U.S.A. — “This is how we end ‘gun violence,’” a reader reacting to my recent AmmoLand piece about anti-gun Democrat Rep. and possible Dianne Feinstein replacement Katie Porter wrote to me. That article speculated on domestic violence gun laws Porter supports applying to her with allegations by her former husband that she dumped hot potatoes on his head and cut him by smashing a glass. The reader’s solution?
“Prosecute and lock up violent criminals, repeat felons, drug dealers, and especially lock up illegal sellers and illegal possessors of guns and throw away the keys,” he advocated. “Anyone opposed to stiff sentencing isn’t really interested in stopping ‘gun violence.’ Their true goal is to disarm the tens of millions of law-abiding gun-owning Americans whose politics and voices they want to stifle. By force if need be…”
There’s truth in some of his contentions. There are also some concerns. “We part ways at ‘illegal sellers and possessors,’” I replied, speaking from personal experience.
I was one of a handful of activists who tore up California’s “assault weapon” registration card at an NRA event where they hosted state Department of Justice officials who came to dictate the terms of surrender to us and told them I would not comply. I became an “illegal possessor,” and plan on being one again if and when the situation arises again.
I was also a big supporter of colleague Mike Vanderboegh’s “Toys for Totalitarians” program to smuggle “illegal” magazines to gun-grabbers in states that had banned them, and a proponent of DRES, Defy, Resist, Evade, Smuggle.
As for violent criminals, an undeniable truism is anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. If proven guilty violent persons are still truly dangerous, Robert J. Kukla made a brilliant observation in his 1973 classic Gun Control, equating their release from prison with opening the cage of a man-eating tiger and expecting a different result.
If there is clear, convincing, admissible evidence that a supposedly “restrained” party is a danger, how is it responsible to allow such a menace access to the rest of us until such time as it can be established that he is no longer a threat? Does anyone think he couldn’t kill with something else? Or, noting routine headlines from places like Chicago and Baltimore, that he couldn’t get a gun? Why wouldn’t he be separated from society, after being afforded real “due process,” with all appropriate protections of course?
I actually had supposedly “pro-gun” people tell me if I didn’t like the law, I should work to change it. And I was working to change it, including through advocacy activism.
I won’t even try to compile a list of all the things the government could file felony charges against a citizen on, especially on unconstitutional Second Amendment infringements, but will instead just quote Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s head of secret police: “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”
“I agree with ‘Shall not be infringed,’” the reader replied. “I’m pretty sure the Founders disarmed convicted murderers who somehow they didn’t hang. I was referring to straw purchasers and/or those who steal guns and then rent or sell them to violent prohibited possessors, not non-FFL transfers the Left is criminalizing.”
There’s a lot to unpack here, and suffice it to say, while his intentions are good, we’ve still parted ways.
In terms of considering released prisoners as “prohibited persons” the Wyoming Law Review’s “The Historical Justification for Prohibiting Dangerous Persons from Possessing Arms” has this to say:
“While the Founders envisioned a virtuous citizenry, there is no tradition of disarming persons based on virtue, or even any indication that the right to arms was intended to be so limited.”
As far as stealing guns goes, yes, by all means, lock thieves up and require restitution to include costs of the investigation, arrest, and prosecution, and make sure they’re good and penitent before eligibility for parole board consideration. But as far as “straw purchases” go, I’m thinking back to how for most of this nation’s history, there was no prior restraint on gun purchases and we didn’t have anywhere near the problems we have today. (An interesting side anecdote, the first “mass shooting” deaths at a school in this country took place in 1940 and the perp was the principal. The next one after that was in 1966 at the University of Texas tower, the one where students rushed to their living quarters to get their own guns so they could pin the sniper down until cops could take him out.)
As for selling guns to known, dangerous criminals, we come back to the inescapable reality that if it is known they’re dangerous, what are they doing out of custody? And if it’s not known, where is the legitimate authority to deny them their rights?
