Today we're diving headfirst into the ongoing debates and developments surrounding gun control measures at the federal and state levels. From background checks to assault weapons bans, and red flag laws, we'll explore the intricacies of these policies and their implications on society. So grab a seat, get comfortable, and let's get to it. Fair warning, some of the information may piss you off. As it rightfully should.
I cringe every time a new gun control law is passed. Here we have the elected chuckleheads pandering to their constituents for votes by passing laws that only impact the law-abiding. It’s as if they just don’t realize criminals don’t obey laws. And it would seem that enforcing any of the laws already on the books would go a long way in deterring crime. Last I heard, murder was against the law. Start enforcing that, and coupled with capital punishment or very long prison sentences and you’d have even the least critical thinkers of the criminal world weighing the risk/reward ratio of their crimes. But I digress.
I’m absolutely opposed to gun violence. Believe me, if there was in fact a solution that would prevent it I’d be all for it. Sadly, one simply doesn’t exist. If you look back on our history, we’ve got a dismal record of eliminating crime by banning things. Just look at prohibition. Alcohol was outlawed, but that hardly stopped the flow of it into the country. Where there is a demand a market will rise up to supply it. Hence the moonshine runners and speakeasy operators. At least they gave us clubs and NASCAR.
Same for the ill-fated war on drugs. Several controlled substances were banned. None were stopped from coming in by the ton. There was simply too lucrative a market to not feed, the risk be damned.
So an outright gun ban? The already burgeoning black market in illegal guns would simply explode. But there is always that one side that believes you can legislate evil, so gun laws will continue to be a burden that law-abiding citizens will have to bear. So let’s look at the three main goals of the anti-gunners.
Let's begin with a fundamental component of gun control measures: background checks. These checks were established to ensure that individuals seeking to purchase firearms do not have a history that would prohibit them from responsibly owning a gun. While the concept seems straightforward, the devil is in the details. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about keeping guns out of the hands of convicted criminals. It’s the methodology and criteria I have a problem with.
So, what exactly are background checks? Well, in the context of firearm purchases, a background check is a process designed to assess an individual's eligibility to own or possess a firearm. It involves scrutinizing various records and databases to determine if there are any disqualifying factors that would prevent someone from obtaining a firearm legally. However, the effectiveness of background checks hinges on comprehensive databases, accurate record-keeping, and seamless information sharing among relevant agencies. Addressing these challenges is pivotal to bolstering the efficiency and reliability of background checks.
Let's break down the different components of a background check. First, there's the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS for short. It's a database maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and serves as the primary tool for conducting background checks on prospective firearm buyers. The NICS compiles information from various sources, including criminal records, mental health records, and other relevant data.
How does NICS work? According to the FBI’s website, “When a person tries to buy a firearm, the seller, known as a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), contacts NICS electronically or by phone. The prospective buyer fills out the ATF form, and the FFL relays that information to the NICS. The NICS staff performs a background check on the buyer. That background check verifies the buyer does not have a criminal record or isn't otherwise ineligible to purchase or own a firearm. Since launching in 1998, more than 300 million checks have been done, leading to more than 1.5 million denials.”
Now, background check requirements can vary depending on the jurisdiction. While federal law mandates background checks for sales made by licensed dealers, some states have implemented additional measures. These may include background checks for private sales, transfers between individuals, and even ammunition purchases. These state-level variations can complicate the overall landscape of background check regulations.
The people pushing background checks claim that they are an essential tool in preventing individuals with criminal records, a history of domestic violence, or severe mental illness from obtaining firearms. The proponents say by conducting thorough checks, we can ensure that those who pose a potential threat to public safety are unable to access deadly weapons.
We know that these are only back-door infringements on Second Amendment rights. The process can be burdensome, time-consuming, and even prone to errors. Furthermore, they contend that individuals who are wrongly flagged or delayed in the process may face undue restrictions on their constitutional rights. Criminals don’t get their guns from gun shops, nor do they submit to background checks. As with any other law, all it does is inconvenience the law-abiding.
Like any other “common sense” gun law, background checks are just a continuation of the left’s assault on the second amendment. The same zealots who beat the gun control drum whenever they get any kind of audience are also the same ones pushing the defund the police movements and elect the Soros-backed prosecutors. While their champions of justice are busily remaking the criminal justice system, they are letting career criminals off with light sentences, or simply not prosecuting them at all. So now you have an environment where the citizenry is unsafe by an order of magnitude, a situation where the odds of having to defend yourself is increased, but your attempt to purchase a firearm is denied for an administrative reason.
Now let's turn our attention to one of the most contentious aspects of gun control: assault weapons bans. The term "assault weapon" itself isn’t really a definitive term, as definitions and interpretations vary. Essentially, any weapon a politician holds up when he’s wanting to appease the left, and any gun the left is afraid of.
Assault weapons, loosely defined, typically encompass firearms designed for rapid fire and high-capacity magazines. The aim of an assault weapons ban is to restrict public access to these firearms, thereby reducing the potential for mass shootings and other acts of violence. For instance, California (which I think should end up on the other side of the border wall) classifies any rifle semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel. Yes, I said rocket launcher. This just goes to show the level of intelligence of those who draft these things.
While proponents argue that such bans help safeguard public safety, critics contend that the focus should be on individual responsibility and addressing underlying social and mental health factors. Striking a balance between protecting civil liberties and ensuring public safety remains at the heart of these ongoing debates. But we all know that if there’s anything the progressives absolutely abhor, it’s personal responsibility. There always has to be something or someone to blame other than the perpetrator of the crime. You know, blame systemic racism, white patriarchy, global warming, anything but the individual who actually pulled the trigger and committed the crime. Because we just gotta push that progressive agenda.
