Old Soldier

Please read the following linked articles and opinion pieces. You will find some remarkable similarities to what I have written.

Colorado sheriffs plan lawsuit challenging state gun control laws

Why isn’t human nature ever considered when it comes to gun laws?

Fact vs. fiction on background checks and the gun control debate

Survey of law officers finds majority doesn’t agree with Obama’s gun control plan

(Also from the PoliceOne.com survey…)
Cops Don’t Think Guns Too Easy to Obtain

Biden mocks gun skeptics: ‘We’re going to swoop down with Special Forces folks and gather up every gun in America’

Is that right, Joe?

New York Police Confiscating Firearms from People Taking Anti-anxiety Medication

Police Confiscate Man’s Guns Over Son’s Water Pistol Threat

when STUPID people are elected to positions of [governmental] responsibility.

Just what laws were violated? Did the water pistol have a capacity greater than 10 ounces of water? Did it have any “military assault weapon” attributes, like a flash suppressor, detachable reservoir, etc?

Even more alarming is the Gestapo-like actions of the Suffolk County Police. Tell me again that ‘gun control’ has nothing to do with firearms confiscation. The Mayor, Chief of Police, judge (who issued the warrant, if one was issued), and officers involved should all be tarred, feathered and run out of town. The police better take notice that they can be held liable for conducting unlawful activities – to include being shot and killed.

The father, having committed no crime, was subjected to an illegal search and seizure – conducted by law enforcement, no less. …and the police wonder why the public is losing faith in them more every day? Too, his right to keep and bear arms was administratively terminated – that means without due process! Wow, if that is what “safety” looks like, then we are indeed headed in the wrong direction!

I hope John Mayer’s law suit knocks some sense into legislators and law enforcement; although, I am not going to hold my breath.

7-year-old Nabbed on Felony BB Gun Charges

Read it for yourself… It is beyond any logical reasoning to charge a 7-year-old with a felony charge of “discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle.” First and foremost, a BB gun is not a “firearm.” At the outside, it might fit the description for “air gun,” but there is no way it can be classified as a firearm; except perhaps in the minds of gun-haters.

From Merriam-Webster; “firearm” – a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder – usually used of small arms.

From Wiktionary; “firearm” – a personal weapon that uses explosive powder to propel a metal (usually lead) projectile.

An Old Soldier clarification… modern gun powder is not classified “explosive.” It is, of course, highly flammable; but, not explosive. Black powder, on the other hand, is explosive; but, is not used in modern firearm cartridges as the propellant.

Where is it going to end, folks? When will people stand up and defend constitutionally enumerated “rights” rather than be so willing to throw them under the bus? The premise of a constitutionally enumerated and protected “right” being restricted or otherwise diluted by ‘legislation’ is absolutely dumbfounding.

Please do not suggest that freedom of speech is infringed because it is unlawful to shout “FIRE” in a crowded theater. Indeed, if there actually is a fire, then shouting FIRE for the purpose of evacuating patrons is expected. Shouting “FIRE” when none is present tracks to physically or mortally endangering others – the act of which is unlawful. It has absolutely nothing to do with infringing upon freedom of speech.

People who honestly believe that the unconstitutional legislation(s), touted as “gun control,” passed in New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland and the like, are demonstrating a growing incapacity to logically address a significant social issue. There is no objectivity, merely a cry to “do something” to make us safer. Capitalizing upon the mindless frightened herd emotional atmosphere the ‘control’ vultures (aka agenda driven progressive liberals) have swept in to offer “control” of inanimate objects as an infallible solution to the herd’s woes.

Anyone with half a brain and the capacity to logically and objectively assess the issue will quickly conclude that advancing control of ‘things’ will produce zero desired results! Criminals will not be disarmed, psychotropic drug induced rage killers will still be free to wreak their carnage, and psychotropic meds will still be unaccountably and prolifically administered to high risk patients. Say what you want about an associated benefit, but there is an undeniable connection between young rage killers and psychotropic drugs (aka Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors or SSRIs). SSRIs were present at Columbine, VA Tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook; so, tell me there is no connection. Yet it is the “Assault Weapon” (used only at Aurora and Sandy Hook) that is the evil that must be controlled. Really?

