Swift Response from Pro-Crime Party

The (allegedly) tough-on-crime Republicans have left the building now that

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has declared gun violence and drug abuse a public health emergency after a string of recent deadly shootings, some involving children.

The emergency order includes the suspension of open and concealed carry laws in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, temporarily banning the carrying of guns on public property with certain exceptions, according to a statement from Lujan Grisham on Friday.

Lujan Grisham cited the shooting deaths of three children from July through September, as well as a pair of mass shootings in the state.

“The time for standard measures has passed,” said Lujan Grisham, a Democrat. “And when New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game – when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn – something is very wrong.”

Under the plan, citizens with carry permits will still be allowed to possess their weapons on private property such as gun ranges and gun stores if the firearm is transported in a locked box or a trigger lock or other mechanism is used to render the gun incapable of being fired, according to the statement.

The order was issued after consultation with public safety officials, including Bernalillo District Attorney Sam Bregman, Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen, Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina, and former State Police Chief Pete Kassetas.

The order also prohibits firearms on state property, including state buildings and schools, as well as parks and other places where children gather.

Under the order, licensed firearm dealers will be inspected monthly by New Mexico’s Regulation and Licensing Division to ensure compliance with sales and storage laws. Additionally, state health and environmental officials will begin wastewater testing for illegal substances such as fentanyl at schools.

The order is immediately effective, according to the statement.

In May, two mass shootings in New Mexico six people dead and 11 wounded. The state has one of the highest rates of gun violence and suicide in the nation.

Response from the right was so fierce you'd think that Governor Grisham had neglected to salute the Emperor Donald Trump. A sampling:

Tim Pool, right-wing Twitter enthusiast: "Police should arrest her immediately.

Police should arrest her immediately https://t.co/NyvvpRHKST

— Tim Pool (@Timcast) September 9, 2023

"

No, that's not how these things work. Immediately before her remarks captured on the Twitter video, the Governor stated that she expects a legal challenge, and almost welcomed it. This is not a violation of a state criminal statute or a local ordinance. It is not in the jurisdiction of the police.

Dan Bongino: "You have a duty to ignore this tyranny. She should be immediately impeached and investigated."You have a duty to ignore this tyranny. She should be immediately impeached and investigated.

We'll impeach and thereafter investigate- to stop tyranny.... perfectly good sense.

Tim Pool, right-wing Twitter enthusiast: "Police should arrest her immediately."

No, that's not how these things work. Immediately before her remarks captured on the Twitter video, the Governor stated that she expects a legal challenge, and almost welcomed it. This is not a violation of a state criminal statute or a local ordinance. It is not in the jurisdiction of the police.

Phil Holloway, Town Hall columnist: "NM governor suspends open and concealed carry. Michelle Grisham is a tyrant.... The Covid 'emergency was the opening act."

Well over one million American lives have been taken in the "opening act" of Covid-19. It was not a hoax. It is not a hoax.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, governor of Arkansas: "Our Constitution doesn’t say 'the privilege to keep and bear arms'” it says 'the right.' If the government can take away one of your most basic rights, it can take away any of them. As long as I’m Governor, Arkansas will not tread on the Second Amendment - or any other."

Neither has Grisham. The alleged constitutional right cited by Sanders is "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We no longer have a well-regulated militia. The closest we have to a militia is the National Guard, which is not necessary to the security of a free state. And Governor Grisham's order does not infringe on the right to possess or own a firearm, but only to carry it in public. And the Founders were referring to muskets. Aside from that, Governor Sanders has it right.

Joe Scarborough and many others have told us the Republican Party traditionally supported balanced budgets and limited government but now does not. Those were mostly fiction, a matter more of rhetoric than of actual philosophy. Add to those the GOP outrage over urban crime.  We now have a Democratic governor who, enraged about street crime in her state's largest city, has taken decisive and constitutional action, prompting conservative hand wringing. If only there were video of young black men rioting in Albuquerque, perhaps Republicans would do the right thing and support gun safety and crime prevention.

 

Share |

Trans Today, Something Else Tomorrow

Poor Jen Psaki. She was a very effective press secretary for President Biden, and is now a sub-par host on a weekly show on MSNBC and frequent guests at other times on the network. However, it may pay fairly well- or will when she gets more face time- and must be far less stressful.

In the video, a segment from her most recent Sunday show, attached to the tweet below, Psaki makes a couple of strong points, then fails, though in a way which probably pleases her new bosses. She remarks

Just to summarize, the right-wingers, the conspiracy theorists, the birthers, they now want us to forget the years they spent fear-mongering about Muslims and Islam. Ten years ago, standing against Sharia law was the key G.O.P. litmus test.

Now that litmus test seems to be how fervently you oppose transgender people?

As long as she's asking the question- however rhetorically- the answer is an unqualified "no."

The Britannica Dictionary defines litmus test as "something (such as an opinion about a political or moral issue) that is used to make a judgment about whether someone or something is acceptable." In no Republican presidential nominating contest has every Republican been required to say something nasty or crude about transgender people. Moreover, views about the LGBTQIA++ community vary from Republican to Republican, both privately and publicly.

