Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Sticking To Their Guns
Last Thursday was the two-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre that killed 33 students and teachers.
Earlier this month, a gunman killed 13 people in a Binghamton immigrant civic center before turning the weapon on himself.
Yesterday was the tenth anniversary of the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado that took the lives of 12 students and one teacher and sparked a national debate on the nature of violence in the United States.
How much has changed? Well, in one certain area, a fair bit.
It will undoubtedly come as a surprise to many, given what seems like an otherwise movement to the left on a number of issues (size of government, increased spending, more open foreign policy), but there is actually less support for gun control now than there was 10 years ago. In the summer of 1999, after something of a wave of shootings, 63 percent of Americans supported stricter controls on firearms -- 46 percent "strongly" supported that notion, about twice as many as "strongly" opposed more gun control.
Now, much of this has to do do with the differences between the culture of the North East and the Mountain West. But, given the close proximity between Boulder and Columbine, if there was any place where
But, today, only 39 percent favor stricter gun control laws. In fact, the numbers have been falling fairly steadily over the last decade -- 54 percent in 2001, 50 percent in 2007 and now down to the current level. And, it seems that the biggest drop has come from independents, who appear to be lining up with conservatives on this issue -- whereas they've sided with liberals and Democrats on most issues during the last two elections.
Furthermore, in a development that might be troubling to those seeking stricter gun control, it seems that just the fear that an Obama administration will seek stronger laws has actually sparked more gun and ammo sales. Figure that last week's report on so-called "right-wing extremism" -- and the Department of Homeland Security's defensive approach to it -- will only exacerbate that.
But beyond all of the shootings -- and recent political events -- one can't ignore the continued impact of 9/11 on the national psyche. That event, more than anything else, may have forced Americans to recognize the importance of guns -- not as misused by psychos -- but as properly used for self-defense. The cops and the military won't always be there to protect individuals. Some times, a citizen has to depend on his or herself. For that matter, even Barack Obama gave mild concurrence to last year's Supreme Court decision recognizing an individual right to bear arms.
While this viewpoint might not have widespread resonance in blue states, but it does in the red -- or purple -- states. There, independents vote with their permits.
I noticed this sensibility during my recent visit to Boulder, which despite it's rampant liberalism is very gun-friendly. I chatted with one student there who fit neither the profile of a tie-dyed CU hippie nor a Western redneck. In fact, he was majoring in engineering (or maybe it was astrophysics). Regardless, the average person might think of him as somewhat nerdy. Yet, here he was training for his Concealed Carry Permit. After he completes his training, the only real restriction that he has on carrying a gun in the state was that he wasn't allowed to do so on the university campus.
Later in the week, an older gentleman -- in all other respects, rather moderate-liberal -- showed me his concealed-carry permit. Ah, just imagine how Michael Bloomberg would freak over ordinary citizens (or college students attending any New York campuses -- say, Columbia or NYU) were permitted to have a concealed-carry license. But here in a college town, only 40 miles from one of the more notorious school shootings in US history, there is no paranoid fear of guns.
It seems that that attitude seems to be the increasing sentiment in the country.
Labels: Columbine, gun control
Friday, December 05, 2008
Plax Goes To Heller
From there it becomes uber-complicated, as Burress' fellow Giant -- defenseman Antonio Pierce -- allegedly hides the gun in his (or another player's car); Plaxico is taken to a hospital where other Giants have been treated before; his wound is treated -- but, contrary to New York laws, the hospital doesn't report the gun shot wound to the cops. The club didn't report the incident either; the Giants didn't report the incident, even though they reportedly learned about it several hours before the cops. (The Giants dispute this allegation.)
However, one of the most frustrating aspects of the case has been the attitude of Mayor Michael Bloomberg. One of the mayor's biggest causes over the last few years has been has been his jihad against illegal guns. He's formed an ad hoc association with other mayors to pressure Congress for stronger laws against illegal guns (Mayors Against Illegal Guns -- how creative).
