After the latest shooting at Fort Hood, which was committed by a mentally-ill soldier with a spotty performance record, who was on numerous psychotropic medications, who never saw any combat (and thus the anti-military liberals cannot chalk up the crime to PTSD), the cry has once again gone out to leave law-abiding gun owners alone and go after crazy people to keep them from getting guns.
And as I said before, this is a dangerous position for a gun owner to take.
We have all seen how the justice system has twisted itself into a pretzel to ignore due process for gun owners when there is an unproven allegation of domestic violence. Gun owners used to be safe in their second amendment rights until they had been convicted of a violent felony. No longer. An unproven allegation of a misdemeanor is all that it takes to lose your second amendment rights.
And when gun owners mindless declare that the government should “take guns away from crazy people”, they forget that the people who would decide what constitutes “crazy” are the same people who have openly declared themselves to be irrationally anti-gun. Medicine is notorious for pursuing fads and junk science; to expect them to respect the second amendment is dangerously naive. And most of them cannot reach a scientifically-valid consensus on the definitions of most mental illnesses. They just publish laundry lists of symptoms to define an illness, many of which are redundant with the descriptions of other mental illnesses.
Blaming the psychotropic drugs is a risky path as well. I think that the drugs themselves are dangerous. And the conditions for which they are described can be hazardous as well. But can any of us guarantee that the AMA won’t advise the government to ban anyone who has ever taken an anti-depressant, anti-anxiety or mood stabilizer medication from gun ownership forever? How many troubled people would deny their problems and avoid treatment to preserve their rights?
What has not happened is any serious evaluation of the foolish prohibition on gun ownership in military facilities. The military gun-free zones have proven to be deadly to law-abiding service personnel, and the military has proven to be criminally inept in keeping illegal guns out as well as tardy and inadequate in their responses to violent acts on their property. The base commander at Fort Hood should be in the stockade for his failure to protect those people under his authority.
But be careful in calling for action against crazy people owning guns. You might just find yourself labeled “crazy”.
You may have heard the story about the Florida gun owner who was pulled over while driving through Maryland:
A troubling story on all counts, but disturbingly vague on specifics.
Well, you really need to read the background on how/why it happened:
So, to sum up: legally owning a gun in your home state is considered probable cause for arresting you in other states despite, not breaking any laws in those other states. Gun ownership = the new scarlet letter. Another step towards stigmatizing gun owners.
The other lesson to be drawn from this incident (and all of the NSA stories, and the IRS attacking anyone that disagrees with 0bama, etc.) is that the noose of government is getting tighter around all of our necks.
For years, I avoided buying an EZ-Pass (remote toll-deduction widget for your car) due to privacy concerns. Looks like technology has leapfrogged me. It is only a matter of time before speeding tickets are issued automatically.
Rather than simply be outraged at this story, I hope you are going to get more involved in the political process to try and reverse the disturbing mission creep of our government.
And, I hope that you start paying attention to the cameras you see attached to municipal vehicles and near roads. And to the roads where you don’t see them. And to the gun laws of the states you drive through.
Interesting new development in this story:
“Were the feds using Maryland to establish the protocols ? It sure seems that is a very strong possibility…… and, if so, the denial of the FOIA would make even more sense.”
And here is that other shoe that we were all waiting to hear drop:
Well, I do not know the circumstances of this particular situation (i.e. how/when the registration was submitted), but the person who got that letter is up a creek without a paddle.
They are now a felon, with a choice of several bad options for dealing with their situation.
God help them if they get pulled over for a broken tail-light on the way to someplace to take action on one of the options available to them, because they are committing a crime by even attempting to perform them!
Some state legislator was trying to get an extension of the registration deadline, but I haven’t heard anything concrete about that.
The rejection letter:
I hope you gun owners have a plan to retain your weapons despite this idiotic law.
Read the law carefully and the potential wiggle room should become obvious.
6 days! The first arrest under the draconian and pointless “assault rifle” and “high-capacity magazine” law took place on the morning of January 6:
“The handgun was loaded with 11 bullets, and had a magazine capable of handling 15 rounds, police said…The gun owner told Norwalk officers that he was unaware of the law or the deadline, according to the police report. He was issued an infraction for possession of a large-capacity magazine and having a mutilated license plate. The weapon was returned to the owner, under the condition that he keeps the magazine separated from the handgun, and he was released at the scene, police said.”
Read the whole thing, especially the reason that the man was pulled over.
Now, if you are a handgun permit holder, and you carry a gun that can accept a high-capacity magazine, you have the option to do so provided that you only load 10 bullets in it. And perhaps you carry an extra magazine, as recommended by many self-defense experts.
But what happens if the arresting officer decides to take a bullet out of your spare magazine and load it into the magazine that was in your gun. You are a felon, that’s what. There’s probably no way to prove that is what happened, and you are left holding the bag. Or the mag.
My advice to Connecticut permit holders is to avoid carrying a gun with a high-capacity magazine in it, and eliminate the chance that this could happen to you. Carry extra magazines, and be sure to tell people why. And also, practice reloading drills. You might not become Jerry Miculek but you can certainly improve your time.
Think I am being paranoid? You might be right.
But if the police feel entitled to shoot 90-pound children who have been tased and restrained, what wouldn’t they do?
“Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).”
Another observation from Reason:
“The most recent Reason-Rupe poll reports that 63 percent of Americans don’t believe that stricter gun laws would keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.”
I realize that these observations are old news to gun owners. But having respected establishment media organizations admit them is a relatively new thing. And having these facts in your back pocket can help you shut down the lies of anti-gunners that you will inevitably end up debating in your life.