A Response To Matthew McConaughey….

I appreciate the thoughtful way you presented your ideas regarding a responsible approach to firearms safety.

I am a former federal officer, a firearm salesperson for one of the nation’s largest FFLs, a father of two sons, the husband of a middle school teacher, and a lawful, law-abiding firearms owner.

I would like to respond to some of the ideas that you presented - and present an idea that you DIDN’T address.

First, dealing with a sensationalized media is NOT a long term problem, it is, in fact, a driving factor in mass shootings that can and MUST be addressed immediately.  The infamy achieved by these shooters is documented to be one of the goals of many mass shooters, their way to achieve notoriety and some form of immortality.  A media that sensationalizes and rationalizes coverage of mass shooting events in the name of “the public right to know” is at the foundation of the uptick in mass shootings.  This is easily solved by adopting an approach to reporting such events that minimizes: they are reported factually and without editorializing, they are covered as any other crime, and the attacker’s identity is minimized - in contrast to the almost celebrity manner in which they are covered now, with every detail of their lives being put on display.

Sensationalized media also leads to the misconception to which you gave publicity: the AR-15 is NOT the “weapon of choice” for mass shooters.  That is a notion driven by a media intent on 1) sensationalizing mass shooter events and 2) pushing an agenda favored by liberal politicians to vilify and eventually ban scary looking black guns.  According to Amnesty International, mass shootings comprise less than 1% of all deaths involving firearms.  According to the National Institutes for Justice, fewer than 1% of ALL shootings taking place in the US involve a rifle of any kind; shootings utilizing so-called “assault rifles” comprise a fraction of that single percentage point.  The weapon of choice in 77% of mass shootings is, in fact, the humble and ubiquitous semi automatic handgun.  But because of the sensationalized media coverage you correctly identified as part of the problem, you and many others have bought into the notion that modern sporting rifles are the weapons of choice.  To that point, neither a minimum age of 21 to purchase a handgun from an FFL nor mandatory waiting periods in several states have stopped underage or adult mass shooters from acquiring handguns; why do you assume such a limitation will have a different effect on the acquisition of AR-15s?

Second, I DO believe that so-called “red flag” laws have some validity.  

I do believe there are some people who shouldn't have firearms.  As a firearms salesman I have stopped a number of transactions over the years because I believed safety would be at risk if I allowed the transaction to proceed.

I believe certain, well-defined individuals should have the right to petition the courts to remove firearms from individuals when they truly pose a risk to themselves and those around them; I DON'T believe this provision should be accorded to everyone who gets a hair crosswise or simply has a bias against firearms.  THAT is the danger inherent in such a provision, and in my years as a firearms salesman, I have witnessed just such attempts.

I will get behind this provision IF - and that's a ****HUGE**** if - DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE GUARANTEED.

Contrary to what Donald Trump said while he was still in office, due process rights come FIRST.  We don't take the firearms early and worry about due process later.

The Fourth Amendment still states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and no Warrants shall issue, ***but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized***", EMPHASIS ADDED.

The Fifth Amendment likewise still states, "No person shall...  be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law...", all caps added.

These aren't suggestions, they are CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS.

GUARANTEE that those CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS will be honored TO THE LETTER and I will get behind this provision.

Third, it is an established fact that 77% of mass shooters acquired their firearms from FFLs LEGALLY, meaning that they passed background checks to get them.  In some few instances, the shooter was able to take advantage of the PROVISION - NOT a loophole - in the Brady Act that allows for the transfer of a firearm after three business days in the absence of a final determination from the NICS system.  The distinction between loophole and provision is not merely semantic, it is substantial.  A provision is a consideration explicitly written into the verbiage of a law.  A loophole, by definition, is a gray area in a law: an area of ambiguity of verbiage or an omission that may be manipulated.  I AM in favor of eliminating the three day provision currently existing in the Brady Act to mandate that a firearm transfer may not take place unless and until the NICS system delivers a determination.

Further, before enacting so-called “universal” background checks, fix the current system.  Report after report in the aftermath of mass shootings reveal numerous prior interviews with law enforcement due to reported concerns, psychological evaluations, reported concerns from school officials, even military  service-related failures to report incidents of domestic violence and other mental and behavioral issues, etc.  All of these things are already required by law to be entered into the NICS background check system - but in many instances, they aren’t, and there are seemingly no efforts to rectify this.  As 77% of firearms used in mass shootings were obtained after passing a background check, this one fix alone would prevent many mass shooters from acquiring their firearms.  And for the record, the existence of HIPAA laws has ZERO bearing on this: an exception to HIPAA to allow reporting of medically significant concerns into the NICS system was engineered into the law.  In other words, ENFORCE the laws we already have on the books.  Stop allowing states to pick and choose what data they will report.  And stop allowing criminals to plead out of weapons charges. What’s the use having the laws - or creating new ones - if they aren’t enforced?

