"Open Carry" Is A Stupid And Dangerous Idea (And Law)

We now have a new tragedy. This one happened in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. When police responded to a call about a person openly carrying an assault weapon, they walked into a trap -- and several of them were killed.

The crazy part of this is that Louisiana (like many other states) is an "open carry" state -- where anyone can walk down the street carrying any kind of weapon. In other words, what was reported to the police was NOT a violation of Louisiana law. But police have to check out all of these calls anyway, because there is no way for a citizen (or police officer) to know just by looking whether the person is a "good guy with a gun" or a "bad guy with a gun".

This has created more work for police officers, and it has made their job more dangerous. It also makes our society more dangerous for its citizens. If you are in a store or restaurant, and a person enters openly carrying an assault rifle (or any firearm), you have only seconds to figure out whether they are just being a jerk or they are there to kill people -- and making that decision is almost impossible until the shooting starts (and then its too late).

Gun nuts will tell us that it's their Second Amendment right to openly carry a firearm. That is NOT true. It is their right to own a firearm (unless they are a convicted felon), but the Supreme Court has never ruled they have the right to openly carry that firearm. In fact, just the opposite is true. The court has ruled that reasonable restrictions on the ownership and carrying of firearms is NOT a violation of the Second Amendment -- and banning the open carry of firearms is imminently reasonable.

Allowing citizens to openly carry firearms was a stupid and dangerous idea, and the laws permitting it should immediately be overturned. Protecting the safety of people (and police officers) is far more important than protecting the mythical "right" to openly carry a weapon.

Public Still Wants More Background Checks For Gun Buyers

The charts above were made with information from a recent YouGov Poll -- conducted on July 24th and 25th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of 4.7 points.

Even after the tragic mass murder of twenty 6 an 7 year-olds in Connecticut, Congress has refused to do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill. Most Republicans (and a few Democrats) bowed to pressure from the NRA, and killed a bill that would have closed the loopholes in the background checks for those wanting to buy a gun.

Currently about 40% of all the guns sold in this country are done without performing any background check on the purchaser -- at gun shows, on the internet, and through private sales. The NRA and right-wingers have tried to convince the public that such a law would be unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has decided more than once that government has the constitutional right to ban gun purchases by criminals and other dangerous individuals.

Despite all the propaganda put forth by the NRA and other gun groups, more than three quarters of the American people still want those loopholes closed (77%). They are still convinced that such a law would save many lives. And the people go even further. They would restrict from gun purchases those who have a temporary (64%) or permanent (68%) domestic violence restraining order, even if they haven't been convicted of that domestic violence. And they want those convicted of stalking (66%), even without a conviction for a violent crime, to be banned from buying a gun. And finally, they would be happy to see the ban on domestic abuse violators extended to couple who are dating, but not married (68%).

A substantial majority of the American public is still very serious about curbing gun violence. They know that closing the loopholes in the background check law would not infringe on the right of law-abiding Americans to buy and own a gun, but would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and save thousands of lives. It's time for our politicians to show a bit of political courage and pass this law.

It's Time To Outlaw "Open Carry" Of Firearms

The picture above is from the Facebook page of Jared or Amanda Miller, and is their wedding picture. They are the couple who murdered two police officers and another innocent civilian in Las Vegas. I'm sure many on the right will assure us they were mentally ill, but what we know now for sure is that they supported right-wing causes, believed in Second Amendment rights, joined the right-wing militia members defending Clive Bundy and threatening government officers, and looked like normal people.

This second picture shows "good guys" defending their Second Amendment rights by openly carrying rifles into a discount store. The question, of course, is how is a person to know which kind of gun-nut it is that they are encountering in a store or on the street -- a murderous couple like the in the top picture, or "good guys" like in the bottom?

The answer (whether right-wing gun-nuts want to admit it or not) is that you can't tell until the shooting starts -- and then it is too late. If you encounter such people, you only have seconds to decide -- and deciding wrong could be your death sentence.

The "open carry" proponents will tell you they are just exercising their Second Amendment rights. That's nonsense. I agree that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to own a gun. But that right has limits. For instance, those who have been convicted of a crime or declared dangerously mentally ill by a health professional do not have the right to own or possess a firearm. And the Second Amendment does not give anyone the right to openly carry a firearm anywhere they want.

