Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Video]]>

NC op-ed tries to distort reality on gun permits

by Leave a Comment

North Carolina is the only state in the South with gun permits. By that, I mean permit-to-purchase requirements for handguns. You simply cannot lawfully buy a handgun in the state without one, even for a private purchase.

And that’s a big problem.

After all, this is a constitutionally-protected right we’re talking about here. Further, this is a Jim Crow-era law that deserves to be removed.

But some people like to distort reality to try and defend such laws.

Who are we to believe?

North Carolina Republican legislators, who have a legacy of enacting laws that courts have declared racially biased and now say they’re looking to rid the state of a vestige of the racist Jim Crow era by repealing the state’s statutes requiring county sheriffs to issue pistol permits after background checks from applicants.

Or …

Organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) – North Carolinians who know and lived Jim Crow first-hand – or the Duke University Center for Firearms Law, who say “statements that North Carolina’s permit law was purely racist or solely intended to disarm Black citizens don’t hold up to close historical scrutiny and often do a disservice to the quality of debate and discussion surrounding modern legislative proposals like the current push to repeal the law.”

First, how many current members active with the NAACP actually lived during the Civil rights Era? I’m genuinely curious how many of the leaders denying the Jim Crow roots of gun permits in the state actually remember what it was like during that time in North Carolina’s history.

Further, the Duke University Center for Firearms Law is a glorified gun control think-tank. They’re not historians, and the center has repeatedly found fault with decisions overturning various gun control laws on Second Amendment grounds.

So I’m sorry, their claims aren’t definitive by any stretch of the imagination.

Take a look at the requirements for just a second and you’ll see the “good moral character” requirement. That’s the very clause used to keep numerous black people from owning guns for years. They couldn’t lawfully say to exclude black men and women, but they used it for that purpose just the same.

Further, all it takes is one racist sheriff to do it all over again. In a world where people such as many NAACP members claim systemic racism, do you really want to trust that?

Of course, some will invariably claim that such laws keep North Carolinians safe, and that gun permit requirements make it harder for bad people to get guns.

Yet North Carolina’s violent crime rate is above the median average with a permitting requirement. If that’s the benefit of gun permits, then just what the hell is wrong with North Carolinians? After all, their violent crime rate appears to be higher than in my native Georgia that has no gun permit requirement for purchasing firearms.

So if the gun permits keep people safe, what are these folks trying to say about North Carolina in the first place? I ask because it sure looks like it’s not working.

Everytown dings WI Supreme Court candidate… over abortion?

by Leave a Comment

Everytown for Gun Safety’s latest ad attacking Wisconsin Supreme Court nominee (and former WI Supreme Court justice) Daniel Kelly takes an odd approach for a gun control group; hitting Kelly for his positions on abortion as well as his his role in a 2017 Second Amendment case. It’s not the first time the supposedly single-issue group has tried to use abortion to drum up support for anti-gun candidates, and Everytown’s president is trying to draw a straight line between Kelly’s positions on the two issues.

“Dan Kelly wants to make it harder for women to make their own reproductive choices and easier for criminals to get their hands on guns — both of which are terrible for the health and safety of Wisconsinites,” John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, said in a statement. “With the U.S. Supreme Court having opened the door to the arguments of gun rights extremists, it’s more important than ever for us to elect state judges who respect the right to take common-sense steps to prevent gun violence.”

Like turning law-abiding gun owners into criminals? When you dig deeper into Everytown’s objections to Kelly’s record, it seems that what they’re really objecting to is his belief that the Second Amendment is a real right, and one of fundamental importance.

The ad claims Kelly “opposed background checks on all gun sales,” pointing to a 2017 decision that made it easier for “dangerous people” to carry guns in public. The campaign also claims Kelly “worked for a radical anti-abortion group,” showing clips from protests that occurred after the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court in June.

“Here’s what you don’t know,” the ad narrator says. “Banning abortion. Putting our communities at risk. Dan Kelly is too extreme for our Supreme Court.”

So what was that 2017 decision that supposedly made it easier for “dangerous people” to carry guns all about? Well, as it turns out, the case involved a challenge to a particular “sensitive place” designated by officials in the People’s Republic of Madison; public transportation. Kelly was the author of a 5-2 decision that overturned the ban, ruling that it violated the state’s firearm preemption law.

The plaintiffs argue that Wisconsin’s Act 35, the state’s concealed carry law, pre-empts any local government from imposing stricter regulations on when and where license holders may take their guns.

A circuit judge and the Court of Appeals agreed that the Act 35 pre-emption rule only applies to counties, cities, villages or towns adopting ordinances or resolutions more strict than the state’s gun law, and not to an  “agency rule” of the transit commission.

Kelly, however, said the court is “not merely arbiters of word choice,” and must apply the plain meaning of a statute. And since cities derive their authority from the state, the Act 35 prohibition prevents even an agency rule from restricting licensed gun owners from taking their weapons on Madison’s buses.