So, this Burress situation is right in Bloomberg's wheelhouse. This week, he's been taking every opportunity to insert himself into the case. On Monday, he demanded that Burress be "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." He demanded to know why the hospital hadn't followed the law; he was enraged that the State Liquor Authority hadn't started looking into the nightclub's liquor license. Not surprisingly, with each pronouncement coming out of the mayor's mouth, each city -- and often, state, agency -- has been making sure that every "i" is being dotted and "t" crossed on this case. The law Burress may have broken is a tough one: He's been hit with two charges of gun possession and faces 3 1/2-15 years in prison. The Giants have essentially suspended him for the season.
That isn't to say that there hasn't been a little bit of backlash on the mayor. Several callers to local TV and radio sports shows have noticed that the mayor's outrage in following the law is rather selective. You see, Bloomberg and the New York City Council recently changed a term limits law twice passed by referendum. As a result, the mayor and council members now have a twelve years in office, instead of eight. Bloomberg, barely a year ago said that no change to the term limits law should be made without it being put through the referendum process. So much for that. (The fact that the mayor also seemed more exercised over a football player who shot himself in the leg -- rather than a city bus driver who was brutally stabbed to death by a thug who got on without paying -- also raised questions about Hizzoner's priorities.)
And then comes Dave Kopel. Writing in the Wall St. Journal online, he touches on a point that, unfortunately, no one else has: There may actually be a difference between an "illegal" gun and an "unlicensed" one. No one disputes that Burress' gun is not licensed in New York. However, it has yet to be proven that he purchased the gun illegally: Burress has had a gun permit for the state of Florida where he maintains a home. And, significantly, New York has likely the most stringent gun control law in the country. Indeed, in light of the Supreme Court's recent District of Columbia v. Heller decision, New York's law might be unconstitutional:
The Heller decision did not say that requiring a license to carry a gun was unconstitutional. But in New York State, nonresidents cannot even apply for the licenses to possess or carry a handgun. Unlike most other states, New York refuses to honor carry permits issued by sister states. Most observers believe that the Supreme Court will eventually make state and local governments obey the Second Amendment. If it does, New York's discrimination against nonresidents will probably be ruled unconstitutional.And then there is the issue of the permitting process for residents. In 40 states, including Connecticut, law-abiding adults are issued permits once they pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety class. In New Jersey, carry permits are virtually never issued. In New York City, carry permits are issued, but to applicants with some form of political clout rather than on the basis of his or her need for protection.
The Second Amendment might not require New Jersey or New York City to issue as liberally as Connecticut does. But with a population of several million and only a few thousand (consisting mainly of politicians, retired police and celebrities) able to get permits, New York City's licensing process is almost certainly unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including sheer arbitrariness.
To underscore, Kopel's point: Non-residents, like Burress, aren't even allowed to apply for a permit in New York.
Now, none of the above takes away from the fact that Burress was reckless in the handling of his gun -- not having it holstered, having the safety off, possibly drinking while carrying it, etc. However, similarly the facts of the case can't eliminate the likelihood that the law Burress is accused of breaking is unconstitutional -- and even a gun-hating mayor has to follow the constitution, whether he likes its particular application in this situation or not.
Labels: gun control, Michael Bloomberg, New York, plaxico burress
Saturday, September 22, 2007
America's Most Important Date...
No, it's 9/11/01, according to Rudy Giuliani in a speech to the NRA because that was when it was okay to interpret the Second Amendment as actually permitting Americans to own handguns:
At one point, he came close to disavowing a lawsuit against gunmakers that he initiated while mayor of New York.Right.
The 2000 lawsuit sought to hold gunmakers liable for shootings with illegal guns (the case, by chance, was heard this week in a federal appeals court). At the time, Giuliani called it an "aggressive step towards restoring accountability to an industry that profits from the suffering of others."
Yesterday, Giuliani backed away from the lawsuit, saying he might not uphold it if he were a judge.
"That lawsuit has taken several turns and several twists that I don't agree with," he said, without going into specifics.
