Are governments this stupiod?

Walmart got it right when it announced in early September, following the mass murder of 22 people at one of its El Paso stores, that it would cease selling ammunition for all handguns and military-style weapons. It was the corporation’s way of saying getting the guns is not the answer.

The truth is, the guns can’t be gotten. I’ve seen that in Connecticut, a state known for its stringent gun laws. Several months before the 2012 tragedy in Newtown, I happened to be in Stamford police headquarters. Taped to a wall was a flyer announcing the city’s latest anti-gun campaign, requesting that citizens voluntarily turn in their firearms.

“How many guns have you collected?” I asked the officer on duty.

“About 75.” It was more than he’d expected, he said.

For an informal effort in a small city where no mass shooting deaths have occurred, it seemed a worthwhile beginning, until I spoke with U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, my congressman.

“Oh yeah,” he said. “I went to one of those in Bridgeport not long ago. You should have seen the guns people turned in. Some of them were rusty. They looked about a hundred years old.”

According to Himes and the officer with whom I spoke, none of the near-useless weapons turned in was illegal. And that’s the fundamental problem. It’s difficult to convince legal gun owners to part with a viable weapon. What hope is there that a criminal, or a person who is mentally unfit, will voluntarily surrender one?

The illicit firearms currently on the streets are staying there, and their number is staggering. In 2018, in Chicago alone, police confiscated more than 9,600, an average of more than one an hour. And still, the Chicago Tribune reported, through Oct. 27 there have been 2,313 city shootings in this calendar year.

The most expedient method of removing firearms from those who shouldn’t have them would be to pass federal legislation making confiscation mandatory — as Australia did, following a spate of mass killings that culminated in a 1996 night club massacre that took 35 lives. Twelve days later, the nation enacted strict gun reform legislation that limited the types of firearms available to civilians. The government has since collected and destroyed more than a million weapons through buyback and amnesty programs. Over the next 18 years, Australia suffered not a single fatal mass shooting of five or more deaths.

A better solution here, where the National Rifle Association is so influential, would be to render illicit firearms useless.

It is not as insurmountable as it might appear.

Today, one can walk into a gun shop and purchase, for instance, a .22, .38 or .44-caliber handgun. Most firearms are built to accommodate one size round only. Here’s what would happen if the manufacture of today’s standard-size rounds were outlawed, and .21, .37, or .43-caliber rounds took their place: Eventually, gun owners would run out of the old ammo, and their weapons would become paperweights.

We’d have the opportunity for a national gun policy do-over. New, tougher gun registration and ownership policies, some already favored by NRA membership, would be enacted in conjunction with the changeover in rounds calibration. Fresh attention could be paid to newer, research-vetted strategies, such as the universal adoption of smart-gun technology and limiting the size of rounds available to civilians. Police and military would keep their current firearms and ammuntion, manufactured and distributed under strictest control.

To use the recalibrated rounds, people would have to purchase new weapons to fire them. Many would object. Why should a law-abiding citizen spend hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars to replace one’s gun collection?

Gun manufacturers could offer a six-month window for any person eligible to turn in their old weapons and receive a partial rebate toward the purchase of new ones. For manufacturers and retailers, these sales would amount to a windfall of epic proportions.

Jesse Jannetta, a senior policy fellow for the Urban Institute, said such a plan “might have a substantial impact on mass shootings.” As for street violence, he added, “A lot of that is about the circulation of illegal guns, so maybe it would have a lot of impact there, also.”

A democracy sometimes requires that we sacrifice convenience for the public good. Passing through airport security is a hassle, but we accept it. It helps keep us safe. So would this proposal, even if it’s not an overnight solution. Law-abiding citizens could still own guns. And that is all the second amendment promises. It does not prohibit federal or state governments from regulating the type of weapon one may own.

This is crazy..

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- The Attorney General of New York, recently elected and rabidly anti-Second Amendment, Letitia James, is attempting to intimidate online sellers of the materials and tools used to make firearms into not selling them to New York residents.  She claims the companies are promoting law breaking. From the ag.ny.gov:

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today announced that she has directed the operators of 16 websites that manufacture and/or sell firearms or firearms components to “cease and desist” selling nearly complete assault weapons into New York State. The possession, manufacture, and sale of assault weapons is illegal in New York, but these companies have been providing the means to violate the state’s assault weapons ban, and often specifically advertise their products as a way to evade law enforcement with phrases like, “If they don’t know you have it, they can’t take it.”

“There is only one purpose for the products that these companies are selling — to manufacture illegal and deadly assault weapons,” said Attorney General Letitia James. “The proliferation of these types of weapons has not only caused indescribable suffering across the country, but gravely endanger every New Yorker. We must make sure that these illegal and untraceable guns are not built in New York.”