“In the city’s reading of the statute, the Legislature made a conscious decision to withdraw firearms regulating authority from a municipality’s democratically accountable governing body while leaving that authority entirely undiminished when exercised by the municipality’s democratically unaccountable sub-units,” he wrote.

In other words, if cities aren’t allowed to impose their own local gun control laws, then city agencies aren’t allowed to do so either. That’s hardly a controversial position to take, unless you’re opposed to things like firearms preemption and concealed carry to begin with like Everytown.

Maybe that explains Everytown’s embrace of the abortion issue, as well as their desire to obfuscate the details of that 2017 decision. If the facts are known, Kelly’s position doesn’t sound extreme at all… at least not compared to Everytown’s position that the tens of millions of Americans who possess a concealed carry license and responsibly exercise their right to bear arms are “dangerous people” for doing so.

Michigan school system has bold plan to address shootings

by Leave a Comment

I sincerely wish I could just snap my fingers and end mass shootings forever. Unfortunately, I can’t. No one can, and that’s also essentially what the push for gun control is with regard to mass shootings. At best, it’s a wish.

But a school system in Michigan has an interesting–and expensive–plan to address school shootings. They’re redesigning their schools.

Many schools in America, like the one Moreno’s grandson attends, have installed metal detectors and fortified their entrances in response to the threat of school shootings.

But others, like Fruitport High School in Michigan, have opted to completely redesign their buildings’ architecture – spending $48 million to incorporate curved hallways and little nooks for students to hide in, among other safety-driven upgrades.

“Architectural designs will be very important. And hopefully they will focus on really getting better security for schools and students and children,” Moreno said, hoping districts “really know and take into consideration the pain in people’s lives right now.”

…

Over the past five decades, schools have taken various approaches to improve safety, said Gregory Saville, who edited the International Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Association, or CPTED’s, guidebook on school design.

“Schools simply were these boxes, the red stone buildings of, you know, ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ back in the forties and sixties,” Saville said. “They simply had teachers [and principals] watching… But that was it.”

Around the same time CPTED was created, that started to change, and schools began installing cameras and trimming hedges to improve sight lines. Saville said that was part of a larger architecture and urban planning movement, looking at ways to reduce crime in physical environments.

But now, instead of calling for fortified entrances and security features that can put students on edge, experts are calling for a more holistic approach – where architecture serves as a conduit for both physical security and for supporting students’ mental health to prevent violence in the first place.

“They have these hallways and lockers, but there’s no place to hang out, no place to socialize,” said architect Rene Berndt, who is part of CPTED’s board of directors. “And so, we’re trying our best to create these moments, to use these areas to create some kind of social cohesion, to actually avoid the whole concept of some students being pushed so far out and so alienated, you know, that [they don’t] really have a place to belong.”

Now, I’m not sure if it will work or not, but I applaud the thinking behind it.

See, this isn’t some school board putting out a call for gun control. They’re looking at ways to eliminate their schools as potential targets in the first place, plus potentially addressing the causes of school shootings at the same time.

It’s a bold and noble effort.

Again, I don’t know that it will work, but what we’re seeing here is an effort to at least try something.

Removing long, straight hallways also reduces the ability of a school shooter to find targets. Alcoves to hide in may help preserve individual lives should one try it. Further, since things wind, once the killer is out of sight, the hidden student can then escape.

And if it keeps students from feeling that alienated, well, isn’t that even better?

Now, I’ve been a proponent of hardening our schools, and I still think we should to some degree, but I also like outside-of-the-box thinking on how to address these shootings. That’s what we see here.

The downside is, of course, the price tag. It’s expensive as hell and a lot of school systems aren’t going to be up for that kind of thing. Further, grants for metal detectors are much easier to find than ones that fund a total redesign of a school’s architecture.

Still, I wish them luck and I hope to hell it works.

Unfortunately, it’s one of those things that if it works, we’ll likely never think about it again. That’s kind of a shame.

Authorities say prohibited persons behind San Jose gun trafficking operation

by Leave a Comment

Police in San Jose, California say they’ve broken up an operation illegally selling firearms in the city; one allegedly run by two individuals already prohibited by state law from purchasing or selling firearms.

Authorities arrested 23-year-old Eric Diaz-Ramirez, along with an unidentified 16-year-old, on a variety of charges involving guns and drugs. Interestingly, while the investigation was conducted by the San Jose PD’s “ghost gun unit,” it doesn’t look like any home-built firearms were seized as a result.

During the investigation, detectives determined that Diaz-Ramirez was allegedly supplying various illegal firearms to the juvenile suspect.

Detectives later determined that the juvenile suspect allegedly had been in possession of a loaded concealed firearm while on campus at Independence High School during school hours.

On Wednesday, detectives served two simultaneous search warrants and took the suspects into custody in San José without incident.

