Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
In the weeks since the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the call for more action in controlling military style guns and large capacity magazines has increased, but as of yet, nothing concrete has been done on the national level. In fact, the NRA was recently quoted as suggesting that nothing will be done, once the country gets over the “Connecticut Effect”! “The National Rifle Association will wait until the “Connecticut effect” has subsided to resume its push to weaken the nation’s gun laws, according to a top NRA lobbyist speaking at the NRA’s Wisconsin State Convention this weekend.” Think Progress
I did not realize that anyone ever could “get over” the shameful massacre of 20 small children along with 6 staff members of the school they attended. Is this kind of statement from the NRA just hubris or is it indicative of a disgusting level of ambivalence to the violence wrought upon citizens when semi-automatic guns and large capacity magazines are allowed and allowed in the wrong hands? I know we have discussed the gun control issue many times here, but when I read statements like the one quoted above from a Wisconsin NRA official, my head explodes.
The Think Progress article linked above also discussed further statements made by Wisconsin Lobbyist, Bob Welch, that indicate that he has little or no concern over the violence of that sad day in Newtown, but rather is sad that there has been a delay in the progress of the NRA’s agenda since the Newtown shootings. “Welch went on to bemoan the fact that the public’s focus on Newtown was preventing the NRA from pushing such bills through the legislature, but his remarks soon turned to braggadocio about the NRA’s legislative influence. He relayed an anecdote about how, following the Connecticut shooting, a pro-gun Democrat in the legislature had mentioned his desire to close the gun show loophole. “And I said [to him], ‘no, we’re not going to do that,” Welch boasted. “And so far, nothing’s happened on that.”
WELCH: We have a strong agenda coming up for next year, but of course a lot of that’s going to be delayed as the “Connecticut effect” has to go through the process. […] What’s even more telling is the people who don’t like guns pretty much realize that they can’t do a thing unless they talk to us. After Connecticut I had one of the leading Democrats in the legislature—he was with us most of the time, not all the time—he came to me and said, “Bob, I got all these people in my caucus that really want to ban guns and do all this bad stuff, we gotta give them something. How about we close this gun show loophole? Wouldn’t that be good?” And I said, “no, we’re not going to do that.” And so far, nothing’s happened on that.”
Think Progress
I was glad to read that the NRA’s massive amounts of money donated to politicians may not have as large an impact on the election process that they claim. “The answer is no, because once again, though the NRA may spend a good deal of money in total, it spreads that money to multiple races across the country. In the last four elections, the median NRA House independent expenditure has spent less than $10,000, and the median Senate IE only around $30,000 – numbers too small to have a real impact.
All right, but is the organization spending token amounts on a large group of friendly candidates, but putting its real weight behind a few high-profile races and producing results? Yet again, the answer is no. In the last four elections, the NRA spent over $100,000 on an IE in 22 separate Senate races. The group’s favored candidate won 10 times, and lost 12 times. This mediocre won-lost record, however, tells only part of the story. Let’s take one example, the largest IE the NRA conducted over this period. In 2010, they spent $1.5 million on the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate race between Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Joe Sestak. Toomey won by 2 points, but could the NRA claim credit? Toomey’s campaign spent just under $17 million, over twice as much as Sestak’s $7.5 million. The NRA was one of a remarkable 62 outside groups that poured a total of over $28 million into the Pennsylvania race. Put another way, in the NRA’s single largest independent expenditure over this period, the group accounted for less than 3 percent of the money spent in the race.” Think Progress Justice
Maybe the NRA is spinning its wheels because the Newtown shootings finally tipped the scales of public opinion in favor of sane and reasonable gun control measures. I, for one, would hope that is the case. In light of the vast amounts of weapons being purchased since the shootings, and the continued violence, I am not so sure. The latest totals that I have seen show that at least 1822 people have died due to gun violence since the Newtown shootings in December of 2012! Reader Supported News
Does the NRA really have a significant influence on the political process? Will the Newtown shootings force Washington to do something about the gun violence in this country? What do you think? What do you think should be done?
Jason:
“There is precious little in this world that anybody “needs”. Need has not a damned thing to do with it.
And given that all long guns (which encompasses “assault weapons” which in turn encompass the vast majority of “high capacity” magazines) account for well under 5% of gun murders, why is the burden on me to show why I need them? The status quo is that they are legal. You tell me what the “need” is to ban them. There is no “need” to enact a ban that would have no measurable effect on gun deaths. There are consumer products that openly market their ability to break the law. We don’t ban them due to the lack of “need”
*********************
Thank you for conceding the point that no one needs a 30 round clip.