The whole thing revolves around another reality: “Gun control” doesn’t work.
Criminologists Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser documented in the Spring 2007 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy that “In 2004, the US National Academy of Sciences … failed to identify any gun control that reduced violent crime, suicides or gun accidents.” This was “from a review of 153 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the US Centers for Disease Control….”
To say that some laws work like NSSF’s “Fix NICS/Don’t Lie for the Other Guy” partnership with ATF, is, politely, to side with tyranny. To say, like NRA did, “that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,” was a short-sighted betrayal and a green light for the Trump administration ATF to do just that. ATF has since used that “precedent” to go after other devices like pistol braces, forced reset triggers, and more. Give the Democrats the power to pull it off and “redefining” semi-autos is just one “rule” change away.
So much for those still insisting it’s “just about a stupid piece of plastic.”
Does it matter if an infringement comes from Everytown or Giffords or one of our “gun rights leaders”? And that leads to another common assertion I still see being thrown out by gun owners who, damn it, ought to know better by now: “Enforce existing gun laws.”
That’s ideologically no different than someone from the Founding Era saying “Enforce existing Intolerable Acts.” Gun control is not the answer. Neither is giving the appearance of legitimacy to prior restraints designed to ultimately enable registration.
As the late J. Neil Schulman wrote, the issue is self-control, not gun control.
John Adams knew that when he addressed the Massachusetts Militia:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
That’s the real answer. If moral self-government is not restored, then the future our children and their children will face will be one of tyranny. We know it doesn’t have to be that way because many of us have lived (and still live) in times and places where violence up close and personal has been an extreme aberration. It can be done and the way we conduct our own lives proves it.
But it won’t be done by allowing totalitarians to establish a monopoly of violence which they will then use to transform the Republic bequeathed us by the Founders into hell on earth. And the well-intentioned promotion of any of their citizen disarmament cons merely paves the road for them to their end goal.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Excellent! Great points. And yes, our own federal government and many others have demonstrably proven that not a single gun control law has worked… not one has reduced violence, or had the effect promised. These laws are great at infringing in rights and disarming Americans who are law abiding and peaceful, while doing nothing to punish the criminals or impair their criminality.
only kind of gun control is practice so you hit what you aim at , im good to a mile working my way to limit of me and the gun……
only type of gun control i am for is being able to hit the target using either hand.
with several different pistols
Outstanding article, Mr. Codrea! I have not seen enough of your writing on Ammoland lately, and I miss it.
I will say that your logic, positions snd conclusions in this article very much mirror my own, though I am not nearly so eloquent. I have been making these arguments for years, but, generally, my audience considees me and my positions too extreme. It is very difficult to get John Q Citizen to really delve into the logic of issues he has been indoctrinated in all his life, like nominally “pro 2A” citizens backing “reasonable gun control”.
“As for violent criminals, an undeniable truism is anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. If proven guilty violent persons are still truly dangerous, Robert J. Kukla made a brilliant observation in his 1973 classic Gun Control, equating their release from prison with opening the cage of a man-eating tiger and expecting a different result.” This, all day long this! I have been saying it for years. If a person has served their sentence then upon release all of their rights are immediately restored. If they cannot be trusted with them then why are they… Read more »
Haz – pretty much agree. I would add a stipulation that said released felon file a petition (easily enough done) asking for those rights to be restored as a portion of their release. How many released felons actually exercise their right to vote after all? IMHO blanket restoration sends the message that those rights are not truly valuable to the person nor to society.
I remember one example from a few years back where a released person successfully petitioned to get his gun rights back, petition was granted and he subsequently saved a AZ trooper because he was armed.
Hard disagree with you. Who gave anyone authority over the rights of a free man? Why should they petition for those things with which they are born?
“Nobody is saying you can’t own or carry a gun. You just have to jump through my hoops before I will let you.” Sound familiar?
