Kennesaw, Georgia as Proof of the Fallacy of Gun Control

On June 1, 2015May 30, 2015 By Tom LindsayIn Self Defense

In 1982, the city of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance outlawing the ownership of guns within the city limits. In response, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring that every head of household, with some exceptions, maintain a firearm in the home, with ammunition.

This, of course, has fueled a multitude of responses over the years from gun control advocates. One incident that draws their attention is the mass shooting at a FedEx center in 2014. They point to this as a failure of the required presence of guns to prevent this shooting. Of course, what they fail to even notice is that the FedEx shooting was, in fact, a failure of the opposite kind, since the FedEx facility was a posted Gun Free Victim Zone. FedEx-Shooting

Now comes a missive on the Kennesaw situation so bizarre that I will leave it to the reader to digest.

All this leads me here.

Last night, as I pondered this most recent attempt at gunsense, I finally gave expression to the senselessness that I feel when reading all the gun control nonsense, and the failure of their logic.

You see, gun control advocates, especially the most ignorant and vocal, almost without exception, equate the ownership of guns by any law abiding citizens to the ownership of guns by violent criminals. In their minds, there is no difference. To them, it is not the person who is the problem, it is the gun. No matter the person’s background, beliefs, circumstances, they will kill when they have a gun. Not may kill, will kill.

This is where the snake metaphor arises – it is an unknown, an inevitable danger that will attack without warning. And the implication is, of course, that this danger will attack the innocent owner as quickly and as surely as it will the intended target.

This, of course, grows from the gunsense belief that the presence of guns in the home will lead to suicides in the home. Not may lead, will lead. And it is this one point that above all else, to me, deflates the gunsense message, but, sadly, has been missed by we who defend our rights.

To best understand, I took the gunsense mantra to its extreme. If guns mean death, then mandatory guns, required guns, would have produced a 100% death rate. Or, at the very least, it would result in a marked, noticable, reported spike in gun related deaths.

And yet, this is not the case. The murder rate in Kennesaw is not 100%, or even 50%, given that only about half the households have guns. The suicide rate in Kennesaw does not seem to be any higher than anywhere else.

Further proof:

No spike in shootouts and gun deaths at the NRA convention. Ever.

No rash of shootings and gun deaths at USPSA, IDPA, or any other sport shooting events. Ever.

I could go on.

The time has come to point this out to the gunsense crowd, and politely ask them to shut the hell up.

The Bad News About a National CCW Reciprocity Law

On February 16, 2015December 29, 2015 By Tom LindsayIn CCW, Concealed Carry5 Comments

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

From time to time I read about proposals for a national law requiring reciprocity of concealed carry permits between the states. The most recent example is the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, introduced by Senator John Cornyn, R-TX.

Sadly, I have some bad news about this proposal, and about a national CCW reciprocity law in general: It would be unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.

Consider:

Nothing in the US Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the issuing or honoring of concealed carry permits issued by the States. In fact, nothing in the Constitution addresses concealed carry permits at all. Therefore, Congress has no authority to order the States to honor permits from other States.

Now, let me say that I am in no way saying we should not be able to carry a concealed weapon. And, I am not saying that my Georgia Weapons Carry License should not be honored in other states. However, the method by which this is accomplished is the issue at hand, and the current proposal doesn’t pass muster.

As an intelligent American, you know this to be true, even if you wish it were not.

There are several camps out there who make arguments that we should support this unconstitutional law. Let’s take a look at one.

The Driver’s License Argument

“The law should force States to honor my carry permit, like it forces them to honor my driver’s license.”

This claim, unfortunately, is based on ignorance. The honoring of drivers’ licenses is the result of an agreement among the States called the Driver Licence Agreement. Does that sound familiar? It should, because that’s what currently regulates reciprocity of carry permits – agreements between the States.

Why not a law? Because nothing in the Constitution gives Congress authority over licensing drivers, and at one time, we actually paid attention to the Constitution.

Thank God.

Think about it: the Federal government already will retain highway funds from States, unless they institute laws it agrees with, and mandates, like the right speed limits, or the right drinking age. Federal control of drivers’ licenses would open us all to such abuse as we can only imagine.

And if you follow that line of reasoning, you can then cut off the next line of reasoning for federal carry permit reciprocity: “Why don’t we just pass a law (or amendment) giving the feds authority over carry permits?”

Oh.

My.

God.

That, my friends, leads exactly where you think it leads.

Now, I know this is a big disappointment to a lot of people. Believe me, I wish we could have it, too, but I am not willing to give up my Constitutional rights for something I want, and you shouldn’t be, either.

As always, I welcome your reasoned discussion on this issue.

Coming tomorrow – the answer to CCW reciprocity.

How History Might Have Been Different

On February 11, 2015 By Tom LindsayIn Gun Control, Gun Rights, RKBA2 Comments

Pistol Choices — What if they were Tauruses?

As I have reported before, when I shopping for my first handgun in 1992, I was at a gun store in Marietta, Georgia, and had decided to buy a Taurus PT92, the Brazilian copy of the Beretta 92. However, when the clerk asked for my identification so he could run my background check, I discovered that, as an Alabama resident, I could not legally purchase a handgun in Georgia.

Why? Good question. The originators claimed it would cut down on gun trafficking by criminals, since they could not be sure that an out-of-state purchaser was legally allowed to by a gun. There was no easy way to run a background check on someone out of state in a reasonable length of time.

Given the improvements in communications since the law was first passed, and especially in light of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, this argument has become invalid.

And, finally, the courts have agreed, as a federal appeals court ruled today that disallowing interstate handgun sales through licensed FFL holders was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

This should mean that eventually, once the BATFE sends guidance to gun stores and FFL holders, we would be able to buy handguns through any FFL holder, no matter where it is located.

Now, given my penchant for Glocks (having bought, instead of the Taurus, a Glock 17, upon return to Alabama), how would my life be different today, had I bought the Taurus?

Would I have won free Tauruses in the Taurus Shooting Sports Foundation matches?

Whose pictures would I have in the office, if not the Gunny?

I can only wonder.

New Gun Control Idea

On February 10, 2015 By Tom LindsayIn Gun Control, Sarcasm

Remember – you heard it here first . . . .

In an article I read today about a proposed Federal ban on magazines of greater than 10 round capacity, proposed by Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty (D-Connecticut) who represents Newtown, Connecticut, I read this paragraph:

In the five minutes Esty took to explain her and her cohorts’ reasoning behind the bill she said, “Limiting high capacity magazines will save lives and we know this because it has.” She cited that 11 children escaped when Sandy Hook elementary school shooter XXXXXX* stopped to reload. However, the state attorney’s official report on the tragic incident states otherwise. The report says the children had a chance to escape a classroom when XXXXXX paused in his shooting because either the rifle malfunctioned or he had problems reloading—with no conclusion to the reason why XXXXXX stopped shooting.

(* As you know, I refuse to publicize the names of mass killers.)

The bold text is where I see a coming gun control effort – why not a law prohibiting reliable guns? As I see it, clearing malfunctions would be a lot more difficult than magazine changes, and, in the eyes of the gun control crowd, make us a lot safer.

The National Reliable Firearms Prevention Act should be coming by year end. Sponsors? I welcome your predictions.

+++++

Just in case, we should all buy 1911’s. They would be compliant.