There are serious problems with AG Letitia's claims. She is the one who is breaking the law, not the sellers of metal and tools.  The law banning the possession of semi-automatic rifles in New York is flagrantly unconstitutional. Such rifles are in common use, are used in self-defense and defense of the home, and are shown to be far less commonly used in crime than semi-automatic pistols. She has a duty to uphold the Constitution and the Second Amendment. A court case challenging the law worked its way to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Unfortunately, the Courts have supported this flagrant infringement on the Second Amendment. Because of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the NYR&P club decided not to pursue the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has yet to hear the issue.

AG Letitia James is wrong in her assertion that these products only have one purpose, and that purpose is an illegal one, based on the flagrantly unconstitutional New York law.

New York banned the sale of many semi-automatic firearms, including the ubiquitous and popular AR-15 type of rifles, based on a number of cosmetic features. Here are the cosmetic features:  N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(22) 

22. “Assault weapon” means

(a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

(i)a  folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) a thumbhole stock;

(iv)a second hand grip or a protruding grip that can beheld by then on-trigger hand;

(v)a bayonet mount;

(vi)a flash suppressor,muzzle break, muzzle compensator, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, muzzle break, or muzzle compensator;

(vii) a grenade launcher;

Anyone who is making a rifle from the partly machined aluminum paper weights can make legal rifles by making sure they do not have the features forbidden by the law.  Such paper weights can be used to make rifles that are not semi-automatic.

Rifles that meet these requirements are not required to be registered in New York. People who move to New York can bring their rifles, which meet these requirements, into New York, without problems.

Any person can “make” an existing semi-automatic rifle into an “assault weapon” under New York law, simply by changing the grip, or stock or threading the muzzle. Such actions are much easier than doing the machining necessary to turn the paperweight into a functioning firearm.

There are several other ways the lower receiver of an AR-15 type rifle can be made by people in their homes.

The ability to make firearms is clearly part of the Second Amendment. Individuals have been legally making their own firearms for at least 500 years, which includes the entire existence of the United States.

There were no laws infringing on the making of firearms when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.

A new infringement on the Second Amendment, such as a ban on making your own firearm, is clearly unconstitutional.

Once you try to ban the making of firearms, it becomes apparent, to have much effect, you need to make the knowledge to make firearms illegal. New York is in the process of attempting to do that. To do so, you must violate the First Amendment.  From prnewswire.com:

“This has turned into a classic First Amendment case,” Gottlieb said. “Only because this case involves technical information on production of firearm components on a 3-D printer have these anti-rights officials acted to squelch it. We cannot allow this to happen.”

Then, people trying to ban the making of firearms ban the sale of firearm parts.

Then they ban the sale of tools useful in making firearms, without special licenses.

These are things the New York State government is in the process of doing.

They are blatant violations of the First Amendment and the Second Amendment.

New York has always been an incubator for infringements on the Second Amendment.

They are one of only six states without a protection for the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution.

They were the source of the infamous Sullivan law, where organized crime boss “Big Tim” Sullivan lobbied and had passed the handgun licensing law to protect his organized crime enforcers.

In 2016, New York was the scene of another scandal where gun permits were obtained through bribes.

The New York violations of the First and Second Amendments are wending their slow, arduous way through the courts. The Supreme Court has decided to hear one New York City case. There will be a hearing on 1 October.

Elections have consequences. President Trump's appointments to the Supreme Court could make the difference in the Court deciding to do their job, and enforce the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

This individual never stops

Although he’s out of office, former President Barack Obama has not stopped voicing his political opinions.

With gun control constantly being one of the most polarizing issues in America, it makes sense that Obama would offer his two cents on the matter, even while out of office.

Recently, Obama did just that, taking advantage of a trip to Brazil to lament to his audience about the horrors of American gun control laws. 

At the VTEX Day digital conference hosted in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the former president recounted the emotional distress he felt after the Sandy Hook massacre. Obama expressed his sorrow:

“The most difficult day that I’ve had, was the day where there was a shooting at a school. Uh, where, 20 small children were shot, as well as some teachers.”

He added, “I had to go and comfort the parents.” However, this speech was not just filled with sorrow.

Obama went on to score anti-gun talking points. The 44th president claimed that anyone can purchase a gun without having to go through much regulation. Plus, he stated that machine guns can be purchased online. 

Obama told his Brazilian audience: 

“Some of you may be aware our gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon any time — without much if any regulation, they can buy it over the Internet, they can buy machine guns.”

Obama’s assertions throughout this speech are not only misleading, but some are flat out wrong.

