Tag: Gun Rights

South Dakota to Allow Armed Teachers

The aftermath of the Connecticut shooting has seen very little common sense. We’ve seen countless people claim that more gun control legislation is needed but South Dakota is bucking the trend by allowing teachers to arm themselves:

The measure does not force school districts to arm teachers and will not require teachers to carry guns.

But it allows each school district to choose if staff could be armed. It takes effect in July.

Under the Republican-sponsored bill, school staff given permission to carry firearms on campus will be known as “school sentinels”. The state has given a law enforcement commission the task of establishing a training programme for the sentinels.

This is the appropriate response. Allow teachers that want to carry a gun on the job to carry a gun on the job. It’s a simple strategy that increases the cost of inflicting violence upon schools, doesn’t require gun owners to submit to further state tyranny, and doesn’t cost tax victims any additional money. I wish other states would remove their restrictions against teachers carrying at work but most states seem focused on punishing gun owners instead of protecting children.

The Illusionary Division

According to the Star Tribune Minnesota Democrats are split on the issue of gun control. The divide, for all intents and purposes, is illusionary:

A bipartisan majority of Minnesota House members and gun-rights groups are lining up to back a new proposal at the State Capitol that would tighten penalties on Minnesotans who obtain weapons illegally and would prohibit felons from owning ammunition.

[…]

But the proposal also is laying bare the divide within the DFL on gun rights, and could signal the first serious dissension within a party that now controls the Legislature. Rep. Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul, who heads the House Public Safety and Finance Committee, has already proposed a bill featuring universal background checks — an element that gun safety activists say is key step toward restricting gun violence.

The two options are expanding the state’s power by give state agents more data and new crimes to charge people with or by prohibiting private sales of firearms. No matter which side wins we, the people, lose. But the illusion of choice exists and ,so long as that illusion exists, people will believe they are free.

Enhancing the Police State in the Name of Defending Gun Rights

The Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) has been making noise about a piece of legislation that they are selling as an alternative to the bills being offered by gun control advocates. I voiced my concern based on what was said about the bill in the news. The bill, H1323, was officially unveiled yesterday and I can say it’s not the common sense legislation that was being promised, although it didn’t end up throwing the mentally ill under a bus as I feared. The legislation itself isn’t as bad as what is being pushed by the gun control advocates but it does reek of a desperate ploy to offer the gun control advocates a piece of meat in the hopes that they will relent and an attempt to appear, what Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned referred to as, tough on crime.

Most of the bill consists of amendments to currently existing statutes. The amendments, in general, either requires data be electronically entered into a searchable database, creates mandatory minimum sentences or flat out creates new crimes. From the viewpoint of being touch on crime the bill is effective. Being tough on crime, at least politically, necessarily means granting the state more power, which is never good for the general populace. Because of that fact I find the legislation, overall, troubling. Consider section one of the legislation:

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 241.301, is amended to read:
241.301 FINGERPRINTS OF INMATES, PAROLEES, AND PROBATIONERS FROM OTHER STATES.
The commissioner of corrections shall establish procedures so that whenever this state receives an inmate, parolee, or probationer from another state under sections 241.28 to 241.30 or 243.1605, fingerprints and thumbprints of the inmate, parolee, or probationer are obtained and forwarded to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. by electronic entry into a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension-managed or federal searchable database within 24 hours of receipt. The bureau shall convert the fingerprints and thumbprints into an electronic format for entry into the appropriate searchable database within 72 hours of receipt if the data is not entered by the commissioner.

Currently Statute 2012, section 241.301 reads:

241.301 FINGERPRINTS OF INMATES, PAROLEES, AND PROBATIONERS FROM OTHER STATES.
The commissioner of corrections shall establish procedures so that whenever this state receives an inmate, parolee, or probationer from another state under sections 241.28 to 241.30 or 243.1605, fingerprints and thumbprints of the inmate, parolee, or probationer are obtained and forwarded to the bureau of criminal apprehension.

The statute, as it currently stands, has no mention of a database whereas the statute, under H1323, would mandate the taken fingerprints be converted into an electronic format and entered into a database either managed by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehensions or a federal agency. Databases of people in the hands of the state are never good. I won’t post every instance in the bill where information is mandated to be added to a database, I’ll leave that up to you, but much of the bill deals with exactly that and it makes for some rather Orwellian reading.