Exactly right, Hazcat! Our Rights are NOT privileges, never have been and never will be. A privilege is something that is bequeathed to us from someone else, and it can be revoked at any time for any reason! Even the criminal organization we call the legal system managed somehow to get that one correct, in stating that we cannot be tricked into surrendering our Rights, and we cannot even willingly give them away, because they are a gift from God!! We retain ALL our Rights from the time of our birth, to the time of our death.
Sorry Haz but they ‘forfeited’ those rights when they embarked on criminal activities. How many of them were exercising those rights prior to their crimes – very few, if any.
I say that due to long years (decades) of experience around them.
BTW – they were no longer ‘a free man’ when they resorted to crime.
Agree or disagree; 1) Most felons are mentally disturbed or have addictions whereas society as a whole or as a norm is NOT mentally disturbed or addicted. 2) WHAT felon does not suffer from a mental illness or addiction that leads to the root cause of their conviction? 3) Which felons would you feel comfortable with being armed and visiting you at your home with your family?
ALL of which has nothing to do with the subject at hand. If a person is FREE then that person has all of their rights. They were not adjudicated to be mentally unfit.
Any other strawmen you want to slay?
You are 100% sure about that? Our society with all of the various agendas (I’ll leave the entire White House staff out of this.) and STILL have Tens of Thousands working within government constantly dumping mentally handicapped and addicted to the streets to save money and budgets. You don’t think that boards of review don’t pass on their mentally handicapped problems off onto society so they can have better reign over the tax dollars they are given? How many times have illegal immigrants been caught, busted, served prison sentences for heinous crimes, deported and then return to the U.S. (Don’t… Read more »
The Constitution is and agreement among Citizens which I believe leaves out illegals who by definition have also broken the law.
Also, because others refuse to do their job you are willing to concede your rights? Adjudicate the mentally ill and get them help but don’t restrict peoples’ rights because you failed to so do.
I would counter that a significant percentage of society in the US is mentally disturbed to a measurable degree; and many felons are not mentally ill, unless a combination of greed and sloth counts as memtal illness.
David, far be it for me to EVER question your literary skills and most excellent journalism, however, you let this one squeak by you in relation to the first ‘School ‘Children did die here’: Michigan’s Indigenous boarding schools | WOODTV.com Then again… Although not a School Shooting’… Was There an 1890 School Shooting Worse than Sandy Hook? (wafflesatnoon.com) And to think, with amount of time and money ALL government entities over the years, across the country that has pandered our tax dollars on BS “gun control”, we could easily pay off the national debt and STILL have funds left over… Read more »
Thanks. I qualified the claim as “mass shooting deaths” (and not just “shooting deaths,” as there have been some in which only one or two were killed). Your first link attributes the deaths to diseases and suicides that evidently happened over years. Your second link poses the question and then answers it positing that it did not happen at a school at all, but instead refers to the massacre at Wounded Knee. Both are outside the scope of this article, as would be other causes of children dying at schools in mass death incidents like fires. I’m always willing to… Read more »
I thought worst mass school killing was the one where principal was responsible. Thing was that he only used his gun to kill himself when it was over. Everybody else he killed through use of bombs and arson. I think it important to emphasis that many of the worst non-governmental killing events utilized tools other than guns. Airplanes, poison gas (Japanese subways though I’m unclear how many died), bombs, trucks (Nice), machete’s & other bladed weapons (all around the world), and of course arson. In many ways I am glad that the criminally insane tend to select firearms as their… Read more »
even the government used arson in their worst murders
I failed to dig deeper into those two links and that is my fault. I was trying to reference a government led massacre that did evidently occur in Michigan that is quite often being word-smithed or being buried due to it being a black eye on the government. I will dig deeper and try to get back.