I have never seen such a fright-drive mindless assault on our constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. I bore arms in defense of my nation for over 31 years, and now I am to believe that the ‘scary looking’ rifles I carried have somehow been transformed into purposed child killers, menaces to society that must be controlled beyond reason? Our military wears strange looking camouflaged uniforms and carry specialized camo ruck sacks; should they be ‘controlled’ as well? Many people like the military appearance of AR and AK style rifles and carbines… so what? Civilian versions of M4 Carbines do not possess the military 3-round burst capability. (No, the M4 Carbine is not capable of full automatic fire.)

Military arms were once derivatives of civilian technology. Patched cartridges, cased cartridges, breech loading rifles, lever action rifles and eventually, semiautomatic rifles were all products of civilian firearms advancements that were adapted to military application. The M1 Garand was the first rifle developed primarily and explicitly for the military. It has been followed by the M14, M16 and now the M4. It is perfectly legal to own an M1 Garand or the civilianized version of the M14, the M1A (which is not capable of fully automatic fire). So what if a firearm looks like a military weapon?

As to the illogical question of, “Who needs an AR with 30-rounds of magazined ammunition?” My response is… what does it matter? Who ‘needs’ a 650 hp Shelby Mustang capable of 200 mph? Who ‘needs’ a million-dollar home? Who’ needs’ a 1,000 hp speed boat? Whose business is it, anyway? The idea of challenging others on a basis of “Who needs?” flies in the face of a free society.

“An object at rest will stay at rest unless an external force acts upon it.” So why do the vast majority of unconstitutionally legislated ‘controls’ focus upon “the object at rest” rather than the external force? The Second Amendment is so simple and direct that liberals cannot grasp the concept. That is not my problem – it is theirs! However, their egregious attack upon my right is my problem and may very well become theirs as well if they do not cease and desist in attempting to disarm me. (I use the word “me’ to mean legal law abiding gun owners among all the states.)

Subtitled: Third and fourth order effects.

Some facts:

Criminals do not obey ‘law.’ Do I really need to substantiate this fact?

When desired, criminals will acquire firearms. If they cannot acquire via straw man purchase or from a private citizen, they will steal what they require. Of course there is always the avenue of buying from other criminals who have stolen firearms.

Gun control laws will only affect the law abiding. Criminals, again, by nature just will not comply with law.

“Assault weapons” are not the weapon of choice for high fatality killers; substantiated by Kehoe and McVeigh. Kehoe (Bath, MI) killed 45 (including 38 children), and McVeigh (Oklahoma City) killed 168 (including 19 children) and wounded approximately 500 more. Seung-Hui Cho (VA Tech) killed 32 and wounded 17 more using two hand guns (one was a .22 Long Rifle pistol with a 10-round magazine), Nidal Malik Hasan (Ft Hood) killed 13 and wounded 30 more using a single handgun, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine) killed 12 and wounded another 21 using handguns, a shotgun and a carbine (not an AR). The two recent cases precipitating a national focus on AR style semi-automatic rifles are Aura and Sandy Hook.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban results are ‘inconclusive.’ Both sides of the gun control debate claim elements of academic analyses; but in fact the results are basically inconclusive at best. There is no clear connection to crime or gun violence reduction being attributable to the Act. At best, the results do not unequivocally substantiate a new ban on “assault weapons.”

Meat of the matter:

Peruse the latest headlines… a prison warden is killed, prosecutors are killed, a sheriff is killed, home invasions and armed robberies are becoming more and more frequent – even in rural areas; in fact there is a significant increase in rural break ins. Prosecutors are stepping down from certain cases in fear for the lives of themselves and their families. In a time of increasing violent crime, it makes absolutely no sense to infringe upon law abiding citizens’ right to arm themselves – regardless of what the firearm may look like!