Finally, there is one other action that must be taken immediately to address mass shootings - but you aren’t likely to support it.  Immediately repeal the federal Gun Free School Zones Act.

For over thirty years an experiment has been conducted on the American public, and that experiment involves testing the notion that criminals obey laws, that declaring a given area “gun free” somehow appeals to the “inherent goodness” that supposedly exists in all people.  After thirty years, the results speak for themselves: “gun free” zones, whether they be schools, malls, churches, hospitals, or federal buildings, have protected no one and prevented nothing, but they have proven to provide shooters with unlimited sources of defenseless victims.  “Gun free” zones have proven to all who have eyes to see that criminals do not obey laws or designations, that they will, in fact, use those very laws and designations to their advantage.

That this is the case is hardly a new revelation.  The eighteenth century criminologist, Cesare Bonesana, Marchese Beccaria, recognized this fact in  1764:

“The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons,” emphasis added.

This realization is echoed by Thomas Paine in his Thoughts on Defensive War:

“…The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation [or criminal - added] refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”

Even the left-leaning think tank, the Rand Corp., posted this statement to their website regarding the effect of “gun free” zones:

“… [I]f the presence or potential presence of armed civilians deters violence, gun-free zones could serve as more-attractive targets to violent criminals or mass shooters because perpetrators will be less likely to encounter armed resistance in these areas.”

There is a saying: rendering the innocent defenseless does not make them safe.  The corollary to that saying is: rendering the innocent defenseless does not make criminals less dangerous.  Thirty years of experimenting with so-called “gun free” zones have affirmed the veracity of this saying.  A study of active shooter events by security experts experts found that such individuals seek out “gun free” zones. The fact is, criminals do not typically attack targets with low probabilities of success, which is why they don’t attack gun shows, gun dealerships, and most banks.

Eliminate “gun free” zones - IMMEDIATELY.

I also believe in responsible firearms ownership.  I am trained, I continue to train, and any firearms that I am not actually carrying are secured - not because I fear my sons getting their hands on them, but as a safeguard in case someone breaks into my home, to make it more difficult for a criminal to steal my firearms.

But RESPONSIBLE firearms ownership is also INFORMED ownership.

Meaning no disrespect, you need to become better informed.

And Now, Aurora, IL....

"Wife Of Aurora Shooting Victim Reveals Husband's Final Text Message"

"I love You.  I've been shot at work."

The headline and last text message as given in the HuffPo article regarding this latest mass shooting.

I am sickened by these events and the usual anti-firearms sniping that follows them.  I am a former federal officer.  I have nothing but the highest respect for police officers.  They have an incredibly difficult, and ofter thankless, job.  So I'm not taking pot shots at them; their hands are tied by department policies.  

At the same time, I am reminded that the supreme court has, on more than TEN different occasions, ruled that law enforcement has ABSOLUTELY NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS; their responsibility is to society as a whole.  Whether  - or IF - police respond to any given call for help, according to these rulings, is left ENTIRELY up to the policies of the individual department.  And we have seen, time after time, the results of these policies.  

In this instance, law enforcement was made aware that the shooter had a criminal history.  Evidently, they sent him a letter requiring him to surrender his weapons - and then they never followed up to ensure that he actually did.  Before Parkland, law enforcement met with the shooter on more than THIRTY occasions, KNEW that he had a propensity toward violence, yet he was left free to carry out his attack.  Situation after situation like this exists, and in fact is quite normal proceeding mass shooting events.  

Yet all those who oppose firearms ownership can tell us is, "Trust the police to protect you.  You don't need a firearms to protect you and your family, that's why we have police."  And then, to make matters worse, they go on to intimate that the millions of lawful firearms owners and carriers, the vast majority of whom have never been involved in any crime of any sort, are somehow to blame for these events.  

Illinois has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet they have stopped nothing.  The factory where the shooting was carried out was a posted "gun free" zone, yet those signs - the SAME signs that are supposed to protect children in schools across this nation - did absolutely NOTHING to prevent this shooting.  In fact, the shooter knew he had ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD to shoot as many people as possible before the police world arrive in sufficient numbers to come after him.

