned firearms per 100 people. The homicide rates vary from six times the rate of the U.S. (Brazil) to 2/3 the rate of the U.S. (India) to one eighth the rate of the U.S. (China).
These numbers verify the research of John Lott, which shows there is no correlation between homicide numbers and the number of guns owned per 100 people. Lott’s study compares all the countries in the world he could obtain data from. (from 2014)
There is plenty of evidence the number of guns does not affect the overall suicide rate.
They may have some small effect on the number of murders with guns, or the number of suicides with guns, but they do not change the overall numbers.
Why push the obviously flawed concept of controlling the gun flow, in order to reduce violent crime and homicides, when it demonstrably does not work?
It costs her nothing. It is important to understand, the people who want others disarmed, assume such policies cost them nothing. They may be wrong in the long term analysis. They may also be dead long before any adverse effects would impact them.
The adverse effects may take generations. Then again, the adverse effects of generations of undermining the rule of law and ignoring the Constitution of the United States appear to be having significant adverse effect right now, in 2021.
©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Indiana Capitol
As a compromise in the debate over Constitutional Carry, the Indiana legislature passed a firearms reform bill which eliminated the fee for an Indiana lifetime carry permit. The fee for the 5 year permit was eliminated in 2019. That law went into effect on 1 July, 2020. From the Crime Prevention Research Center, Indiana had 967,061 permits as of July 1, 2020. At that time, 18.73% of the adult population had an Indiana carry permit.
On 1 July of 2020, when the five year permit fee was eliminated, about 8,000 applications for permits were received. From indystar.com:
State Police received 2,259 handgun permit applications from July 1-7 last year compared to 20,647 in 2020.
On July 1 alone, the day the fees were eliminated, Galaviz said the state received about 8,000 gun permit applications.
The data includes all handgun permit applications, which include lifetime permits that still have fees. About two-thirds of last week's applications were for the no-fee five-year permits, Galaviz said.
As of 1 July, 2021, the number of total active licenses had increased to 1,120,144. Those numbers translate into 21.69% of the adult population, a nearly 16% rise in permits, equal to 3% of the adult population. 69.9% of those with permits are males, 31% are females.
The elimination of the lifetime permit fee went into effect on 1 July, 2021. The number of applications for permits showed an increase similar to the increase a year ago, on 1 July, 2020. From fox59.com:
GREENWOOD, Ind. — There is no longer a fee to obtain a lifetime permit to carry a gun in the state of Indiana. The response from Hoosiers has been so overwhelming that it’s bogging down Indiana State Police’s firearms licensing website.
“As expected, we’ve had an influx of applications on our website. We’re asking folks that want to apply for that to be patient,” said ISP public information officer, Sgt. John Perrine.
Perrine confirmed that ISP received 7,136 applications through the site in the first 24 hours after the permits became fee exempt.
If the same pattern happens as last year, the total number of active permits will rise to 24% of the adult population in Indiana. Nearly all those permits are Indiana residents. Only a few people qualify for a non-resident permit. From ariesportal.com:
If I do not live in Indiana, can I still have an Indiana firearm license?If you are a resident of another state and have a regular place of business or employment in Indiana, you qualify for a 5 year personal protection firearm license. Your local agency will be the sheriff of the county in which you have a regular place of business or employment. You will be asked to upload the following documents on your application: 1. Print, complete, sign and notarize the Out-of-State Affidavit form stating you meet out-of-state residence requirements. 2. Provide a proof of employment on company letterhead.
Constitutional Carry came very close to passing in the Indiana legislature in 2020. If nearly a quarter of the population of voters in Indiana have carry permits, it seems very likely Constitutional Carry will pass in the next Legislative session.
©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Witnesses say Williams had “an object” in his jacket pocket that he began banging on a bench – which turned out to be a gun. They say he did it multiple times before pulling it out and firing toward a crowd of people.
One of the men in the crowd pulled out his own gun and returned fire in the direction of Williams.
The report states Williams then threw his gun in a parking lot.
Posts
All Comments