"I also think that there are some major intervening events -- September 11, which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment, doesn't change it fundamentally but perhaps highlights the necessity of it."
This is complete balderdash -- regardless of where one falls on the gun control argument:
If you believe in the right to bear arms, it is because of a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment. September 11th changed nothing; you always believed that. You also likely believe that private gun ownership is an enhancement to crime prevention, not an enducement to committing crimes.
On the other hand, if you believe in the traditional view on gun control, you'd be nuts to think that "September 11th changed everything." Is Giuliani ready to support law-abiding citizens being permitted to pack arms when they get on airlines? I might not have a problem with it, but something tells me that he does.
As an aside: If you are also running for the nomination of a party that believes in things like less regulation and tort reform, you also generally frown upon the idea of dubious third-party lawsuits -- such as those targeting gun manufacturers. Apparently, this epiphany is another thing that changed on 9/11 for Giuliani.
Rudy also showed "how much I love my wife": He "answered" a phone call from Judi during the speech. How cute! Too bad, as Marc Ambinder notes, that he's done it before: You'd think someone would have given Mrs. Giuliani her husband's schedule, so that she'd know when he was in the middle of a speech.
Now, it would be a little more understandable if one of his kids happened to call in the middle of the speech. Uh, oh wait...never mind.
Labels: gun control, NRA, Rudy Giuliani, Second Amendment
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Retro Record Moment
Labels: David Bowie, gun control
Bloomberg's Moment?
I will say, however, that an incident like this is, politically, a great opportunity for a potential candidate who has made the proliferation of "illegal" guns a major point in his administration. The possibility of a Michael Bloomberg independent presidential run just increased, in my view.
The mayor visited Ohio and Kentucky last Thursday to discuss the issue. As everyone knows, there aren't that many electoral votes in Ohio, right?
UPDATE: The New York Sun's Josh Gerstein examines how the shooting makes it harder for Democrats to duck the politics of gun control, which has damaged the party with rural and Southern voters in recenet years. Still, the NRA shouldn't be crowing too much. Politics can change in the blink of an eye:
Based on the polls, there could conceivably three pro-gun control candidates running in the 2008 general election: Hillary Clinton, Rudy
But it's not out of the question either.
UPDATE II: The correct link has now been added to the "unlikely that Bloomberg" phrase; it's a December New York profile of Bloomberg and his possible mayoral run.
UPDATE III: The Rudy reference above was, obviously, a typo. Even despite all those marriages, there's no way Rudy would take Hillary's name...right? Um, unless there's some same-sex thing going on between Rudy and Bill...
Labels: gun control, Michael Bloomberg, Second Amendment, Virginia Tech
Monday, April 16, 2007
Black Day in Blacksburg
Labels: campus shootings, gun control, Second Amendment
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Can't Get There From Here
The arrest this week of Phillip Thompson, an aide to Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) who carried a loaded pistol into a Senate office building, brought to light a contradiction between the regulations governing the Capitol grounds and the laws covering District streets.Complete and total insanity, of course.
The Capitol grounds are federal property and not subject to the District's strict gun laws, which generally prohibit firearms.
Although some people are allowed to bring guns into the Capitol, they cannot legally get them there, said Lt. Jon Shelton, the longtime head of the D.C. police department's gun unit.
"They can't helicopter them in," Shelton said.
While not directly, ahem, targeted toward this specific aspect of D.C.'s gun statutes, this case covering handdgun ownership can't get to the Supreme Court fast enough.
Labels: gun control, Jim Webb, Second Amendment
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Rudy, Don't Take Your Guns To Town
"I used gun control as mayor," he said at a news conference Saturday during a swing through California. But "I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms."Right, of course. Because the "Second Amendment" and the "right to bear arms" are all about hunting.
He said what he did as mayor would have no effect on hunting.
For those keeping track, this is the usual Democratic presidential candidate approach to finessing the issue of gun control (well, obviously, not the "I used gun control as mayor" line).
Labels: GOP 2008 President, gun control, Rudy Giuliani