The “gun control” measures being advanced in NY, CT, MD, CO and the like will only affect those willing to comply. Do you truly believe criminals will approach law enforcement to “register” (and be finger printed) their previously possessed high capacity magazines and firearms? Do you think the prohibition of purchasing high capacity magazines will affect the criminal element? Think again; the black market will flourish and supply their every need. Criminals are not bounded by state lines, they will go to where supply satisfies their demand – and then return.

In most of the incidents I referenced, there was a long period of planning or a simmering of thoughts that evolved into plans. Time affords an ability to acquire whatever means is desired to execute formulated plans. Banning certain types of rifles and magazines will be totally ineffectual if that is what a rage killer desires to use. There is no logic whatsoever in banning a rifle because it has some attributes that emulates a military firearm. Should we also ban camouflage apparel, backpacks, boots, sleeping bags, survival knives, etc., that have military applications? How about Hummer vehicles – they were born of the present Military light utility vehicle.
Unintended consequences of feel good [unconstitutional] gun control legislation will be an increase in home break-ins and invasions where forearms are the desired loot. Home owners are placed at a high risk of break-ins and invasions, especially in rural areas. Too many of the controls infringe upon a law abiding citizens’ inalienable right to defend themselves, their family and property.

No matter how you couch it, no matter how you word it, “gun control” “infringes” upon a constitutionally guaranteed right. Stop trying to sell “gun control” as a means to stop gun violence – it won’t. Stop trying to sell “gun control” as a means to prevent assault weapons and high capacity magazines from getting into the hands of criminals – it won’t. Ninety percent of the “gun control” measures are totally ineffectual and in direct violation of the constitution.

Where there is some sense applied that does not infringe upon law abiding citizens appears in creating a violent criminal database for criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime – similar to the sex offender database. I would also (as the NRA has for many years) advocate for more severe penalties for crimes where a firearm is used, along with a minimum of a life sentence is a life is taken by a firearm during the commission of a crime.

Straw man purchases are already a prosecutable offense – if the AG would actually consider prosecuting them. Any fraudulent entry on a firearms NICS form is a prosecutable offense. You want to stop fraudulent attempts to buy firearms – start enforcing the current laws by prosecuting offenders. Word will get out…

Mental instability is a sticky issue… I truly do not want firearms in the possession of someone who is mentally instable. However, administratively placing someone on the NICS list as instable is a no-go. Involve the judicial system to ensure the person’s rights are not trampled and that all evidence is considered, then advanced the name to NICS. I cringe at the thought of a psychiatrist summarily determining that a person is not stable enough to possess firearms. Certainly their testimony should be heard, but the process to restrict or remove a citizen’s right is via the court.

Those who put their full faith and trust in law enforcement cannot possibly understand that the police can neither “protect” nor “defend.” Law enforcement, by our very system (innocent until proven guilty), is reactive not preventative. “Intent to commit” is extremely difficult to detect and when discovered does not bear the same penalty as an act of commission. (I’m not saying that police will ignore “intent” cases, just that most departments do not have the manpower to aggressively pursue “intent” cases.) Look at it this way: when seconds count, your police are only minutes away.

Proficiently armed citizens are a greater deterrent to crime than law enforcement will ever be. Why in the world would you want to negatively or adversely impact your fellow citizen’s right defend themselves, family, property and country? During WWII, Japan did not invade because they believed they would encounter “a gun behind every blade of grass.” Is there such peace in the world that our country is no longer a hated target? The military, all the law enforcement and Homeland Security added together does not even come close to the citizen ‘militia’ that resides throughout our great nation.

The unintended consequences of “gun control” far surpass what I have touched upon. Suffice it to say that legislators should logically analyze the overall situation, examining all facets of the problem, not just a few agenda supportive elements, and make completely informed decisions – not enact feel good reactive violations to our constitution.