How the Illinois House can help combat gun crime - but they won't

Where I live, I can (and do) carry every day.  In fact, I'll be going to my local sheriff office tomorrow to renew my CHL license.'   For the third time ... CHL must be renewed every five years; the cost is $5,

I feel good about that.   I've never been threatened by a gun, or witnessed firearms violence in the 20+ years I've lived here.

How many people in Chicago (etc.) can make that claim?

How the Illinois House can help combat gun crime - Chicago Tribune:

Will allowing the state to regulate dealers prevent all guns from getting in criminal hands? Of course not. But allowing the state to require dealers to improve security measures will help prevent gun theft and burglary. Recently, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives stated that since 2012, the earliest year for which data are available, burglaries from licensed dealers have increased by 48 percent, and the number of guns stolen during these burglaries increased by 73 percent. Requiring dealers to train all employees on how to identify potential straw purchasers will also reduce that path of guns getting into the illegal market.

Chicago might be better served by allowing gun stores to locate in the inner city, where police presence is better manned, then  forcing them to establish in the outlying districts.

Obama's "Alice in Wonderland" legislation

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” 

(Alice, in Alice in Wonderland)

The thing is ... Obama's latest and greatest pitfalls for legal gun owners requires us to be what we are not; and if we are not, then we shouldn't be.    But still, we are, and we should. You see?

Obama's gun control options each have legal pitfalls | Reuters:
January 03, 2016

The Washington Post and Politico reported late last week that one of Obama’s main proposals would require some unlicensed gun dealers to get licenses and conduct background checks on potential buyers. Current law exempts smaller dealers who often operate at gun shows and sell online. Obama, who has been thwarted by the Republican-controlled Congress in his push for tighter gun control legislation, could act through an executive order, which would be immediate and carry the force of law. It would also almost certainly prompt lawsuits by gun advocates claiming the president lacks the authority to change the legal definition of who must obtain a dealer’s license.  (emphasis added)

So, what is "an executive order"?   Can the President impose one arbitrarily, without oversight from the Legislative Branch?

According to the online Legal Dictionary:

Most executive orders are issued under specific statutory authority from Congress and  have the force and effect of law.  Such executive orders usually impose sanctions, determine legal rights, limit agency discretion, and require immediate compliance.   Federal courts consider such orders to be the equivalent of federal statutes.  In addition, regulations that are enacted to carry out these executive orders have the status of law as long as they reasonably relate to the statutory authority.   An administrative action that is carried out under a valid executive order is similar to an agency action that is carried out under a federal statute.  In each case, the agency's authority to enact rules and to issue orders comes from Congress. (emphasis added)

Presidential Executive Orders can NOT be imposed (or "carry the force of law") if Congress does not agree that the context of the Executive order agrees with the content and intent of the  Constitution.

Which is to say that the Presidential Executive Order is NOT LEGAL if it is not "Constitutional".

Now, if Obama's intent is to "... require some unlicensed gun dealers to get licenses and conduct background checks on potential buyers ....", then perhaps he should look at the existing administrative barriers which prevent individuals from qualifying for a 'gun dealer license.
 There are many people who would sell a 'large volume' of firearms, but who would not currently qualify for a dealer license.  Is this a "Catch 22"?

And just what constitutes a "Dealer", anyway?  Is the criteria for definition of a "dealer" the volume of business conducted by an individual?  If so, is it the volume in terms of Number Of Firearms Sold Per Anum, or is it the Cash Value of Firearms Transactions Per Anum?

This is a grey area which has been conveniently allowed to endure for decades, by the government; and we can only guess why they have been reluctant to resolve the issue.

Our President seems to require those of us who would sell even a minimal number of firearms (not defined in federal law) to register as "Dealers", but he/they will not define the term for our edification.

Gun Sales Surge in St. Louis Suburbs Ahead of Jury's Ferguson Decision - NBC News.com

"We're selling everything that's not nailed down," (gun store owners declare .. which may prove to be an economic boon to save Colt Manufacturing LLC from bankruptcy.)

It's an old story, reminiscent of the surge in gun sales when Barack Obama was elected President.