PLEASE don’t refer to Sandy Hook as anything but Sandy Hoax! There are several ways to totally deflate that false event and its promulgated narratives, but one of the most effective ways is to just go to The Old Farmer’s Almanac, and look up the weather conditions in Connecticut for any year on record on December 14th! That place is like a giant sized deep freezer that time of year! TOFA proves it! Look at the photos of the “One year anniversary” pictures of Newtown, Connecticut! The place is blanketed with several inches of snow, just as it is EVERY… Read more »
one bozo said: “Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2023/05/law-and-order-gun-owners-should-understand-theres-no-good-gun-control/#ixzz80qnyRTmT Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook “I’m pretty sure the Founders disarmed convicted murderers who somehow they didn’t hang”” WHERE does this guy get his talking points? The very point David is making is that cinvcted murderers WERE executed. Hanging was common, as was the firing squad. If a man truly hd taken the live of another without justification, he IS a murderer, and those people in that time and place knew the biblical and mandated unishment for murder: whoever has by his own hand taken… Read more »
This was long before the birth of liberals and wing-nuts, unicorns and new-era Democrats.
I dunno…
My takeaway is that, whatever you were accused of, even if convicted, if you managed NOT to hang, you picked up your rifle and your pistols at the door.
Wonderful article. It’s disappointing when one hears supposedly pro-2A people say things like the current laws need to be enforced or try to justify some forms of infringement like background checks. The Butters and Fudds are the cancer eating away at our rights from the inside. They are more dangerous than any antigunner for the mere fact that they masquerade as one of our own. Without their help, zero arms laws would ever be enacted.
And THEY own guns! Government Employee Threatening Americans With Violence Again?! – Bing video
I friggin’ HATE that line!
Give them an inch, they will take a mile.
Boz – we ‘have’ given them several inches – ’34. ’68. ’86 as well as all of the other 20,000+ city, county, and state ‘gun control’ laws and they have taken a couple of marathon amounts of miles.
I had worked in a maximum security prison for 25 years (now retired, thankfully) and even incarcerated individuals have a right of self-defense, against other inmates. So, with the no felons with firearms laws, they have no right to defend themselves once released. That is what those laws say to me. EVERYONE, no matter their status, should have to right of self-preservation. And I think the Founding Fathers would agree.
Where in the constitution does it say you lose your rights even after Justice has been served and your sentence is complete?
Why should our rights and who gets them be left up to the states. The idea behind rights is that we are born with them, not granted them by anybody.
Apply your same logic to any person possessing a firearm Ope. It is exactly what we are fighting against… justification of the right to possess a firearm. Take a step back and look at your argument through fresh eyes, you are repeating the words of an anti, merely applying it to a different group of people. Yet, in a round about way you are arguing exactly what the article states… if a person released is a harm to the public, then why are they released? If they are dangerous enough to be stripped of their rights after serving their time… Read more »
So, you never seen the news reports of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of violent prisoners released into the public because of Covid?
Of course I have. Please reread what I stated. All I have done was agree with, and restate, what the author did… anyone who can not be trusted among the public should not be without a custodian (ie they should never have been released), and anyone who has served their time and can be trusted in the public should have their full rights reinstated.
If you still disagree with that, then that’s your right.
.
I’m not disagreeing with ANY of what you said, just pointing out, (Albeit with a brain burning a candle at both ends.) that the, “system” is dumping their problems and their liberal kumbaya agenda on WE, The People. No different that the Marxist school systems we now have that just keep giving out participation trophies and passing on the deadbeat or low performing students onto the next grade to get rid of them rather than to hold ground and either reform or retain them. Rather than dumping them back onto the streets for the taxpayers to still pay more to… Read more »
Very true. There is exceptionally little justice in the revolving door judicial system these days. Why are these high recidivism criminals released, knowing (often by their own admission) that they will return to previous behavior?
The current judicial system, compared to even 30 years ago, is a laughable joke.