Second 11 is also worrisome as it creates new minimum sentences:

Sec. 11. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 609.165, subdivision 1b, is amended to read:
Subd. 1b. Violent felons in possession; violation and penalty; mandatory sentences. (a) Any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence, as defined in section 624.712, subdivision 5, and who ships, transports, possesses, or receives a firearm, commits a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.
(b) A conviction and sentencing under this section shall be construed to bar a conviction and sentencing for a violation of section 624.713, subdivision 2.
(c) The criminal penalty in paragraph (a) does not apply to any person who has received a relief of disability under United States Code, title 18, section 925, or whose ability to possess firearms has been restored under subdivision 1d.
(d) Unless a longer mandatory minimum sentence is otherwise required by law or the sentencing guidelines provide for a longer presumptive executed sentence, a person convicted of violating paragraph (a) shall be committed to the commissioner of corrections for:
(1) 60 months;
(2) 120 months if the person has a prior conviction under this section, section 624.713, subdivision 2, paragraph (b), or a comparable law of another state or the United States; or
(3) 180 months if the person has a combination of two or more prior convictions under this section, section 624.713, subdivision 2, paragraph (b), or a comparable law of another state or the United States. Sentencing a person in a manner other than that described in this paragraph is a departure from the sentencing guidelines.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.

I don’t like prisons, they’re a form of collective punishment as the taxed are forced to pay for the food, water, clothing, housing, and guarding of those convicted of crimes. Minimum sentences are nothing more than a forced duration of how long the taxed are forced to pay for a convicted man’s incarceration. On top of being a form of collective punishment prisons, especially as they exist in the United States, are ineffective. Norwegian’s Bastoy prison island, a novel facility that actually treats prisoners like human beings while requiring them to provide heavily for their own needs, has a recidivism rate of 16% compared to the United States rate of 67.5%. We should be focusing on alternatives to the United States prison industrial complex instead of putting more people in those ineffective cages for longer periods of time. I don’t see the justice in punishing the taxed and putting people in cages, which is why I find this section particularly offensive.

Section 12 specifically makes it illegal to falsely report lost or stolen firearms:

Sec. 12. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 609.505, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 3. Lost or stolen firearms; false reporting. (a) Whoever informs a law enforcement officer that a firearm has been lost or stolen, knowing that the report is false, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(b) A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years, or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if the person:
(1) is convicted a second or subsequent time of violating this subdivision; or
(2) violates paragraph (a) while knowing that the firearm has been transferred to someone who intends to use it in furtherance of a felony crime of violence, as defined in section 624.712, subdivision 5.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Under the proposed “assault weapon” ban many people discussed how they would simply report their “assault weapons” as lost. Reporting firearms as lost is one possible way to avoid a gun grab. If H1323 passes, and an “assault weapon” ban later passes, the police will have grounds to kidnap and charge you with a gross misdemeanor if you claim you lost your “assault weapons.” Personally I would prefer it if the police didn’t have grounds for kidnapping me if I reported my arms as lost.

Section 15 is interesting as it would prevent a prohibited person from legally possessing ammunition as well as firearms. I’m not sure why this was added but it’s entirely unnecessary and bordering ridiculous. If a person can’t legally possess a firearm then possessing ammunition is irrelevant since ammunition is meaningless without a firearm and somebody willing to violate a prohibition against possessing a firearm is almost certainly willing to violate a prohibition against possessing ammunition. This section also includes a minor change of language that I’m baffled by:

(3) a person who is or has ever been ordered committed in Minnesota or elsewhere by a judicial determination that the person is mentally ill, developmentally disabled, or mentally ill and dangerous to the public, as defined in section 253B.02, to a treatment facility, whether or not the order was stayed, or who has ever been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental illness, unless the person’s ability to possess a firearm has been restored under subdivision 4 6;

Perhaps I’m wrong about this but if a person has been ordered committed and they refuse to go aren’t they violating a court order and therefore committing a crime? Aren’t redundancy like that what gun rights advocates continuously criticize when new laws are added to the books? Is there some point to adding this language other than to appear touch on crime?

Section 16 creates more minimum sentences, this time for prohibited persons in possession of firearms or ammunition. What I stated about Section 11 is true here, minimum sentences are not going to fix anything as the entire concept of incarceration, at least as it exists in the United States, needs to be addressed. More specifically when it comes to punishing prohibited persons it’s important to point out that many prohibited persons have no violent history, they were merely charged with a nonviolent felony. While there is some ground on which to argue for a person with a violent history being prohibited from owning arms there is absolutely no ground on which to argue for a person with no violent history being prohibited from owning arms. A catchall minimum sentence will adversely effect both violent and nonviolent individuals who violate a prohibition against owning arms.