You never need a gun, until you really need one.  That's the story.

Apparently, folks in the Saint Louis area expect they will 'really need one'.

Why?

Riots, of course.   Also known as "Civic Disturbances" (not to be confused with "Civil Unrest" because there's nothing 'civil' about a Race Riot), the population expects that police officer Whatshisname will be acquitted of murder charges, and the fine, gentle Citizens (much like Michael Brown was a 'gentle giant'?) will be tossing beer barrels, overturning police cruisers and torching Korean grocery stores.

Unless the Koreans have their AK47's handy.  Which may evince more protection of private property than will the PO-lice and their MRAPs (or whatever ...)

THIS JUST IN: 

1. Islam is the Nation of Peace!
2. Obama to enforce Immigration Laws!
3. "Global Warming" is now "Global Cooling"

Well, one out of three ain't bad, in the Teens of the 21st Century.

File this under: "What a Maroon!"

"All the News That's Fit To Print .... and more!

The Arms Struggle in Chicago - NYTimes.com:
(May 29, 2014)

The city of Chicago, bedeviled by street gang violence, refuses to give in to ever more restrictive court rulings against enactment of sensible gun safety laws. The Supreme Court’s misguided 2010 decision ended the nearly 30-year-long ban on handguns in Chicago. In January, a federal judge ruled that the city’s ban on retail gun shops was unconstitutional.

____________________________________________________

In a surprising act of Constitutional Defiance "The Old Grey Lady" (NY TIMES) has allowed its "Editorial Board" to issue a manifesto condemning the Supreme Court decisions, the rights of "The People", and the Constitution itself.

Instead, it lauds Rahm Emanuel's recent efforts to regulate the right of his cities' law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment Rights by legislative fiat.

 Instead of rolling over, Mayor Rahm Emanuel responded this week with some reasonable proposals designed to pass constitutional muster while upholding the city’s basic obligation to protect citizens. This time, zoning regulations would be used to limit gun shops to less than 1 percent of the city’s geographic area, with tight auditing of the shops, sales limited to one handgun per customer per month, a 72-hour waiting period to buy handguns and the simple videotaping of gun sales to deter buyers from using false identification.

[emphasis added]

The 'reasonable proposals' ... reminiscent of the satirical "A Modest Proposal" published by Jonathan Swift in 1792 (in which he suggested that the poor and starving Irish eat their own babies) ... which Emanuel has proposed  are that not only the legal purchase of firearms be so curtailed that not only may gun stores face onerous restrictions on doing business, but that prospective buyers also be limited in the free exercise of their rights.

Apparently, in the view of the NY TIMES Editorial Board, the term "Rolling Over" refers to acceptance of the constitutional rights of his constituency.   Defiance, on the other hand, means ... what?

It seems that the "Maverick" is honored in both New York City and Chicago ... as long as that defiance is aimed at the Constitution of the United States, and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The plaintive cries from the citizens of Chicago, who only want the means to defend themselves, their families, and their property from the daily assaults by criminals and drug dealers/users, are dismissed without comment.

.22 LR

My friend The Hobo Brasser invited me to go hunt "Sage Rats" in the SE *(sagebrush)* part of the state next week, and so I mosied over to my local Bi-Mart to buy a couple of bricks of .22 LR

Well, they had seven bricks there, and sold me one.  "Sorry, only one to a customer, per day" they said.

So I went back the next day, and they were out of stock.  "Come back next week", they said.


When asked, they said that they wouldn't get any replacement ammo until their next stock shipment .. next Tuesday.  "But I can't guarantee that we'll receive any then, either."

It has been four weeks, and I still can't find any more .22 LR ammo.

Three Reasons to Duct Tape Your Head

Beware the Ides of March!

Personally, I'm drinking herbal tea and listening to Vivald's "Water Music".  Perhaps micturition will reduce the possibility of my head exploding.

Recent news on governmental gun control includes the following:

(1) "Conn. officials tell gun owners to relinquish or destroy banned assault weapons"

      (March 15, 2014)

The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection announced Friday it had sent a letter to owners who had failed to register the items by a Jan. 1 deadline, part of last year's gun control law. Officials offered advice on what to do now with the weapons and magazines.