They also still have the right to bear arms. All arms. There is no law “allowing” the possession of firearms but there is a law enumerating the right to possess firearms and that is at the federal level. States have no power to deny that any more than they can deny your right to a trial or deny your freedom of speech. The fact that the states and feds have both infringed on that right doesn’t make it right and you agreeing with it doesn’t make it not infringement.
You’re still not seeing the forest for the trees.
If they are FREE after paying their debt to society then what gives anyone the power to deny a free person their rights?
I’d say it was when the full sentence was served. By ‘FREE’ I meant no legal obligation (debt) to society.
Texas also, as a policy, begins recognizing former felony prisoners firearms rights 5 years after release. I dealt with former felons in possession on many occaisions.
The states are only half the issue. The federal government made it a crime for felons to possess firearms in 1968. I don’t see how I’m talking to the wrong person about this. You made the comment that you don’t have sympathy for people being denied their rights and they should just buy a knife. Then you made the comment that you believe those same people would re-offend with firearms. Well, what’s stopping them from doing that now? Did the gun laws all of a sudden start working? Last I checked, saying it is illegal to carry arms in certain… Read more »
Very well dissected.
Thank you!
Pretty sure that the individual states when shutting down all of the state mental hospitals and crime rose they had to scramble for solutions that wouldn’t piss off the taxpayers and voters, so when deciding to get rid of the death penalty they also moved to deny certain rights to certain felons who were to be spared death and allowed to be set free into society.
I am going to reapply for my FFL and the ONLY clientele I will serve are the pedophiles, transgender, ex-felons of murder, rape, incest, bestiality and the most fucked-up mental morons ON THE STREETS! I will probably be a millionaire by the end of next week? I’ll bet society will adorn me with all their love!
That sounds like pretty poor business practices but ok….
All the good Demonkrats.
that is truly disgusting.
I’m pretty sure that when convicts are getting prepared to be released from prison, they are given a set of conditions that they must abide by and upon ‘condition of their release’ they sign and agree to these terms, thereby making their own willful choice to NOT have possession of firearm.
Yes, that’s parole. They agree to those stipulations as part of not having to complete their entire sentence in prison. Once that parole period is over, they should be fully restored per the constitution.
“Should be” doesn’t apply when you’re being hauled off to prison for 25 years because, “the system” made a typographical error and released someone to the streets that you just sold a gun to that in turn just whacked 12 people in a grocery store because they were just, having a moment.
And THIS is what we get! Texas shooting live: Police say ‘multiple victims’ including children in shopping mall shooting (msn.com) The LAST online posting this man, John Noveske made before he was murdered was pointing out the mentally disabled on psychotropic drugs in relation to Democrat influence. John Noveske’s Link to Drugs and School Shootings – Trebuchet (trebuchet-magazine.com) Freedom and Liberty are not commercial products to be bought off of a shelf. They are a way of life that must be nurtured, taught to and passed along to others, not just dumped into the laps of an ignorant society that… Read more »
USMC*********
I never bought anything from Novesle, but I did know the name.
Your post piqued my interest, so I started looking around online yesterday.
I actually did come across a reference to Mr. Noveske having actually died from a gunshot to the head, but I was unable to pin down anything other than the vague reference.
Very strange.
citation please. hypothetical situations are just that.
Unfortunately, history has shown that hypotheticals have been used extensively to scare people into supporting all kinds of rights violations.
You said it, brother. I hope Mrs. Porter reads this with an open mind, it would do her good.
if this critter dumped a bowl of hot spuds in her hsuband’s head, SHE has self-control and anger issues and thus is most likely projecting her own personal bent as she stumps for taking away the guns of we who do NOT have such anger management issues.
I suppose my first priority issue with her s WHY s she in position to tell US what we may/mayn’t do?
Hey! She can OWN A GUN too! Having RIGHTS comes with RESPONSIBILITY and DUTY regardless of if it is WRITTEN on any document! THAT is COMMON SENSE! Then we have THIS occurring… Government Employee Threatening Americans With Violence Again?! – Bing video
The ” logic ” of gun controllers seems to fit into a couple of boxes.