There is some good news in the bill as Section 19 does establish some mechanism for those prohibited from owning a firearm due to a mental illness to restore their ability to legally possess a firearm:

Sec. 19. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 624.713, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 6. Restoration of firearms eligibility to civilly committed person; petition authorized. (a) A person who is subject to the disabilities in section 624.713, subdivision, clauses (3) and (5), or United States Code, title 18, section 922(d)(4) or 922(g)(4), because of an adjudication or commitment that occurred under the laws of this state may petition the court in which the adjudication or commitment proceedings occurred or a district court of competent jurisdiction to remove all the disabilities. A copy of the petition for relief shall be served upon the county attorney’s office of the jurisdiction in which the petition is filed. The department or office may, as it deems appropriate, represent the interests of the state in the restoration proceedings.
(b) The court shall receive and consider evidence in a closed proceeding, including evidence offered by the petitioner, concerning:
(1) the circumstances regarding the firearm disabilities from which relief is sought;
(2) the petitioner’s mental health and criminal history records, if any;
(3) the petitioner’s reputation, developed at a minimum through character witness statements, testimony, or other character evidence; and
(4) changes in the petitioner’s condition or circumstances since the original adjudication or commitment relevant to the relief sought. The court shall grant the petition for relief if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. A record shall be kept of the proceedings, but it shall remain confidential and be disclosed only to a court in the event of an appeal. The petitioner may appeal a denial of the requested relief, and review on appeal shall be de novo.
(c) The court administrator shall promptly electronically transmit information of the order granting relief to the person under this section to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or to any official issuing a permit under section 624.7131, 624.7132, or 624.714 and notify the United States Attorney General that the basis for the person’s record of firearm disabilities being made available no longer applies.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.

Honestly this is all the bill should have been, a mechanism for those who have had their legal ability to possess a firearm because of a mental illness to seek redress. While that one nugget of good is nice to see, Section 20 continues the bad by creating a felony for being unable to read minds:

Sec. 20. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 624.7141, subdivision 2, is amended to read:
Subd. 2. Felony. A violation of this section is a felony:
(1) if the transferee possesses or uses the weapon within one year after the transfer in furtherance of a felony crime of violence; or
(2) if the transferor knows the transferee intends to use the weapon in the furtherance of a felony crime of violence.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.

How is somebody supposed to know if the person buying their firearm intends to use it to commit a felony? Section 22 effectively makes straw purchases more illegal, unless you’re a law enforcement officer (how else are they going to buy firearms to smuggle to Mexican drug cartels), and the remainder of the bill just demands more data be entered into government managed databases.

My only real question is this: why was a bill introduced at all? Do gun rights activists really believe that gun control advocates will back off if we offer them a sufficient compromise? Gun owners have compromised with gun control advocates numerous times and they have always come back for more. This bill implements nothing that would have prevented the Connecticut shooting, which is what sparked this insanity. The Connecticut shooter murdered his mother and stole her firearms. No amount of data in government managed databases, background checks, or mental health evaluations would have prevented that. There is nothing in this bill would have prevented that. Reading through this legislation, with the exception of Section 19, reeks of a foolhardy attempt to appear tough on crime in the hopes of satisfying statists. No bill, need to get tougher on crime, or data in government managed databases is necessary. In fact we have too many laws on the books as it is.

I leave you to make your own decision regarding this bill. As an anarchist I’m not going to meddle in the affairs of the state or spend my time begging politicians to support or reject legislation. What I will say is that this legislation isn’t good and I wouldn’t write letters or make phone calls to politicians urging them to support it. If you’re going to meddle in the state’s affairs then encourage the politicians to take no action, they’ve done enough damage already.

A Sick Feeling in My Stomach

Via Facebook I learned that the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) and Tony Cornish have been working on a alternate gun bill to be introduced Wednesday. The word alternate instantly raised red flags in my mind as it implied further restrictions on gun ownership just not a severe as what has already been proposed. After reading this article I’m even more worried:

House Speaker Paul Thissen and Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk said that a plan backed by gun rights advocates stands a better chance of passing this session even as some who favor tighter gun control hope for more substantive changes. Among other things, the new proposal set to be unveiled Wednesday morning addresses some mental health issues and adds to the parameters of what would disqualify someone from legally owning a gun.