Another excuse is that these people are openly carrying a firearm for self-defense. That's pure bullshit. Those who truly carry a firearm for self-defense are happy to carry that weapon concealed (and possess a concealed weapon permit). Those who sling a long gun over their shoulder (or strap a handgun to their hip) openly aren't doing so to defend themselves. They are trying to cover for their own inadequacies by intimidating other people (their fellow citizens) -- and that alone should tell us they have some psychological problems that are worrying.

There is no legitimate reason for openly carrying any kind of firearm in public. And personally, I believe it is time to outlaw the practice. It wasn't allowed in the cities of the "Old West", and it should not be allowed in our modern urban (and suburban) environments.

Why Is GOP Opposing U.N. Arms Treaty ?

The arms treaty recently passed by the United Nations was a hard-fought victory for human rights and world peace. It will keep arms from going to countries that abuse human rights. I can understand why Iran, Syria, and North Korea voted against it, because they are among the worst abusers of human rights. But why are Senate Republicans (and a few blue dog Democrats) opposing it? I know they claim they are just protecting the Second Amendment, but it is written into the treaty that it will not affect the internal laws of any country (i.e., the Second Amendment). President Obama made sure that provision was included. Could it be they are just protecting the rights of arms manufacturers and sellers to keep on selling their weapons of death to be used to violate human rights?

The Real Problem Is Handguns

The chart above is from the blog called Mikeb302000. It shows the weapons that were used to commit murder in the United States in 2010. While I am in favor of banning the sale (and possession) of military style assault weapons (because they are the weapon of choice for mass killers), it is obvious that there is a weapon that kills far more people in this country every year than assault weapons do -- the handgun. And while rifles and shotguns do have a legitimate sporting use, handguns really do not. They have one use -- to kill other human being, and they are very good for doing that.

It is to control the purchase of handguns that we most need to close the loopholes in the background check laws in this country. Almost anyone, even criminals and persons with a dangerous mental illness, can go to gun shows or make other private purchases and get a handguns whenever they want -- with no waiting period and no background check. In fact, about 40% of all gun sales are done in this manner. Doesn't it make sense to close that loophole? Would that really put an unreasonable burden on decent Americans who want to buy or sell a gun?

I grew up in rural Texas, and everyone I knew (including my own father) owned a firearm. I do not support taking weapons away from decent law-abiding citizens. But I do support denying the ability to purchase a weapon to criminals (including domestic abusers) and people who pose a serious danger to their fellow citizens (like the dangerously mentally ill). Closing the background check loopholes won't completely eliminate murders in this country -- but I do believe it could save the lives of thousands of Americans each year (without abusing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding people). How can anyone be against that kind of reasonable and constitutional law?

U.S. Backs Out & Kills U.N. Arms Treaty

There was a great hope that the United Nations would pass an arms treaty this year, but it now looks like that won't happen. And the primary reason it won't happen is that the United States backed out at the last minute, saying they wanted more time to consider the language of the treaty. And once the United States backed out, Russia and China quickly followed suit. It shouldn't escape attention that these three countries are the largest weapons shippers internationally. The executive director of Amnesty International made the following statement:

"This was stunning cowardice by the Obama administration, which at the last minute did an about-face and scuttled progress toward a global arms treaty, just as it reached the finish line. It's a staggering abdication of leadership by the world's largest exporter of conventional weapons to pull the plug on the talks just as they were nearing an historic breakthrough."

I think that is a true statement. The Obama administration is afraid the arms treaty would have affected the upcoming election, so they backed down. They know the National Rifle Association (NRA) has waged a huge propaganda campaign against the U.N. treaty, and have convinced a lot of Americans that the treaty would somehow override the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and allow the United Nations to confiscate the guns of Americans. It's a ridiculous idea of course, since the arms treaty wouldn't have affected arms possession or sales within any country. It would only have affected the international sales of firearms, in an effort to keep dangerous firearms out of the hands of criminal and terrorist organizations.

And the NRA is bragging that they are responsible for the failure of the arms treaty. They probably are responsible. But it exposes the leadership of the NRA as to who they really support. It's not the Second Amendment or the gun owners in the United States -- because this treaty would not have affected either. The only group it would affect in this country (or any other) is the weapons manufacturers, because they would no longer be able to ship their killing weapons to any country or group without regard to the consequences. If it wasn't already obvious that the NRA has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the weapons manufacturers, then it should be obvious now.