SOME PEOPLE CHOCK TO DEATH ON HOTDOGS SO BAN HOTDOGS
BAN GUNS BECAUSE FREE PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, THER’S TOO MUCH FREEDOM
Of course the Second Amendment was essential to get the States to ratify the Constitution and create the USA. Maybe destruction of it all is their goal? Certain it can be an unintended consequence.
Contemporary “moral self-government” is like seeking a moral way to run a whorehouse. Morality has been replaced by an “end justifies means” way of thinking.
Now you are just demonizing whorehouses.
There is a moral way to run a whorehouse, albeit the morals are extremely low but hey, at least they are WORKING!
I don’t really care if the establishment I patronize is moral, as long as it’s clean…
Do what you do best, to support yourself.
great article great structural points: However I do not believe there is any such thing, and as much as I hate to admit, and say it, there is No! “WE THE PEOPLE”. if there were than I believe none of these BS gun laws, or rules, would exist. I also believe there is no community in the phrase firearms community. once again, if there were, than there would be a “WE THE PEOPLE” to stand against, these totalitarian, tyrannical, infringing government regimes, and weaponised government administration agencies, trying to take our freedoms, rights, and guns, at all costs.
Imagine for a moment an alternate reality where all laws had to pass a screening similar to how the FDA (supposedly) screens drugs.
They would have to be safe and effective.
Forget, for just a moment, Emerson, Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.
How many of our estimated 20,000 gun laws would pass a “safe and effective” test? Some of the cited studies suggest none of them would.
So very true David, right now America is on the road to total ruin by the criminals and the Government.
You got them inversed by priority. I fear our government, not private sector criminals. To deal with private sector criminals, I only need government to stay out of the way. If you have a clear and obvious justified shooting, everybody have a cup of coffee and a slice of pie and go home early.
Spot On David! Everyone has the Right to keep and Bear Arms, Period!
Sold out is the phrase. Everyday that goes by “We the People” is becoming less of the foundation to the constitution. Our duly elected officials, you the law makers have given up the fight as a majority.
The 2A accommodating gun control is like the Titanic accommodating sea water.
Gospel truth.
Personally, my biggest issue comes from the thought that “moral self-goverment” equates to the Adam’s quote supporting the idea that only a “religious” person can morally self-govern.
The Golden Rule was adopted by the worlds religions, not created by it.
Religious belief does not automatically translate into a moral life. Conversely, not prescribing to a religious belief does not automatically translate into a non-moral life.
Bruen touched upon this, and continues to do so, with striking down “good moral character” requirements, turning over social media, etc.
Bruen did not “strike down” the need for “good moral character” but rather the “felt need” of government dweebs having the power to define “good moral character” (many of them if not most are sadly lacking in this commodity themselves) and using their arbitrary definitions and assessments as tools to disarm all but their “friends”.
And you are very much mistaken of you hold that a “religious” person does not necessarily possess “good moral character”.
“And you are very much mistaken of you hold that a “religious” person does not necessarily possess “good moral character”.”
Does a child molesting priest possess good moral character? He’s a religious person.
Religion doesn’t make someone good any more than lack of religion makes someone bad. I’ve met some of the worst people who were churchgoers and some of the best people who never set foot inside a place of worship.
In removing the power to define “good moral character” the requirement to prove such is also removed.
Also, I didn’t say that a “religious” person does not have good moral character, merely pointed out that it does not automatically make a person moral anymore than not being religious makes a person non-moral.
I have several guns; none of them has ever committed “gun violence”! I’m not sure; but I think my guns may be pacifists! As to Forced reset trippers, bump stocks and braces which hav\e been determined by the BATFE to be “machine guns”,. I wonder how many folks take these items to the local gun range to see if the’ll actually shoot. I’m willing to bet none of them will shoot as they don’t have the other stuff needed to go bang!