Nationally, per the National Sheriffs' Association, the average police response time to a 911 call is 18 minutes, a relative eternity; such events are usually over in under thirteen minutes.  Yet the best advice the government will give us - and it is now parroted by employers as well - is run if you can, hide if you can't, and as a last resort, throw things at the attacker and HOPE you will dissuade him.  

Thomas Paine, in his essay, Thoughts on Defensive War, made these observations:

"[...] Whoever considers the unprincipled enemy we have to cope with, will not hesitate to declare that nothing but arms or miracles can reduce them to reason and moderation... These people [the victims - added] are either too superstitiously religious, or too cowardly for arms; they either cannot or dare not defend; their property is open to any one who has the courage to attack them... Thus the peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned, while they neglect the means of self defence. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."  

Paine was a Quaker and a pacifist, but he still recognized the reality that we have the right and obligation to defend ourselves; failure to do so only emboldens bad guys - whether the bad guy is a co-worker, or an attacking nation.  We will never be able to completely prevent such events.  If it isn't guns, it will be knives (look at the mass knife attacks that have taken place in China and Britain), bombs, chemicals, or some other form of weapon.  But we CAN give people the means to defend themselves and those around them as best they can.  Calling 911 and waiting for the cavalry just isn't cutting it.

One final thought: as far as I am concerned, any organization that prohibits people to exercise their God-given right to self defense is both implicit in, and responsible for, any injuries and deaths that occur as a result of their policy.

Response to Sen. Stabenow Form Letter Regarding So-Called “Universal” Background Checks....

After expressing concerns regarding pending gun control legislation in the US legislature (so-called “universal” background checks), I received the same form letter from her office that I have received numerous times, the one assuring me that she understands my concerns about the Second Amendment because she grew up in a home with firearms and hunters.  Of course, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, but I will let that slide for the moment.

I sent her the following email in response:

Senator,

I have received this same tired letter several times over the years you have been in office in response to concerns expressed regarding continued attacks on the Second Amendment.

"I support enforcement of laws that protect our children and our families from gun violence and other criminal activity.”

I would like to know what those laws are?

Heller vs. DC has already declared mandatory trigger locks and other mandatory storage laws unConstitutional on their face because, and I quote (from the syllabus for brevity’s sake), 

"3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

McDonald v. Chicago has already pre-empted so-called “red flag” laws that call for the confiscation of firearms without due process, noting that the Fourteenth Amendment declared the Bill of Rights to be operative on the States, therefore GUARANTEEING both the due process AND Second Amendment rights of citizens (again, quoting from the syllabus for the sake of brevity) :

“(3) The Court eventually moved in the direction advocated byJustice Black, by adopting a theory of selective incorporation by which the Due Process Clause  incorporates particular rights contained in the first eight Amendments. See, e.g., Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 341. These decisions abandoned three  of the characteristics of the earlier period. The Court clarified that the governing standard is whether a particular Bill of Rights protection is fundamental to our  Nation’s particular scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice. Duncan, supra, at 149, n. 14. The Court eventually held that almost all of the Bill of Rights’ guarantees met the requirements for protection under the Due Process Clause. The Court also held that Bill of Rights protections must “all . . . be enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according to the same standards that protect those personal rights against federal encroachment.” Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 10. Under this approach, the Court overruled earlier decisions holding that particular Bill of Rights guarantees or remedies did not apply to the States.See, e.g., Gideon, supra, which overruled Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455. Pp. 15–19. (d) The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States. Pp. 19–33.”

OK, so universal background checks will stop the killing, right?  

Not so.  

None other than the Washington Post evaluated Sen. Rubio’s claim that “None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”  After an exhaustive overview of such shootings, they awarded Sen. Rubio with the rarely awarded Geppetto Checkmark, indicating that his statement was 100% factually true, WaPo Rubio Gun Control Claim Absolutely True. Even Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee acknowledged the fact that background checks would not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals when she stated from the floor of the House,

“Don’t condemn the gangbangers, they’ve got guns that are trafficked — that are not enforced, that are straw purchased and they come into places even that have strong gun laws.”  

This is all backed up by a 2016 Department of Justice study, “Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Inmates, 2016.”  Only 1.3% obtained their firearms via retail outlets; only .8% obtained them at gun shows.  43% obtained them on the black market, while the remainder obtained them in one way or another from family and friends (stolen, straw purchased), found them at the scene, or convinced a stranger to make a straw purchase on their behalf.  By the way, only .8% of all inmates used a rifle of ANY kind during the commission of their crimes;an even more infinitesimal fraction of that .8% (something on the order of .003%) used a so-called “assault rifle.” In the final analysis, background checks have stopped nothing; those who are denied the lawful sale of a firearm due to the results of a background check still manage to get their hands on firearms anyway, and let us not forget that Gabby Giffords’ shooter PASSED his background check, as did several other high profile shooters.  The firearms used by the San Bernardino shooters firearms were straw purchased.