I'm wondering where they got the list of owners of 'banned assault weapons".

(2) "California gun parts store refuses to turn over customer list to federal officials"

      (March 15, 2014)

The owner of a California store that sells gun parts to build rifles from scratch is refusing to turn over his customer list to federal officials. 
Dimitrios Karras, owner of Ares Armor in Oceanside, told Fox5SanDiego.com that Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents are investigating his business because it sells AR-15 lower receivers, which contain the gun's operating parts.

The company sold thousands of 80 percent receivers in with colors showing where the customer can drill, making it easier and cheaper to build. The ATF said the sales are illegal and demanded the company turn over the products and names of customers who purchased them, according to the report.

The ATF is treatening ... yes ... confiscation

(3) "Judge questions prosecution of mechanic who built rifle silencers for Navy Seals"

      (March 07, 2014)

ALEXANDRIA, Va. –  A judge has questioned the viability of a prosecution against a man accused of illegally building hundreds of untraceable rifle silencers under what had been a secret contract with the Navy Seals.
At a pretrial hearing Friday, Judge Leonie Brinkema suggested that there may be classified evidence in the case that shows California race-car mechanic Mark Landersman had legitimate — but off-the-books —  authorization to build the silencers from the Navy. If so, she said, she doubted that prosecutors could win their case.

Note that word ... legitimate.   Also ... authorization.

("Court records indicate that Landersman was paid $1.7 million in 2012 to build 349 suppressors.")

As Andrew Lloyd Webber pointed out in Jesus Christ Superstar, "pretty good money for one little kiss".

So who are the 'prosecutors' in Alexandria, Virginia?   Why are they involved ... are they federal?  Were they acting under the direction of the ATF?   How did the prosecutors get involved, and if they are not acting under Federal direction, why did they make the charges without the judge being made aware of the nature and legitimacy of the "classified evidence"?

The Rest Of The Story:

Why can't I find ammo in the store?

Reps challenge DHS ammo buys, say agency using 1,000 more rounds per person than Army | Fox News:  (Friday, April 26, 2013)

Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz said Thursday that the Department of Homeland Security is using roughly 1,000 rounds of ammunition more per person than the U.S. Army, as he and other lawmakers sharply questioned DHS officials on their "massive" bullet buys. 

"It is entirely ... inexplicable why the Department of Homeland Security needs so much ammunition," Chaffetz, R-Utah, said at a hearing. 

The hearing itself was unusual, as questions about the department's ammunition purchases until recently had bubbled largely under the radar -- on blogs and in the occasional news article. But as the Department of Homeland Security found itself publicly defending the purchases, lawmakers gradually showed more interest in the issue. 

Democratic Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., at the opening of the hearing, ridiculed the concerns as "conspiracy theories" which have "no place" in the committee room. But Republicans said the purchases raise "serious" questions about waste and accountability.

Here's a Conspiracy Theory for you:

The Department of Public Security has a mission statement:

The Core Missions

There are five homeland security missions:

1. Prevent terrorism and enhancing security;
2. Secure and manage our borders;
3. Enforce and administer our immigration laws;
4. Safeguard and secure cyberspace;
5. Ensure resilience to disasters;

In addition, we must specifically focus on maturing and strengthening the homeland security enterprise itself.


Excuse me?  "... strengthening the homeland security enterprise itself ... "?

This sounds suspiciously like "Hey, Dude!  We're going to protect our ass first!"

Which would, y'know, explain the Billions of rounds of ammunition (according to this article from the Denver Post)  that they plan to buy in the immediate future.
They don't need it to "prevent terrorism and [enhance] security.
They don't need it to protect our borders .. the Border Patrol does this, and they are historically underfunded.
They don't need it to do the immigration laws thingie; Obama has already opened our borders like a cheap hooker.
They for SURE don't need it to "safeguard and secure cybperspace" .. I'm already using "virtual ammunition" to train new USPSA shooters!
And as far as Disaster resilience?  We've seen that the worst Hurricane stories were about cops shooting homeless citizens of New Orleans.

So why do they need all this ammor ... which WE can't get?

It's a two part policy.
Part I: Training!   The same reason we want ammo, so we can maintain our skills.  These guys use more ammo for training than the U.S. Army, which is our "Go To" resource for war.  As in, the Army fights wars, not DHS.
Part II: Conspiracy Theory Alert!   If they have all the ammo, we don't have it.  Is this a not-so-subtle way for a single government agency to impose limitations on American citizens to protect themselves?  I thought that we, the American People, were the final line of defense, not DHS.   At least, that's what Admiral Yamamoto said when the Japanese Empire's warlords were plotting the full-scale military attack on America.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

Somebody's going a little crazy here.  I hope it's just me.

In the meantime, DHS says that it's just a 'strategic buying policy'.  They can get ammunition cheaper by buying in bulk.

This is the only department in the federal government which is practicing Fiscal Economy?

Forbes (March 11, 2013) reports:

"... the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.  As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month.  Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years.  In America."

Someone is going a little crazy here.  Since I'm not also "... (acquiring) ... heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation...", but DHS is, I don't think it's me.

WHO are they going to use this ammunition against?

We cannot rely on the 2nd amendment to protect ourselves against a rogue government, when the government has already bought up all of the ammunition.

Crank up your Dillon 650's folks; the South shall rise up again.

Oh.  I forgot.  My XL650 doesn't work any more.  Damn!

Gun Suicide

Oregon gun store owner tried to block troubled woman from buying gun | OregonLive.com:

The woman at the counter of Keith's Sporting Goods wanted a handgun. She wasn't interested in price, quality or how to use it safely. She spoke slowly that day in June as she made one request: Would the clerk load it? 

Maria Ward doesn't judge her customers. Americans have a right to buy firearms, after all. But this woman seemed traumatized. Ward worried she planned to hurt someone. "I'm sorry," Ward told her. "I'm not going to sell you a firearm." Ward, who owns the Gresham gun store with her husband, then did something she'd never done before. She warned the Oregon State Police not to allow anyone else to sell Brenda Nyhof Dunn a gun. 

But the agency, which performs background checks for most gun sales in Oregon, told Ward there was nothing it could do under the law. 

The next day, Nyhof Dunn drove to Dick's Sporting Goods in Gresham. She bought a rifle and ammunition, according to the police report, which included a receipt from the transaction. She paid $10 to have the Oregon State Police perform a background check, which she easily passed. 

Hours later, she fatally shot herself. She was 36.

...

In the movie "Jurassic Park",  the character Malcolm (played by Jeff Goldblum) famously stated: "Life will find a way".

In real life, it is true also that death will find a way.

In America, gun control advocates famously proffer statistics such as "xx.x% of people who kill themselves use a gun", usually phrased to imply that guns are the root cause of many suicides.

They make this statement to advance their thesis; guns are only to kill people, and without guns fewer people would be killed.  Or, fewer would kill themselves.

A February 12, 2013 article in "Psychology Today" offers a different set of statistics:

Japan has averaged over 30,000 suicides annually for the past 14 years. That’s almost 24 suicides per 100,000 people. In America the rate is 12 per 100,000 people, half that of Japan.
Japanese who decide to end their life chose jumping in front of a train, hanging, medication overdose, leaping off a high building or the latest craze -- using common household products to create the poisonous gas hydrogen sulfide.
Statistically most completed suicides in the US are indeed by firearms, simply because they're lethal and readily available. But if they were not, someone who was determined to end his life would find a way to do it, à la Japan.

(This, in spite of the fact that according to a 1993 article published by the Asia Pacific Law Review by Dave Kopel, labeled "Japanese Gun Control"  "... (gun) control in Japan is the most stringent in the Democratic world").

And this beautiful, vital young woman was determined to end her life.

It was her choice.   Was it wrong?  I think so.  I've known more than one person who committed suicide  using a gun.  I've seen the damage it does to their families. Suicide is the most selfish act one person can commit without directly involving another victim.  Some religions consider suicide a mortal sin; which I've always considered  "after the fact judgementalism" but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

Brenda Nyhof Dunn was so disappointed in her life, and so eager to end her existence, that nobody could help her.  She had been married, and when that union failed she lapsed into depression.  Her belief in God did not provide the stability she needed.  Her family was as supportive as possible, but she found no solace there, either.   She had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, but medications and treatment didn't help.  She had committed herself to voluntary hospitalization several times.

Nothing helped.

So she went "gun store" shopping.

The first place she went, the licensed firearm dealer recognized that she had severe emotional problems and refused to sell her a firearm.

Apparently, she learned to modify her dialogue and finally she was able to present herself as a "normal person" when legally purchasing a firearm.

Her determination to end her life was recognized by both mental health professionals and her family and friends, but her name never entered the system which was designed to prevent exactly this kind of tragedy.

The Gun Control Advocates would characterize this story as representing a failure of "The System".  And they would be right.

But they would rectify the situation by imposing more laws.  More restrictions.  More impositions on legal, responsible, SANE gun owners.

Where does it stop?

We cannot stop a determined person from taking her own life.  Existing laws didn't stop Brenda Nyhof Dunn any more than it has stopped criminals from illegally acquiring firearms.

Brenda Nyhof Dunn was a criminal, in the sense that she deliberately broke the law in order to achieve an end which she considered desirable.  And criminals are defined as ... that sort of person.  I mean no disrespect to Brenda Nyhof Dunn or to her friends and family and other people who tried to help her.  It's a definition, not a characterization.


   
More laws are not the answer.  The problem is not one of legality, but of society.

Suicide is illegal in America, as it is in Japan;  but here, there and everywhere it's the one law which mandates punishment only for unsuccessful attempts.   The solution is not to regulate objects, but to provide societal solutions to the most difficult problems imaginable.

I don't have any answers here.   All I know is that legislators have a single hammer .. enacting laws; and to them, every problem looks like a nail.

We've gone about as far as we can with legislation, counseling, and even the love of a family.

Yes, perhaps we can "save just ONE child", but we can't save ALL of the children.

That sounds cold, but today the world seems colder than we can bear.

Clueless Gun Store Owners

I went to a gun store today!

That may not be as exciting to you as it is to me, but listen!

It has been a long time since I went to a gun store. All of the local gun stores have gone out of business, and I have to drive 12 miles to find the nearest one.

Okay, so there's one less than ten miles away in Philomath, and I've bought 3 guns from them ... but I've been burned at least one. It was my fault for being gullible, but the rancor still burns. I was looking for my own .22 pistol. I let them talk me into selling a revolver with no finish, double-action but with a hammer-spur, and the only way to eject empty cases was to remove the cylinder and use the cylinder pin to punch the empty brass out ... and I payed them $200 for it!

I hate people who take advantage of me. Worse, I hate having to admit I've been taken! (That was over a year ago, and I haven't fired a round out of the pistol yet; I'm afraid to risk the "Collector Value"!)

Most of those in "that town" (Albany) are "specialty" stores. The single exception is a very small one-man operation with a very classy store and very classy merchandise. Except he's mostly a S&W dealer, and no matter what you walk through his door looking for, before you leave the store he's going to try to sell you a S&W.

Let me illustrate:

One of my ex-co-workers asked me if I knew where he could pick up a .22 pistol. At the time, I was still working so I couldn't go to this store in Albany that I've always wanted to check out, but they're closed on weekends. (WTF?)

But I've since retired, so this afternoon I spend an hour driving to Albany, checking out the store, and driving back without either a gun or a business card.

I show up about 3:30, charge into the store and the owner is standing at his counter with a perplexed look on his face. I say "Hi! I'm looking for a .22 pistol for a friend of mine!"

"Oh!" (he says) Well, we're closed."

[Picture me looking around] "Huh? The door was unlocked, The sign says open from 1 pm to 4 pm and it's only 3:do. I came in looking for a gun, and ..... ?"

So he explained that he is closing early today, he had turned the lights out and turned the sign on the door to "CLOSED".

Geek Perplexed Look. (I've gotten pretty good at looking perplexed. Practice ... constant practice .. that's the ticket to communication!)

The guy is a nice guy, but his marketing skills need work. He has signs all OVER his shop reading:

NOTICE!
If you are unable to legally possess a firearm, you may NOT enter the premises!

I can't blame him for that, but I would have thought that the sign on the door would have been enough. The sign on the wall facing the door, the sign on the sidewall leading to the counter, and the sign over the counter ... that strikes me as overkill. But it's his shop, and obviously he has a LOT of time on his hands since he's only open 6 hours a day, seems to close early and won't let anyone in his doors on weekends.

Still, he relents when I explain that my mission is to find a .22 pistol for a friend.

"I have a Walther .22. $800."


He doesn't have a card, but when I ask for one he hands me a flyer. I haven't read it yet.

I turn and begin to leave, and on the way out I notice the display of handguns (mostly S&W) in his display cabinet. "Nice Guns!" I mention.

I may have pushed his hot-button; either that, or he woke up and realized he had a customer in his store. Running around his counter he invites me to look at the Forty Caliber S&W. Being a nice person, I decide not to tell him my opinion of the .40 Slow-and-Wimpy cartridge, or how much I love (not!) the flipper/de-cocker mechanism of the S&W Semi-Automatic Pistols. Instead, I say: "Real nice. Looks just like my old Model 659. I gave it to my son."

It is always, ALWAYS a Bad Idea to say anything to a gun dealer which may lead him to believe you are interested. I wasted five minutes listening to his tales of the Mighty Forty, the Wonderful (all steel) 4006, and what a "stopper-cartridge" it was.

Then he hits me with the bad good news: ONLY $895!

Just to impress me, he adds that S&W only made (I don't know, some obscure like "235 of them", and adds: "I have twelve". I think I was suppose to be impressed.


I'm looking around, he's got a steel gun-cabinet (rifle-length floor model, looks like a 5- or 6-gun capacity), also priced at ONLY $895.

Scooting for the door, I make the final mistake of actually listening to his "I See A Customer Heading For The Door" spiel. If I am a 'close' family member of a serving member of the military, he will sell me a special-order firearm without charging me the usual price for "special order" firearms. (Anything that he had on his shelf, of course, was not subject to any kind of discount.)

It took me another five minutes to get out the door. And it struck me, as I as leaving, that there was something peculiarly WRONG with his salesmanship.

• I wasn't greeted as if I was a valued customer.
• In fact, he acted as if I was an inconvenience, and I was stupid to have walked through the (unlocked) door during posted business hours.
• He didn't have what I was looking for in any kind of variety except for a very narrow (and not widely popular version).
• He didn't seem interested in trying to find out MORE about what I wanted, or offering suggestions that might be helpful to me.
• He wasted my time in trying to sell something to me ... a product in which I was obviously NOT interested.
• He made it clear that a pistol (which was so widely unpopular that there was only a very limited run) was something in which he was obviously overstocked.
• And he put a premium price on the pistol.
  

The guy had a very classy store front, and obviously is living off his inheritance because I cannot see how a man with a narrow inventory, a narrow mind, closes his shop arbitrarily early and has no people skills ... can stay in business without an extraneous source of income.

---

The best gun store I even patronized was in Salem about 10 years ago. The owner was a guy whose hobby was trapping. He opened the store to sell trapping supplies. Because that didn't fill many shelves, he also added a 12-point indoor shooting range, rented guns for the range, sold a LOT of reloading components at a competitive price, had an in-store gunsmith, had a very wide range of both new and used firearms (and ammunition, holsters, and other accessories), sold the brass swept up from the range as "once-fired brass" at a reasonable price, and always had at least three salesmen on the floor besides the guy who ran the indoor-range (gun rental) counter.

That store would have been open .. and profitable .. indefinitely, except that one day he became despondant that he wasn't selling any traps, lost interest in the store, and arbitrarily just closed it down. Almost overnight.

What IS it about Gun Store Owners that they can be so clueless?