The following items were seized during the residential search:

  • Springfield Armory Champion semi-automatic pistol .45 caliber
  • Heritage Arms revolver .22LR caliber
  • Colt Automatic semi-automatic pistol .25 caliber
  • Harrington & Richardson revolver .38 Special caliber
  • Smith & Wesson SD40OVE semi-automatic pistol .40 caliber
  • Approximately 43.5 gram of suspected cocaine
  • Various calibers of ammunition for those firearms
  • Marijuana

I wonder what was easier for Diaz-Ramirez to allegedly get ahold of, the illegal drugs or the guns that are illegal to buy and sell in California without a background check and a 10-day waiting period? I guess I should throw the ammo in there as well, since California law requires background checks on ammunition purchases and bans residents from bringing in ammo purchased out-of-state.

None of those statutes stopped Diaz-Ramirez from running guns and drugs, according to authorities, though they certainly impose a heavy burden on law-abiding citizens. And apparently none of them were “ghost guns” either, which is another indication that California’s restrictive policies aren’t dramatically reducing the existing supply of stolen or black market guns.

Locally, San Jose’s politicians have decided to blame legal gun owners for the actions of violent criminals by imposing insurance mandates and annual fees on them, while ignoring the guys who are illegally supplying the guns to the guys illegally pulling the trigger at the increasing number of crime scenes across the city. As someone who allegedly possessed guns despite his status as a convicted felon, Diaz-Ramirez wouldn’t have been able to get liability insurance even if he’d tried to comply with the law, and I doubt he would have outed himself by cutting a check to whatever third-party the city ultimately decides will collect its annual tax on gun ownership.

No, as it turned out what actually stopped Diaz-Ramirez and his juvenile cohort from allegedly continuing their felonious behavior was simply good old fashioned police work. Moreover, the most serious charges that Diaz-Ramirez is facing are crimes that aren’t really part of California’s unique and dystopian gun control landscape; possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, gun trafficking, and illegal drug possession among them.

Now that police have done their jobs we’ll see if prosecutors in San Jose will do theirs. One of the first tests will be if the 16-year-old is charged as an adult or if his case is referred to juvenile court instead, and we’ll be keeping watch for any news on Diaz-Ramirez and his co-defendant going forward.

Op-ed exposes gun control advocate’s myopic thinking

by Leave a Comment

The topic of gun control is one that we’re never going to get past, I’m afraid. For every right we have, there will be someone who wants to take it away.

It’ll always be for what they think are good reasons, of course. It’ll also be described as something like a minimal restriction or whatever. They’ll claim they don’t want all of that particular right, just that one little piece of it.

But underlying all of this is some really bizarre thinking, particularly when it comes to gun control.

Take this op-ed about the issue of passing gun control in Virginia right now.

Young children and teenagers in Virginia have proved they can get their hands on guns and harm themselves and others. The firearms might have been right in their own homes.

Against this backdrop, lawmakers in the General Assembly passed almost no new gun legislation this year to stem the ongoing carnage. It was as if the blood-soaked status quo was acceptable.

…

In Virginia, you can blame philosophical differences among the parties for a lack of progress in the Assembly, as the Richmond Times-Dispatch noted. Democrats, who control the state Senate, tend to focus on preventing violence and seeking holistic solutions. Republicans, who control the House of Delegates, often prefer boosting prison terms for specific crimes.

I favor the former approach because it focuses, in part, on the underlying reasons why people choose guns to settle disputes. Intervention can prevent foolish and fatal decision-making.

Now, I’d like to give the author a bit of credit for not blatantly straw-manning the GOP position on preventing violence. He’s wrong, but at least it looks like an attempt to give a good-faith accounting of both sides of the issue.

Pro-gun voices don’t support gun control, though, not because they think prison terms are better–for the record, they’re really not. Most violent offenders either don’t think they’re going to get caught or don’t care, so there’s no deterrence factor–but because they believe gun control simply doesn’t work.

And, particularly if you talk about violence as a whole, it doesn’t.

At best, gun control laws would make it so violent criminals would stab people to death rather than shoot them. Um…how is that better?

We already know our knife homicide rate is higher than many other nations’ total homicide rate, so we can’t even pretend that the problem is purely one about guns. Yet gun control really looks like the warped belief that it’s somehow better to be stabbed 27 times than be shot once.

The author favors removing guns because he feels it “focuses, in part, on the underlying reasons why people choose guns to settle disputes,” but ignores the fact that if one is inclined to settle disputes violently in the first place, it won’t matter if guns are available or not, they’ll still respond violently.

That means things like stabbings and beatings, all of which are also potentially fatal.

Removing guns from the equation–not that gun control will, mind you, but roll with me for the sake of argument–doesn’t end the potentially fatal outcomes. It simply shifts to other weapons that are arguably more brutal and terrifying.

The author’s belief is myopic at best.

Yet he’s not alone in somehow thinking that gun control will make the problem go away. That’s why the problem is always framed around guns themselves. “If we remove guns, gun violence disappears” sounds very common sense until you realize that you haven’t made anyone less violent. What you’ve done is put the physically weak at the mercy of bigger, stronger, and meaner people.

That’s not a world I want to live in.