Wednesday, September 4, 2019

Opuscula

When did NRA start
Enabling murderers?

TO THE BEST of my limited knowledge, none of the recent crazies who maimed or murdered innocents is/was a member of the National Rifle Association, the NRA.

Having written that, the NRA — that started life promoting safe shooting — has morphed into a political organization with one purpose: protecting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Amendment reads:

    "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."

1776 Fife and drum image and modern National Guard on maneuvers

IF THE AMENDMENT is read sans interpretation, that means members of each state’s National Guard — a well regulated Militia — is allowed to have arms. The Amendment does not state if the arms are to be stacked at an armory or kept at the soldier’s home.

The Amendment goes on to read: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does that mean “people who are in the military” or does it mean John and Jane Citizen?

As a gun owner, I trust it means that John and Jane have the right to keep and bear arms.

To date, that generally is how the courts have interpreted the Amendment.

    I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the NRA. I have owned a number of guns — rifles and sidearms — over the years and never shot any weapon in anger. I have a concealed carry license.

I don’t understand

It is beyond my ken why anyone other than a person with criminal intent would object to a thorough background check before buying their first weapon.

When I bought a gun under Florida’s current law, there was a three day waiting period — a “cooling off period” — while the state did a cursory check of my criminal background. (I have none.)

When I applied for my concealed carry license, I understand the background check included asking the FBI if I had a criminal record anywhere in the U.S. and that I left the military having severed honorably.

I think every potential gun purchaser — REGARDLESS OF WHERE OR HOW the gun is purchased — should undergo the basic FBI check.

When I bought my new gun I had to fill out yet another form, but it was a mere formality; the fact I have a concealed carry license basically was enough.

Hunting with an assault rifle with 30-round magazine?

I fail to understand why anyone would go deer hunting with a semi-automatic assault rifle with small caliber ammunition stuffed into a 30-round magazine.

Small calibers — .22 and similar — are fine for squirrels and other rodents, but if a hunter needs THIRTY ROUNDS to kill a rodent or rabbit, the hunter needs to go back to the firing range and learn how to aim the rifle. Likewise those hunters after medium and large animals. A five-round magazine in a bolt-action rifle is perfect for the job. (The only animal I can think of where a 10 or 15-round magazine of .30-06 or greater in a semi-automatic rifle is a wild boar.-

The problem

Aside from the fact that (I believe) our politicians have their heads “where the sun don’t shine,” there are two serious problems with having the feds vet every initial gun purchase:

    1. Not all crimes are reported to the feds.
    2. The feds won’t, or can’t, properly do the job of vetting every document they receive.

Until recently, the FBI refused to share information within the Bureau and rarely shared information outside the Bureau (with other Law Enforcement Officers, a/k/a LEOs). Nine-eleven is an example of not sharing within the organization; Parkland FL (Marjorie Stoneman Douglas school) is an example of the second not-sharing issue.

Closing the gap — “red flags”

Florida, where I call home, has a number of laws that permit LEOs to confiscate weapons from people who may have acquired them legally at one time but for whatever reason would not now be allowed to own a gun.

Sharing — If you see something, say something

Too often a shooter has shown “signs” that he or she is mentally unstable. This shows up in a classroom but it’s not reported to the police as the schools try to handle the issue internally. It also shows up in the workplace where a person begins to act strangely — e.g., paranoia — but no one says anything “because.” Some victims are at least partially to blame. In one instance I know about personally, a distraught boyfriend came into the girlfriend’s workplace and shot her to death. Had the girlfriend told a coworker or HR, the boyfriend would not have been allowed into the building and the girlfriend might still be alive.

“Social” media needs to be monitored — by whom? — to alert LEOs and mental health workers that someone is a threat to someone, to themselves, or to a facility. The FBI is doing a better job, but people who frequent “social” media need to take responsibility and share threatening comments with LEOs.

    I am not suggesting that America become a “police state” with everyone spying on each other.



PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments on Gun laws

No comments: