Gun Control - The Honest Debate Question
Actually, I'd "interpret" SB 249 (despite being unfamiliar with Californianese :)), as presently written, as being meant to apply only to semi-automatic actions (whatchacallits - what you call it). It could, of course, be easily amended to apply to bolt actions, pump actions and lever actions (whatchamacallits - what you may call it).
As I said:
Quote:
Now, Sen. Yee might say that's not what he "meant" to attack in SB 249 - that is, what he intends to ban are whatchacallits, and not whatchamacallits.
All of this type of regulation beats around the bush if one's point of regulation is going to focus on regulation of firearms (as to specific types and components); as opposed to regulation of the persons possessing firearms (criminals and mental cases), or as opposed to protection of places where firearms might be used for mass murder.
So, I tend to some flippancy when discussing that sort of gun control (e.g., I've often said that "gun control" means a near-perfect grouping at 1000 yards ;)). Probably, I shouldn't, but I do.
Bill Bratton, in the article that currently set me off, points up the real problem - for which, neither he nor I demand a solution:
Quote:
The problem with the gun and ammo bans, he offers, "is that that's going forward." They do nothing about the 350 million firearms, including assault weapons, and hundreds of thousands of extended clips already in circulation. "You can't deal with that retroactively."
That is also a problem that is long out of the bag, the toothpaste tube and the barn. And, I (like Bill Bratton) would not elect to tackle that ex post facto problem.
However, it could be (as opposed to should be) dealt with in the US, albeit at God knows what costs. Australia, with impetus from Gun Control Australia, did its gun control program after the 1987 Melbourne killings, et al. The first step in the program is gun confiscation - phrased in terms of a gun buyout program:
Quote:
Because the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.
[23] The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles.
In the US, the logical justification (possibly without compensation) could be a combination of public health and national security issues (with liberal application of John Yoo's memos on inherent presidential powers in domestic matters - here's one). Of course, there's the little matter of the Second Amendment; but court cases take a long time - and the Supreme Court of today is not necessarily the Supreme Court of tomorrow.
The second step is a tight regulation of the much fewer firearms that are left - as well as tight restrictions on where they are stored, and who can use them:
Quote:
Firearms categories
Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories determined by the National Firearm Agreement with different levels of control. The categories are:
Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.
Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. (Albeit both SA and WA do not require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after the deactivation process has taken place. This situation was the catalyst in QLD for the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black-market – the loophole shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.
These categories – A,B,C,D and H were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implement them at their own discretion.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibres are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.
Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.
Certain Antique firearms can in some states be legally held without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.
All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a license in Victoria).
I don't applaud the Aussies' result (in my eyes, a horrible situation), but I do appreciate their straight-forwardness in doing it.
Regards
Mike
Weapons Control: The UK experience
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
At what point in the weapons control spectrum will law abiding people resist and refuse to comply by:
1. Non-violent resistence ala Gene Sharp, which could get quite confrontational; or
2. Selective violence in support of a larger poltical effort; or
3. Confrontation with military forces if those forces are ordered to quell the "insurrection".
In the US, resistence has been via the courts and the ballot box.
Is there any history in other countries where weapons control programs (including confiscation by whatever name) have been resisted in any of the three escalating ways described above ? AUS and NZ seem to have accepted the gun controls without substantial adverse struggle. Has that also been the case in Europe ? - my knowledge of response to gun control there is frankly minimal.
Interesting questions posed here, but maybe too reflective of the American situation since the three options for resistance are after a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control.
In recent UK experience legislation to implement further weapons control has come after massacres, Dumblane in 1996 with sixteen dead children and one adult teacher (at a school) and the 1997 Firearms Act:
Quote:
which effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in the United Kingdom.
and Hungerford in 1987, with seventeen killed in the streets of a small town, and the 1988 Firearms Act:
Quote:
banned the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricted the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges (in magazine plus the breech).
Links for Dunblane:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre and Hungerford:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
Which came first is a moot point, public concern and revulsion or a political response "to show control". My recollection is that the legislation was largely unopposed in parliament and public opinion was so in favour extra-parliamentary opposition could easily be ignored.
Actual implementation was easy, as all the weapons legally held were registered with the police and so the vast majority were surrendered. Needless to say not all, as this curious incident shows:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-20994897
It is noteworthy that the Cumbria incident in 2010, with twelve dead shot in a rural area, by a man with a legally held shotgun and bolt action rifle, led to no further weapons control:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
There is a substantial minority here who see that weapons control has disarmed the rural population and reflects the views of an urban elite whon have pursued other laws, notably around "field sports". See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countryside_Alliance
Has weapons control been effective in the UK? For legally held, declared weapons I'd say yes. Much of that success comes from the simple fact gun ownership is so small, farmers, enthusiasts and rural dwellers. As for illegal firearms that is quite different, I'd say no. The complicated array of legislation is a hindrance and pro-active LE investigations are rare. Anecdote suggests obtaining ammunition is the problem, not having a gun.