This treaty could have made the world a little bit safer. But the NRA doesn't care. They only care about the profits of the weapons manufacturers, and they were willing to lie to the American people to protect those profits.

NRA Members Favor Common Sense Rules

The leadership of the National Rifle Association (NRA) has, in recent years, become little more than a super right-wing shill for weapons manufacturers. They hide this by scaring their members into thinking that everyone from Democrats to President Obama to the United Nations is conspiring to take away the right of Americans to own firearms. And that leadership brings up these overblown conspiracy theories every time any new regulation is being discussed -- no matter how tame or reasonable the regulation is.

After the shooting in Aurora, many people are once again talking about making some changes in the regulation of firearms in America -- and of course, the NRA leadership is over-reacting as usual. They try to present their organization as monolithic and in agreement on all gun regulation issues. And polls have shown that when the question is asked that way (Do you favor gun control?) an overwhelming number of NRA members (and probably the public at large) will quickly answer NO. It is quickly assumed by many that the question implies an erosion (or overturning) of the Second Amendment.

But when asked about separate issues (without labeling it as gun control), a pollster recently found a majority of gun-owners (both NRA members and non-members) are not opposed to some common sense rules regarding firearms. The pollster is Frank Luntz (who commonly does polling for the Republican Party), and his survey was done last May for Mayors Against Illegal Guns. His survey included both NRA members and gun owners who are not in the NRA, and here are some of the results he found (with the percentages shown being those in favor):

BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR GUN OWNERS.
NRA...............74%
non-NRA...............87%

BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR GUN SHOP EMPLOYEES.
NRA...............79%
non-NRA...............80%

PROHIBIT TERRORIST WATCH LIST MEMBERS FROM BUYING GUNS.
NRA...............71%
non-NRA...............80%

MANDATE GUN OWNERS TO TELL POLICE IF THEIR GUN IS STOLEN.
NRA...............64%
non-NRA...............71%

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS SHOULD BE GIVEN ONLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE COMPLETED A SAFETY TRAINING COURSE.
NRA...............74%
non-NRA...............84%

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS SHOULD BE GIVEN ONLY TO THOSE 21 OR OLDER.
NRA...............63%
non-NRA...............74%

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO THOSE WITH VIOLENT MISDEMEANORS.
NRA...............75%
non-NRA...............81%

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO THOSE ARRESTED FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
NRA...............68%
non-NRA...............78%

It seems that a majority of gun owners (whether in the NRA or not) agree with these common sense rules. Unfortunately, the NRA leadership does not. They even came out against the proposal to keep guns out of the hands of those on the terrorist watch list. They automatically oppose any new regulation -- whether it makes sense or not. And since they are the ones that control the purse-strings and put out the NRA propaganda, nothing will be done by Congress (where most members are afraid of being labeled as "anti-gun" and would take a campaign donation from the devil himself).

Hopefully, at some time in the future, the NRA leadership can be wrested from the ultra-right-wingers -- and given to those who would protect both the Second Amendment and reasonable gun regulations.

NRA Will Defend "Rights" Of Gun Smugglers

The failed United States "War on Drugs" has created an extremely lucrative black market for the drug trade (just like the U.S.'s first attempt at prohibition did for alcohol). And this black market has created a new breed of organized criminals, known as drug cartels. In Mexico, these cartels are warring with one another to control the import of drugs into the United States -- and these "cartel wars" have caused the deaths of between 35,000 and 40,000 people in Mexico (including police and soldiers trying to stop the killing and innocent civilians caught in the crossfire).

Much of the blame for these thousands of deaths must lie with the United States. Not only did U.S. drug policy create the cartels, but they have been armed mostly with guns from the United States. Thousands of firearms, including military-style semi-automatic weapons, are purchased from dealers in the U.S. and smuggled to the cartels in Mexico each year.

After years of inaction, the United States government has finally taken some action to stop the illegal shipment of firearms into Mexico. The government has issued a rule that will now require any gun dealer in the border states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California) to contact the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Expolsives (ATF) if an individual purchases more than two semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines in a five-day period.

This is a reasonable action that probably should have been done long ago. It won't stop the smuggling altogether, but it will make it a little harder for the smugglers to purchase the firearms.