Proponents of the assault weapons ban argue that restricting these firearms is a crucial step in curbing gun violence. They emphasize the need to prioritize public safety and reduce the likelihood of mass shootings and other forms of armed violence. By limiting access to high-capacity, rapid-fire weapons, they believe we can make our communities safer.
While the intentions behind an assault weapons ban may be noble, valid concerns can certainly be raised about its effectiveness and potential unintended consequences. For instance, an assault weapons ban may have limited impact on overall crime rates since the majority of firearm-related incidents involve handguns rather than assault weapons.
The biggest problem I have with them is that it infringes upon the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Law-abiding citizens should not be denied access to firearms commonly used for self-defense, recreational purposes, or even as a means to deter potential tyranny, which was the intent of the Amendment in the first place.
An assault weapons ban flies in the face of the Second Amendment like any other law affecting gun ownership. Every little chip the progressives can take out of the second is a major defeat for constitutionalists. If you haven’t noticed, it’s not just gun rights that we lose incrementally on a daily basis.
Before we get on the third leg of the unholy trinity of gun suppression laws, let me tell you about a veteran-owned leathersmith.
Now on to my favorite, Red Flag Laws
In the America I grew up in, and in the criminal justice system I operated in while I was in law enforcement, we had a couple of quirky little sayings. Like “due process”, where a citizen who will be affected by a government decision must be given advance notice of what the government plans to do and how the government's action may deprive them of life, liberty, or property. Or “innocent until proven guilty”, where the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty, puts the burden of proof on the government to satisfy you that the defendant is guilty of the crime with which he/she is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. This is how our laws are enforced and cases tried. Or used to be anyway. Unless it’s a red flag law.
Red flag laws, are state-level statutes that empower law enforcement to temporarily confiscate firearms from individuals who have been deemed a potential threat to themselves or others. Progressives picture it as a safety net, ready to catch those exhibiting concerning behaviors before they spiral into tragedy. Normal people see it for the suspension of Constitutional rights that it is, punishing an individual without due process.
What exactly constitutes a red flag, you ask? Well, the precise criteria can vary from state to state. Some common red flags include documented threats of violence, recent acts of aggression, or a diagnosed mental health condition that poses a significant risk. The goal is to identify behavior patterns that indicate a potential for harm and intervene before tragedy strikes. Sounds like a noble cause, doesn't it?
Now, let's meet the power players involved in the red flag game. Typically, it's law enforcement who initiates the process by presenting evidence to a judge, seeking an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) or similar legal instrument. If the judge deems the presented evidence sufficient, a temporary firearm confiscation order is issued. But hold on tight, folks! This is where the plot thickens.
Red flag laws aim to intervene in situations where warning signs of potential violence exist but fall short of immediate arrest or detention. They offer a legal mechanism to prevent tragedies before they occur. But the implementation of red flag laws raises important questions surrounding due process, civil liberties, and the potential for misuse or abuse. And as much as the progressives who push them say it won’t happen, we’ve already seen red flag laws used in a malicious manner.
So Karen across the street doesn’t like you for whatever reason. She goes down to the courthouse and files a gun violence restraining order against you, lying in the affidavit like the FBI obtaining a FISA warrant. Next thing you know, a SWAT team is at your house serving you a piece of paper and removing all your guns, leaving you defenseless against the Soros-backed prosecutors’ early released violent felons.
Ah, the eternal tug-of-war between safety and liberty! Red flag laws raise fascinating questions about the delicate balance between protecting the public and safeguarding civil liberties. Proponents say that these laws save lives by removing firearms from individuals in crisis, while critical thinkers express concerns about potential abuses and violations of due process. It's a complex dance, my friends.
It can be argued that these laws place too much power in the hands of the government, leaving room for potential abuses or infringements on constitutional rights. Due process concerns also loom large, with critics pointing out the need for clear, transparent procedures to prevent wrongful confiscation. It's a swirling cauldron of opinions, folks, and the debate rages on!
And do these laws even work to stop mass shootings, the main impetus driving such legislation? A recent RAND Corporation analysis found "inconclusive evidence" that red flag laws decrease suicides or violent crime and "no qualifying studies" showing an impact on mass shootings. So what is the answer?
If I were king, I’d fix things just by using the existing laws. I’d start with the prosecutors. They would have to actually enforce the laws. Too many of these idiots get elected into office and stay there solely on the scumbag vote. Their oath of office was merely their way of obtaining power and a cushy salary from the city, county, or state. They don’t enforce the laws or lock up the criminals, because that’s who is keeping them in office. So, enforce the laws, or fail to and get arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to a special section of Gitmo that I’d design specifically for them.
So now we’ve got the laws being enforced, so the bad guys know there will definitely be consequences for their actions. I propose that any crime involving a gun is a minimum, mandatory life sentence with no possibility of parole or pardon. That’s right. To quote the old television show Baretta, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” Assault, armed robbery, attempted murder, etc. You’ll do it once.
And let’s get back to the realistic use of prisons, which is to contain criminals. The intent of them wasn’t to “rehabilitate” them, and provide them certain comforts that working class Americans can’t afford. I don’t remember seeing cable television, or any television for that matter anywhere in the Constitution. Prison is supposed to be someplace you absolutely dread going to, not a damn taxpayer-provided respite for when you need three hots and a cot.
Let’s provide future criminals with the incentive to find another way of life, and let’s lock away those who refuse to live within the bounds of society. Sound harsh? Good, it’s about time we quit letting the minority vocal denizens of society dictate how productive individuals live.
Well, that’s it for today’s screed. I’m heading to the beach for a few days with the newly retired Mrs. Pirate for some well-earned decompression. If you liked what you hear in this podcast, consider telling your friends about it. I’d really appreciate that.
Until next time, shoot safe.