Different Experiences and Ideologies
David,
I don't quite understand the logic of this:
Quote:
Interesting questions posed here, but maybe too reflective of the American situation since the three options for resistance are after a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control.
Who, in their right mind, would employ any of the three resistence methodologies before a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control ? Even Gene Sharp's non-violent resistence methods often are illegal or involve some illegal acts. Hence, even they are a last resort.
When legislative and executive decisions are pending (as is now ongoing in the US), resort to political and legal methods (ballot box, lobbying, civil court actions, etc.) are the acceptable methods. Then, it depends ...
I'd not be surprised that little or no resistence has been offered against gun control measures adopted in European countries, or in the UK and its colonies. As I understand the history there, Kiwigrunt's comment is quite valid:
Quote:
... owning guns is really more of a privilege than an absolute right.
The American experiences (and its pieces of paper) are quite different.
As an example, I'd suggest Lexington-Concord (April 19, 1775), which was an attempted seizure of illegal weapons by soldiers of the lawfully-constituted civil authority. From the British Documents:
Quote:
Orders from General Thomas Gage to Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment 'Foot, Boston, April 18, 1775
Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provisions, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property.
One can find in Massachusetts of that time (even before shots were fired at Lexington) examples of:
1. Non-violent resistence.
2. Selective violence in support of a larger political effort.
3. Confrontation with military forces.
Those methods were just as unlawful then as now. The American patriots were well aware that, if one commits sedition and treason, one had best win - or be prepared to suffer the consequences of losing, including the loss of one's own life.
So, American experiences and ideology (as framed by the Second Amendment) may be unique - as any country has some unique aspects that are material to insurgency and counter-insurgency.
Regards
Mike
PS: Examples of point 2 ("selective violence") are easily found in the era of Reconstruction, Redemption and Restoration (1866-1906). The major efforts by all sides in that complex struggle were political and legal ("lawfare" with some vengence). However, violence was strewn throughout the period - in aid of the political and legal efforts which were the primary focus.
That violence often centered on who was to possess and use firearms. In McDonald v Chicago, Justice Thomes (pp. 67-122) did a bangup job in presenting this history of selective violence and its materiality to the Second Amendment; e.g.:
Quote:
Take, for example, the Hamburg Massacre of 1876. There, a white citizen militia sought out and murdered a troop of black militiamen for no other reason than that they had dared to conduct a celebratory Fourth of July parade through their mostly black town. The white militia commander, “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman, later described this massacre with pride: “[T]he leading white men of Edgefield” had decided “to seize the first opportunity that the negroes might offer them to provoke a riot and teach the negroes a lesson by having the whites demonstrate their superiority by killing as many of them as was justifiable.” S. Kantrowitz, Ben Tillman & the Reconstruction of White Supremacy 67 (2000) (ellipsis, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted). None of the perpetrators of the Hamburg murders was ever brought to justice.[22]
[22]Tillman went on to a long career as South Carolina’s Governor and, later, United States Senator. Tillman’s contributions to campaign finance law have been discussed in our recent cases on that subject. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (slip. op., at 2, 42, 56, 87) (discussing at length the Tillman Act of 1907, 34 Stat. 864). His contributions to the culture of terrorism that grew in the wake of Cruikshank had an even more dramatic and tragic effect.
McDonald, p.119.
The selective violence in 1775 Massachusetts was on a lesser scale than such scenes as the Hamburg Massacre of 1876. It was more intimidation and assaults on civilian and military agents of the lawfully-constituted civil authority.
That ocean divide enables differences
JMM responded to my post:
Quote:
David,
I don't quite understand the logic of this:
My original post (in part) stated:Interesting questions posed here, but maybe too reflective of the American situation since the three options for resistance are after a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control.
Who, in their right mind, would employ any of the three resistence methodologies before a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control ? Even Gene Sharp's non-violent resistence methods often are illegal or involve some illegal acts. Hence, even they are a last resort.
I was curious that JMM had jumped to the resistence or resistance options without mentioning what came beforehand. So I commented accordingly and being mindful of the US debate over weapons control - in which I am an interested observer. Even though I live close to Europe I am not familiar with what individual nations do on weapons control, hence recourse to examples from the UK.
What I do find perplexing about American attitudes is that some additional weapons control is clearly needed, but there is no national consensus on this. Indeed politicians appear to express anguish after events like Newtown, Conn. and then hope the issue goes away. Or in the case of the NRA stay silent and then make a statement after a "decent" pause.