Incredibly, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is saying it will go to court to stop the new regulation. This probably shouldn't surprise anyone since the NRA has opposed any regulation of guns, no matter how sensible or needed the regulation was. It even opposed the waiting period and background check to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals or the dangerously mentally ill -- in spite of the fact that this was (and is) supported by a large majority of American citizens.

I'm not sure what the NRA sees as a problem to the new federal rules. Any American citizen (that can pass a background check) can still purchase as many firearms as they want, including semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines. They can even purchase more than two in a five-day period if they can justify the purchase to the ATF. And even following the two in a five day restriction, they could purchase more than a hundred firearms in a year.

Obviously, the new federal regulation does not harm the ability of Americans to purchase whatever firearms they want. The only thing it does is make it a little bit harder for smugglers to purchase large quantities of firearms. So, just who is the NRA trying to protect by fighting the new regulation in court? The smugglers! The NRA should be ashamed of itself. This is not a Second Amendment issue. It is an effort to stop smuggling and save lives.

NRA Members Smarter Than Leaders

It has always been the choice of the leaders of the National Rifle Association (NRA) to take some extreme positions in defense of gun-owner's rights, but it seems like some of those positions have been ridiculous lately. NRA leaders have successfully pushed for the right to carry loaded firearms into places that sell alcohol in at least a couple of states. Now they are pushing for the right of those carrying loaded firearms to drink alcohol while in those facilities -- a really bad idea considering the number of bad drunks in the world.

These same NRA leaders think it is also fine for those who are on America's terrorist watch list to own firearms. That one seems ludicrous to me -- if a person is too dangerous to fly on commercial airlines, do we really want them owning and carrying firearms? A recent GAO report has found that since the terrorist watch list was initiated, at least 1,119 people on the list have purchased firearms from licensed U.S. gun dealers. Congress now wants to pass a law preventing this, but the NRA's leaders are fighting this tooth-and-nail.

Oddly enough, the rank-and-file members of the NRA are not nearly as extreme as their leadership. The huge majority of the members are in favor of commonsense laws controlling gun ownership -- including restricting the right of those on the terrorist watch list to own firearms. Here are the numbers from a December 2009 poll:

- 82% of NRA members support prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.

- 78% of NRA members support requiring gun owners to report a loss or theft of their guns to police.

- 69% of NRA members support requiring gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of gun buyers.

- 69% of NRA members say the federal government should not restrict the ability of police to access, use and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws.

- 86% of NRA members believe the country can do more to stop criminals from getting guns while protecting the right of citizens to own them.

It looks like the leadership of the NRA is out of step with the huge majority of the organization's members, since they oppose all of the above commonsense regulations.

Supreme Court May Hear Case On Gun Rights

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Those are the words of the second amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has not decided a second amendment case regarding gun rights since 1939, when the Court ruled that their is no right to own a sawed-off shotgun. But the present Court may take up a gun rights case.

The question is whether individuals have a right to own firearms, or whether that right is reserved for a state militia. For the last seventy years or so, many courts have interpreted the amendment to give the right to state militias and not individuals, But recently, a federal court threw out the District of Columbia's law restricting the ownership of handguns. That has revived the argument.

Many who oppose gun ownership believe the 1939 decision settled the matter in favor of militias, but Chief Justice Roberts says that is not true. During the nominating process, he told Congress that the 1939 decision had actually side-stepped the issue. He did not say which side he agreed with.

Since the D.C. law was thrown out, both sides have said they would like the Supreme Court to decide the issue. The Court will probably announce this week whether they will take the case or not, maybe as early as this coming Tuesday. I hope the Court does take up the issue.

Personally, I have never owned any kind of firearm. It would make me very happy if the same was true of everyone. I was shot in the stomach with a pistol in the Fall of 2005, and very nearly died. But while I don't like gun ownership and don't consider it to be a good idea, I am not one of those who would outlaw it.

The reason I would not outlaw gun ownership is because I believe the second amendment is very clear in it's meaning. It does not guarantee the right of a militia to bear arms, it gives that right to "the people". The militia is used in the sentence as a reason why people must have the right to bear arms.

The fact that we live in an age where a citizen militia is unlikely and unneeded, does not take away the right -- only a reason for the right. I believe for a gun ban to be constitutional, the second amendment would have to be changed.

If you want to ban handguns then amend the Constitution, but don't misread it and misuse it. It is clearly written to be a right of the people -- not a state militia.