Going After The Enablers Of Bad Guys With Guns
BY Herschel Smith
9 years, 9 months ago
Where do criminals get guns? I’ll explore that question a lot this year because the supply of guns to people prohibited from having them remains a principal cause of Baltimore’s violent eruptions. When a convicted felon can allegedly walk out of his house with an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle and a 9 mm handgun and kill two men in a dispute over a parking space, we need to know: Who enabled him? Where’d he get the guns?
If he stole them, the case ends there.
But if he bought them, then those who supplied the weapons ought to be held accountable, too. The way I see it, they are accomplices to murder.
Oh goody. That’s just what we need. Another progressive “exploring” the issue of guns. I can’t wait.
While Welch-Sutton is a federal case, the straw purchases they admitted to are exactly what the Maryland General Assembly had in mind when it toughened up the state’s firearms law in 2013. The law now requires people who want to buy a gun to submit to a background check, fingerprinting and four hours of gun-safety training.
Opponents of the measure called it an infringement on liberty.
But it’s no such thing. The intent is to discourage straw purchases, to keep old buddies from buying firearms for felons. It’s one piece of what should be a steady, comprehensive effort to reduce the size of the black market of guns that end up causing so much havoc and death. More to come.
Here’s what you won’t find Mr. Rodrick’s focus on: machetes. Or Chicago gang violence with machetes and knives. Like this. Or hammer attacks and the need for a ban on assault hammers and background check before purchasing one. Or finally, the need to disarm the police because attacking officers and perpetrating crime upon their person for the sole purpose of stealing their weapons has become a favorite tactic of criminals.
Because despite what Mr. Rodrick says about this not being infringements on your rights, it really is about that, and about the state having even more power than it does now. All progressives want more state control, because it is in their nature. It’s part of their DNA. It’s their all encompassing world view. The hippie movement was never about freedom, love and peace. It was all about changing ideas and replacing those in power with their own people so they could control things.
On February 9, 2015 at 12:10 pm, Native Baltimoron said:
Rodricks doesn’t even know what Maryland’s gun laws are, since the fingerprinting, etc. only applies to handguns (and maybe SBRs, which Maryland statute deems handguns). You can still buy a shotgun, 10/22, or not-yet-banned evil black rifle cash and carry (including HBARs, which are exempt from the 2013 ban). C&R eligible handguns are also exempt from the license-to-purchase scheme.
I’m not aware of any credible data on straw purchasing in Maryland, but it was, of course, illegal under both state and federal law before the latest round of infringements. With a felony conviction, there’s no way this guy would’ve passed the NICS check, let alone the state police one. So he either had it before and kept it, or somebody else obtained it for him (via theft or lying on the paperwork).
On February 9, 2015 at 12:19 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Yes. That’s one of the main points Rodricks will overlook in his “analysis.” Everything this guy did was illegal anyway. More laws will only effect the peaceable, not the criminal.
He doesn’t care. That’s not the point of gun control, since nothing Rodrick is doing will point to disarming the “only ones” of their weapons. They would never go for that.
On February 9, 2015 at 1:38 pm, Archer said:
“Opponents of the measure called it an infringement on liberty.
But it’s no such thing. The intent is to discourage straw purchases….”
Intent doesn’t matter. Intent is non-transferable. Intent doesn’t mean anything to anyone but those who are trying to defend the indefensible. The only thing that matters in this discussion is what a law does.
Suppose a ridiculous state law – for the sake of discussion, in Maryland – that requires people to wear muzzles and ball-gags in movie theaters. It’s intended as a “public safety” measure to prevent yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, but what it does is place a prior restraint on speech – not just incendiary speech (heh!), but ALL speech – that also serves to prevent someone from yelling “Fire!” if there is, in fact, a fire.
Some “public safety” measure. “Strong” gun laws are the same: Intent sounds noble, but the actual law is a prior restraint on otherwise-lawful behavior that can only harm public safety, in the name of helping it.
On February 9, 2015 at 2:36 pm, Herschel Smith said:
All excellent points Archer.