So lets go on to mandatory psychological evaluations prior to purchasing firearms.  

In the wake of the GermanWings suicide several years ago, there were loud shouts for mandatory psychological evaluations, thinking that this would prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.  Noted psychologist Dr. Gary Greenberg in an article written for the New Yorker regarding the incident, 

“[…] But as any mental-health professional will tell you (and as many did in the wake of the crash), nearly one in three Americans meets the criteria for a mental-disorder diagnosis in any year, and more than half of us will qualify at some point in our lives. Once diagnosed, people with mental illnesses, even severe psychotic disorders like schizophrenia, do not commit violent crimes at higher rates than the rest of the population. And most people who have had suicidal thoughts do not go on to kill themselves, let alone a planeload of strangers…

"Mental disorders cannot be diagnosed reliably; every day expert clinicians square off on witness stands over the proper diagnosis (if any) of criminal defendants. Even if we could put flight crews through the psychological equivalent of an airport body scanner, the results would still provide virtually no specific information about what someone would do in the future. Mental-health workers are called upon to make predictions frequently—to help a corporation decide if a job applicant will make a good employee, say, or to help the criminal-justice system decide if a sex offender can be discharged to the community—and yet unsuitable employees still get jobs and sex offenders deemed safe still re-offend…”

Psychologist Dr. Erin Brown echoed his thoughts during a segment of the Today Show:

“The idea nowadays that a full psychological workup would somehow clue you in to which pilots are going to do things like this, it's fiction."

Yet the Brady, Giffords, Bloomberg, and Every Town anti-firearms groups continue to insist that psychological evaluations are the magic bullet (forgive the pun) that should determine who should or should not own a firearm. If they can’t predict which lawfully-licensed pilots are going to take down an aircraft, then they certainly can't predict which firearms owners are likely to commit crimes with lawfully-owned firearms.

These are just a few of the measures that are said to be “common sense” and which advocates of gun control assure us will prevent crimes using firearms.

With all of this in mind, I would truly like to know what laws you back that 1) are Constitutional and 2) are going to insure that CRIMINALS aren’t going to get their hands on firearms while FULLY PROTECTING the rights of law abiding citizens.

In closing, I am going to include the following breakdown of so-called “gun deaths” that took place in the United States in 2016.  I published this online a few years ago, and revised the numbers to bring them in-line with current CDC statistics:

In 2016 there were about 39,000 “firearm deaths.”

66% of those 39,000 deaths were self-inflicted; this was an increase over 2014.  By the way, the number of non-firearms related suicides for 2016 actually increased more than firearms-related suicides did.

34% were gang-related.  This number remained stable.

Less than 1,000 were accidental, and about 2,200 are non-gang related homicides. These numbers also remained stable.

Gun controllers honestly believe that background checks are going to stop that?

Restricting access to firearms isn’t going to stop suicides. Our suicide rate is about the same as Britain’s – which severely restricts access to firearms, and the world leader in suicides is Japan, which also severely restricts access to firearms, so the fact that firearms happen to be the tool of choice for suicides in the US is incidental (in Japan the two most popular methods of committing suicide are poison and jumping in front of trains).

Background checks aren’t going to stop gang-related firearm killings; Rep. Lee from Texas admitted as much when she told the House of Representatives that gang bangers use “trafficked” firearms.

OK, so we have 2,200 non-gang related homicides that we can do something about, right? Wrong. Most of the weapons used in the commission of crimes were obtained illegally, so, again, background checks will do nothing to reduce that number.  One other observation: the homicide number doesn’t distinguish between justified police/civilian self-defense shootings and crime-related shootings; this is the problem inherent in using HOMICIDE statistics rather than MURDER statistics.   It gives a false impression.

That leaves us with less than 1,000 deaths in a nation of 350,000,000 citizens who own 360,000,000 firearms that we can do something about, and most of those deaths can be chalked up to one thing – accidents.That is a problem that comes down to personal responsibility and individual lapses in judgement. Again, background checks are going to do nothing to change that.

Long story short, the premise that background checks will solve all of our perceived problems is hogwash. If gun controllers are truly concerned about those who have a history of crime and mental illness, then they need to concentrate their efforts on providing better access to mental health care and solving the gang/drug problem. Solve those two problems, and our “epidemic” of “gun violence” almost completely disappears.