The fundamental problem, Jason, is that you do not understand the Second Amendment. There is nothing in the Second Amendment guaranteeing you the unfettered right to any firearm or weapon you choose.
Even that darling of the gun-toting crowd, Justice Scalia, conceded that much in Heller. Scalia said “Of course the right was not unlimited … [W]e do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation.” “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [T]he sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”
“Dangerous and unusual” seems a pretty fair description of a 30 round combat clip and given your concession that it is unneeded, I think very little stands in Congress’ way constitutionally if they want to ban manufacture of these weapons.
Read more; get huffy less.
mespo:
those little things shaped like a champagne bottle that shoot out confetti when you pull the string? Yeah, those will do.
Although I am sure a 40mm high explosive round does hell to an outhouse. We blew up a refrigerator once using black powder. Which was a passible substitute.
And I have it on good authority that a relative by marriage blew up the equipment shed at the local high school using dynamite when he was a student. But the statute of limitations has run its course.
It is too bad there are so many crazy sons of b*tches out there, shooting a fully automatic weapon is fun. And if you only have 30 rounds, it is gone as fast as you can type bzzzzzt. Reloading is a pain in the a$$.
If they take away a 30 round clip or only allow us 7 for a pistol, I would just carry 2 pistols and have 4 extra clips. But with that being said, if you cant take out a bad guy or 2 with 7 shots, you might want to hire a body guard. You shouldnt be using a weapon.
Bron”
They are too hard to come by. How about the confetti shooting kind?
mespo-
There is precious little in this world that anybody “needs”. Need has not a damned thing to do with it.
And given that all long guns (which encompasses “assault weapons” which in turn encompass the vast majority of “high capacity” magazines) account for well under 5% of gun murders, why is the burden on me to show why I need them? The status quo is that they are legal. You tell me what the “need” is to ban them. There is no “need” to enact a ban that would have no measurable effect on gun deaths. There are consumer products that openly market their ability to break the law. We don’t ban them due to the lack of “need”.
And honestly, I expect better from you than using indefensible name calling and when called out on it, hand waving it as whining.
nothing says fun like blowing up a johnny on the spot.
mespo:
if you can get high explosive and tracer rounds, put me down for one while you are at it.
Rick:
“The supreme court has already ruled that Citizens have the right to protect oneself outside the home. IMO we should right to arm ourselfs with the same weapons as Law Enforcement.”
*************************
Why stop there ,Rick? How about we arm ourselves like the 1st Air Cav. I’ll put you down for a MK19 40 mm air cooled machine gun.
OS- No problem.
By the way, here’s another story of state politicians that literally want to take guns away. It has no chance of passing, but there you go. It’s getting damned hard for this liberal to convince the more strident pro-gun people that no one is coming for their guns.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/17/mmissouri-democrats-propose-forcing-some-gun-owners-to-destroy-surrender/
jason:
“mespo-
“No citizen not engaged in the military needs a 30 round combat clip and no rational person thinks he/she does.”
Well that’s a great way to start off a debate. Define your opposition as irrational if they disagree with you.”
**********************
How’s about refuting the point and displaying your rationality instead of whining about the technique of argumentation.
Porkchop:
“I’m not particularly interested in fighting black helicopters, but I think one should acknowledge that a bunch of guys with little more than some AK-47′s, some explosives, and a lot of determination did a pretty good job of tying the United States Army in knots for a considerable period of time in Iraq and Afghanistan, notwithstanding the helicopters, tanks, and drones available to US troops.”
*****************************
Like I said you’re no match for a trained assault team and maybe it’s because you have more putative guts than our terrorist adversaries who hit, run, and then inevitably die later at the hands of those same knot-bound soldiers, marines and airmen.
AK-47 carrying cowards all, and the same for those who sing their praises.
Jason,
That’s what I get for trying to write something when bone tired. What I was trying to get across was that a true assault rifle is a fully auto capable, select fire weapon that can be carried easily by a single person and fired without a crew.
Unlike, say, the Ma Deuce, which is a REAL machine gun. For those who don’t know the slang: Ma Deuce = M-2 Browning machine gun. It weighs over 125 pounds with the tripod it sits on.
Good article by a reporter that agreed to go take the NRA safety course. He’s not pro-gun.
http://nhregister.com/articles/2013/02/17/news/doc51205e1e31077391794778.txt?viewmode=default
I was most pleased at this section. He gets it. He understands that to be enthusiastic about guns doesn’t make one crazy:
“Pear’s [the instructor] enthusiasm about his collection of firearms was infectious. Though most of what he said about manufacturers and availability and customization went over my head, he was speaking a language I had heard before. He spoke with the glee of an enthusiast, a hobbyist — with the glee of a camera guy talking about his new gear, a guitarist talking about his new axe, a gadget guy talking about his new home media server.”
Steve,
The author of the bill in your linked article admitted that the offensive language should not be there. He admitted his mistake. The bill will not be passed so you can relax. Reasonable gun control is necessary and doable on the Federal level.
Jason and OS:
Well said. Not that it will make any difference to the original poster.
Mespo:
“As for the second, if you really think you’re going to fight off the black helicopters with your store-bought AK-47, wake up now because you’re no match for a trained assault team.”
I’m not particularly interested in fighting black helicopters, but I think one should acknowledge that a bunch of guys with little more than some AK-47’s, some explosives, and a lot of determination did a pretty good job of tying the United States Army in knots for a considerable period of time in Iraq and Afghanistan, notwithstanding the helicopters, tanks, and drones available to US troops.
Maybe if the funded mental health again and education there would not be the need for one to get guns…..
Nut, if you make something illegal…. Don’t most people want it….
Nick, you are correct…. Save Philly…..
Rafflaw:
One of the problems in the gun debate are the statements that gun owners are not open to “reasonable compromise”.
Intellectually, I am open to compromise, but then I get signals that a compromise is just a step towards total surrender.
Read the article from the Seattle Times (a liberal columnist writing for a liberal paper). The essence of the proposed legislation is that gun owners have to waive their 4th Amendment Rights to keep some of their 2nd Amendment Rights.
I suspect that many AR owners would practice civil disobedience: that is how formerly law abiding citizens are legislated into being outlaws.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html#.USEXugbndv1.facebook
Misstep in gun bill could defeat the effort
Seattle Times, February 17, 2013
One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake.
Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?
As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.
That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.
“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”
That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.
Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.
But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:
“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”
In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.
“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”
He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”
I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.
I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.
“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”
That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.
The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.
“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.
He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Without sweating all the details.
Bob-
There’s not a useful word in your response. Name calling and one incorrect disagreement.
Jason,
OK, how about something a little more direct?
Anyone that thinks that they need a 30-round ammunition attachment is mentally ill, and should not be allowed near a firearm of any kind.
Better?
“The ban on high and standard sized magazines is all but dead. The AWB is dead.”
Wrong.
“Gun enthusiasts…” Nice euphemism.
Gun nuts. Fewer syllables.
Mea culpa. I shall endeavor in future not to feed pathetic, psychotic, attention-craving trolls who are too weak to survive a nanosecond in actual anarchy.
OS-
“Automatic submachine guns have been illegal for public use since 1934. A true assault rifle is a submachine gun.”
Not to nitpick, but the amount of incorrect information regarding firearms is immense, so I can’t let this go by. Assault rifles are by definition NOT sub-machine guns. Sub-machine guns use handgun ammunition. The assault rifle was developed by the German military during WWII as a compromise between sub-machine guns (which gave individual soldiers the firepower of a machine gun) and full sized battle rifles (which were much more powerful and had longer range). That’s why it drives gun enthusiasts nuts when we see assault rifles described as “high powered”. They aren’t by design.
mespo-
“No citizen not engaged in the military needs a 30 round combat clip and no rational person thinks he/she does.”
Well that’s a great way to start off a debate. Define your opposition as irrational if they disagree with you.
“Let’s face it, the crowd demanding this “right” are either involved in selling firearms or convinced that they are under imminent attack from the government.”
I fall into neither category. I’m against it because it is arbitrary, will have no measurable effect on gun deaths, and distracts from the real issues driving violent crime. Remember, the worst mass shooting in U.S. history was done with two handguns (one of which was a very very low powered .22) and no high capacity magazines.
Anyway, the national response in terms of gun control will be the closure of the face to face sale loophole. How they will do this will be interesting, because to make it effective will require de facto registration. The ban on high and standard sized magazines is all but dead. The AWB is dead. The only significant gun control we are seeing is at the state level and, with the exception of Colorado, has occurred only in states that already had severe laws.