For starters, every gun owner in America must go through a federal background check in order to acquire a firearm. Further, machine guns have been subject to stringent federal regulations since the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934, as the federal government didn’t stop regulating machine guns from there.

From 1986 and onward, civilians could only acquire machine guns that were “lawfully registered and possessed before May 19, 1986,” according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The Hughes Amendment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act included this provision and has made the possession of machine guns overwhelmingly cost prohibitive for the average gun owner. 

Obama’s talk in Brazil is rather ironic given the South American country’s high crime rates and draconian gun control laws. Brazil had a homicide rate of 30.8 homicides per 100,000 people in 2017 and ranks among the most violent countries in the world. Gun ownership is not a right in Brazil and the average resident must jump through a complex maze of regulatory hoops such as registration and extensive background checks. As a result of such restrictions, only 3.5 percent of Brazilians owned firearms before 2004. 

If anything, Brazilians should be lectured on the benefits having looser gun control policies.

The good news is that the recent election of President Jair Bolsonaro has seen Brazil’s gun policy shift towards a more pro-gun direction with Bolsonaro signing an executive order that would loosen restrictions on gun ownership.

Gun policy might be a touchy subject, but policymakers and commentators would be wise to discard loaded soundbites and instead do more thorough research on the matter. A proper firearms policy of freedom would be a life-saver for many individuals.

American Civilians Estimated To Own 400 Million Firearms

Posted 4 days ago in Daily News, Guns & Gear by Matthew Moss with 214 Comments
Tags: Firearms Ownership, Gun Ownership, Small Arms Survey

Gun Store Wall (Photo by Michael Saechang)

In a new study published by the Small Arms Survey estimates that American civilians own owning just under 400 million guns. Worldwide it’s estimated that civilians own nearly 1 billion firearms, with India a very, very distant second to the US.

American Civilians Estimated To Own 400 Million Firearms

The report published by the Swiss-based research centre in June estimates that the number of firearms owned globally by civilians, military and law enforcement totals around 1.1 billion. With American civilians owning 393 million of those or 40% of the world’s firearms. That’s more than those held by civilians in the other top 20 countries combined.

Follow the The Firearm Blog Daily News Channel

It is difficult to quantify exactly how many firearms are privately owned in the US. There many numbers suggested by numerous sources with estimates ranging between 250 million to as high as 600 million. The Small Arms Survey’s estimations are based upon official firearms registration databases, expert estimates, surveys and comparisons to similar countries on page 8 of their report the Small Arms Survey go into detail on how they computed their estimates.

The report makes use of a number of tables and diagrams to break down the data and perhaps the most interesting is he first pie chart, seen below. It shows how over 1 billion firearms around the world are distributed with civilian ownership, at an estimated 857 million, by far the largest group.

Small Arms Survey global firearms ownership estimates for 2017 (Small Arms Survey)

HOW DO THE NUMBERS BREAKDOWN BY COUNTRY?

Here’s Small Arms Survey’s table showing the estimated total civilian-held legal and illicit firearms in the 25 top ranked countries and territories, 2017:

United States 393,300,000
India 71,100,000
China 49,700,000
Pakistan 43,900,000
Russian Federation 17,600,000
Brazil 17,500,000
Mexico 16,800,000
Germany 15,800,000
Yemen 14,900,000
Turkey 13,200,000
France 12,700,000
Canada 12,700,000
Thailand 10,300,000
Italy 8,600,000
Iraq 7,600,000
Nigeria 6,200,000
Venezuela 5,900,000
Iran 5,900,000
Saudi Arabia 5,500,000
South Africa 5,400,000
Colombia 5,000,000
Ukraine 4,400,000
Afghanistan 4,300,000
Egypt 3,900,000
Philippines 3,800,000

Just over 10 years ago, in 2007, the Small Arms Survey published a similar report that estimated that 650 million guns were owned world wide. The report also believed that 270 million of these were owned by US civilians. This clear increase shows that the US civilian market is the foremost driver behind the increase in firearms ownership in the world. The latest report suggests that 120 firearms are owned per 100 people in the US. By this metric the next country to hold a substantial number of guns per 100 people is Yemen, with 53 guns per 100 people. Japan and Indonesia have the lowest number of guns per 100 people, both with an average of just just 0.3 guns per 100 people.

The report’s author, Aaron Karp, said that “with acquisition averaging around 14 million guns annually during the last five years, growth of civilian holdings in the United States contributes disproportionately to the increase of the global firearms stockpile.”

Small Arms Survey have also created a dedicated interactive map that shows the distribution of firearms globally and by civilian, military and law enforcement ownership. Check it out here.

Sources: 1 2