Emphasis mine. I’ve voiced my concern regarding the gun rights movement’s decision to throw the mentally ill under the bus. By blaming mental illness the gun rights movement basically handed the gun control advocates a victory so long as they justify their efforts by claiming they are meant to prevent the mentally ill from acquiring firearms. Unfortunately the issue of mental illness is a very difficult topic in this country because it carries such a severe social stigma. If further prohibitions against gun ownership are created based on mental health it will discourage those suffering from mental illness from seeking professional help.

I will withhold judgement until after I read the bill but I am worried that it may be an attempt to toss the mentally ill under the bus in the hopes that such a sacrifice will satisfy the gun control advocates.

Student Suspended After Disarming Gunman

I’m not sure what to make of this story but a Florida high school student was suspended after disarming a gunman:

FORT MYERS, Fla. – A 16-year-old Cypress Lake High School student, who wrestled a loaded revolver away from a teen threatening to shoot, is being punished.

The student grappled the gun away from the 15-year-old suspect on the bus ride home Tuesday after witnesses say he aimed the weapon point blank at another student and threatened to shoot him.

[…]

The teen we spoke to and authorities both confirm the Revolver was loaded. According to the arrest report the suspect, who Fox 4 is not naming because he is a minor, was “pointing the gun directly” at another student and “threatening to shoot him.”

That’s when the student we spoke with says he and others tackled the teen and wrestled away the gun. The next day the school slapped him with a three day suspension.

“It’s dumb,” he said. “How they going to suspend me for doing the right thing?”

According to the referral, he was suspended for being part of an “incident” where a weapon was present and given an “emergency suspension.”

I’m not sure if this is the result of another idiotic zero tolerance policy or if the school faculty are trying to discourage students from coming to the aid of their fellow students. Either way this reaction on behalf of the school seems incredibly idiotic unless there is a great deal more to the story than is being reported.

Crypto-Anarchism Defeated Gun Control

Defense Distributed just released a video demonstrating their 3D printed AR-15 lower surviving 600 founds:

In my opinion this video demonstrates two important things: the utility of 3D prints and the fact that gun control is dead. When I said gun control is dead I don’t mean the state is going to stop passing laws, I mean that gun control laws are no longer relevant. Technology that allows an individual to easily construct a firearm in their home is now growing out of its infancy.Once a technology evolves beyond its infancy it cannot be stopped from continuing to grow. It is only a matter of time before all parts of a firearm can be produced on a 3D printer. In all likelihood it will only be a few years until affordable 3D printers capable of working with metal hit the market and enable the construction of parts such as bolts, barrels, and gas tubes.

Ironically gun control was killed by crypto-anarchism:

While it may be easy to paint Wilson [the developer of the lower] as a 2nd Amendment-touting conservative, the 25-year-old second-year law student at the Univeristy of Texas, Austin told Ars on Thursday that he’s actually a “crypto-anarchist.”

I say it’s ironic because crypto-anarchism has been pooh-poohed by statists and many anarchists alike. Criticisms against crypto-anarchism revolved around the claim that it only dealt with cyberspace and was unable to affect the real world. What its critics failed to predict was the fall of the barriers separating cyberspace from the real world. 3D printers, in my opinion, were the tool that destroyed the last major barrier. With the invention of 3D printing it became possible to create real world objects based on designs created and distributed online. Suddenly the fabrication of goods is no longer relegated to a handful of individuals. Anybody with a 3D printer, material to feed the printer, a computer, and an Internet connection can download and fabricate a mind boggling number of goods. As the technology matures it will likely become common for basic goods to be replicated in homes instead of factories.

Social anarchists believed one day a worker revolution would occur. In their imagination they believed workers around the world, who finally became sick and tired of capitalist conditions, would rise up, seize the means of production, and usher in a world free of oppression. Things haven’t worked out that way and, if current technology trends are any indicator, things will not work out that way. The revolution won’t be violent, it won’t involve fighting in the streets, it won’t involved people rising up and overthrowing the governments of the world. What the revolution will involve is the continuous decentralization of power. Technology will continue to evolve in a manner that empowers individuals to separate themselves from their rulers. Powerful corporations who have enjoyed protection from competition through the state’s decrees will lose their power as an ever growing number of people are able to replicate their goods from the safety of their own homes. Enforcing patents and regulations will become impossible. As people begin to fabricate needed goods themselves the large corporations and the state will bring in less wealth. People will no longer be forced to buy goods from politically connected corporations or pay sales tax to the state.

The world is changing in a way that power is becoming more decentralized. Eventually, if technological trends continue, the concept of centralized power will be all but extinct.

Paymar Unveiled His Gun Control Plans

Michael Paymar, one of Minnesota’s most zealous gun control advocates, has unveiled his gun control plan now that the numerous hearing have concluded. Not surprisingly he said an “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine ban will not be pursued at this time, instead his band of merry men will be looking at universal registration (to make a later implemented “assault weapon” ban easier):

After hours-long hearings on gun violence in both chambers this month, Rep. Michael Paymar has released a package of policy changes that focuses on expanding background checks and stepped up penalties for gun crimes, but tosses out proposed bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazine clips.

The St. Paul Democrat and chair of the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee rolled out his “Gun Violence Prevention Act” at a press conference on Thursday. It includes his proposal to expand background checks and closes the so-called gun show loophole. The bill would also increase penalties for gun crimes and illegally selling firearms.

I’m not surprised to see the “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans being tabled. As I mentioned in my post about the proposed increase of taxes on alcohol, the bans were likely a “worse option” presented primarily to make the serfs more accepting of a “better option.” Now that Paymar and his goons have been so magnanimous by removing the bans from the table they expect Minnesota gun owners to comply with stricter background checks out of gratitude. Beating people into submission with fear is probably the most common tool in the statist toolbox.

Pursuing stronger background checks and prohibiting private sales is a smart move on Paymar’s behalf. It’s easy to spin those bills in a positive light and gun rights advocates have practically handed them the ability to enact stronger background checks by focusing on mental health. Because the gun rights movement has spent so much time blaming mental illness the gun control advocates can propose strong background checks, under the auspices of preventing the mentally ill from possessing firearms, and claim it’s something both sides can agree on. Instead of proposing databases and more restrictions on those who have suffered from mental illness, the National Rifle Association (NRA), and other gun rights organizations, should have been explaining how the stigma of mental illness in this country encourages people to not seek treatment and proposed working on overcoming that stigma. Now the gun control advocates have ammunition to use against us, much of which we supplied them.

On the upside any law that makes it hard to legally acquire a firearm will encourage more individuals to illegally acquire firearms. The more commerce that happens on the “black” market the less tax dollars the state can collect and the sooner it will collapse.

Magpul Planning to Flood Colorado with Standard Capacity Magazines

I love Magpul. They offer several great products including affordable and reliable magazines for my LR-308. I’m happy to see that they’re planning on fighting the currently progressing ban on standard capacity magazines in Colorado by flooding the state with standard capacity magazines:

We are proud to announce that within a matter of days we will be going live with a new program. Due to a bill currently moving through the Colorado legislature, there is the possibility that Colorado residents’ ability to purchase standard capacity magazines will soon be infringed. Before that happens, and Magpul is forced to leave the state in order to keep to our principles, we will be doing our best to get standard capacity PMAGs into the hands of any Colorado resident that wants them.

Verified Colorado residents will be able to purchase up to ten (10) standard capacity AR/M4 magazines directly from Magpul, and will be given immediate flat-rate $5 shipping, bypassing our current order queue.

Our customers outside of Colorado, please know that our PMAG production will continue at an ever-increasing rate until we do relocate, shipments to our distributors in other states will continue, and that we do not expect relocation to significantly impact PMAG production. We are also aware that Colorado is not the only state with existing or pending magazine capacity restrictions; we are working on programs for other affected states as well.

Full details and instructions will be announced when we are able to go live; please watch here for the coming announcement.

While I understand this program may delay the availability of PMAGs for those of us living outside of Colorado I’m more than happy to deal with that inconvenience. Magpul is fighting Colorado’s gun control bills the right way by planning to leave the state if the laws pass and ensuring as many standard capacity magazines are in the Colorado market as possible. Even if the prohibition against standard capacity magazines can’t be stopped from passing it can be ensured that the market is flooded with standard capacity magazines, making the ban mostly irrelevant.

A Life Potentially Saved by a Gun-Free Zone

A life has been saved by a gun-free zone! Prohibiting the legal possession of firearms in certain zones worked! It’s a miracle:

Amanda Collins is a young rape survivor. While in college in 2007, she was raped 50 feet away from the campus police department office at the University of Nevada-Reno and was lucky to get out alive. Her attacker was James Biela, a serial rapist who raped two other women and murdered another. He attacked her at gun point in a gun free zone. At the time of the attack, Collins was in possession of a concealed weapons permit but was not in possession of her firearm due to university policies prohibiting carrying concealed weapons on campus. She was also a second degree blackbelt at the time and walked to the parking garage with a large group of people. Today, Collins did an interview with NRA News host Cam Edwards to tell her horrific story.

Had Amanda Collins been in possession of a gun that night her rapist may have been shot!