The only transgender issue, and an extremely narrow one, on which no Republican will take a dissenting view is whether biological males should be able to play womans' sports. Even on this, some Republicans will choose to remain mum.  Nonetheless, Psaki states "just look into what Trump himself has to say about that. Even he doesn't exactly know why he's attacking them," then plays a video of Donald Trump stating

It's amazing how strongly people feel about that. You see, I talk about cutting taxes, people go like (pretends to applaud politely. When I talk about transgender, everyone goes crazy. Who would have thought- five years ago- you didn't know what the hell it was?

That doesn't qualify it as a litmus test. It means only that the very small minority of conservatives which will take time out of their busy day, travel to a venue, stand in line, then wait until Trump appears to talk get excited when the issue is raised.

Psaki is assuming that in the excerpt she played, Trump was telling the truth, an odd assumption coming from a Democrat. Even if he were, the response among his followers is in part because they believe he is telling them what other politicians are too fearful to do. These persons need not applaud hysterically when Trump- or any GOP official- calls for lower taxes. Major Republicans all do.

They all do because lowering taxes- i.e., income taxes- for everyone is one point in the Republican three-legged gospel. (They differ from Democrats in wanting income taxes cut for the wealthy and corporations, but they advocate reductions for all.)

The other two parts are cutting regulations and size of the government. While they often fail to do the latter when they are in power, no Republican anywhere or at any time will question the necessity of curbing taxes, regulations, or the size of government. The Republican may be  a culture warrior such as Trump, Ron DeSantis, or Tim Scott or a media- proclaimed "moderate" such as Larry Hogan, Chris Sununu, Chris Christie, or Will Hurd,. None will concede that reducing taxes for the wealthy increases the deficit, government regulations help prevent such disasters as recently occurred in East Palestine, Ohio, or that small government typically means a government which protects individuals against extremes of the market.

Nonetheless, Psaki continues

So what you just heard in that video sounds an awful like, and reminiscent of, what George Wallace, a staunch segregationist, once told a newspaper editor: "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been a part of my career, and nobody listened And then, I began talking about n _ _ _ _ _ _ and they stomped the floor.

George Wallace was a Democrat. His last meaningful involvement in politics was a half-century ago when his bid for a presidential nomination was failed in the aftermath of being shot.  He died years later, and were he today still alive, around, and active, would almost certainly be a Republican. Nonetheless, he could not have been part of a GOP playbook which Psaki believed she was describing and which she made explicit upon adding

So let's be clear. This sit he same old GOP playbook and their cynical ploy to tear up the fabric of our society and damage the idea that out of many, we are one. All because they so desperately want to regain the White House.

Those are the Republican candidates for President who want most of all to regain the White House. GOP senators, being senators, want most of all to be re-elected, secondarily that their party regains control of its chamber. GOP Representatives, being United States Representatives, want most of all to be re-elected, secondarily that their party regains control of its chamber.

We're noticing the reemergence of an old ploy straight from the GOP playbook, only this time the party has a new target...@jrpsaki breaks it down. pic.twitter.com/wZ55u20476

— Inside with Jen Psaki (@InsideWithPsaki) July 2, 2023

Psaki is correct that the Republican Party wants to rend the fabric of society and damage the idea that out of many, we are one. However, that is most critically played out in uniform GOP support for "school reform," including charter schools, vouchers, and aid to religious schools.  There have been common principles in American society because the default choice of parents has been to send children to the traditional, local public school where those children are taught to honor traditional American values. Send most of them off to private, charter, or religious schools, and what binds our society together disintegrates.

It's understandable that the public school system would not be uppermost in Psaki's mind. At her liberal network, non-progressive network hosts, contributors, and guests come through daily to promote contemporary liberal values, advocating the rights of racial minorities, sexual/gender minorities, women, and immigrants. One of the primary issues on which that unanimity is missing is support for pubic secondary schools.

With those priorities inviolate, it is unsurprising that Jen Psaki would yield to the temptation of arguing that transsexualism, the issue du jour of all proper-thinking liberals, is the same for Republicans and the hill they'd want to die on. It is transsexuals today, just as it has been fetanyl, immigrants massomg at the border, CRT (typically not spelled out), urban crime, and other issues, each for a brief spell over the past few years.

That's how it works. But a Republican becomes unacceptable if he or she does not mention, and remain true to (at least rhetorically), low taxes, little government regulation, and shrinking government. Jen Psaki and all Democrats must keep their eye on the ball.

                                            HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY

Share |

Tweet Of The Day- The Right To Arm Bears

When expressing support for gun safety legislation, most Democrats, especially those in conservative states, usually state something like "I support the Second Amendment but....."  However, there is no need for the conjunction "but." They could as easily and accurately, albeit counter-intuitively, remark "I support gun safety measures because I support the Second Amendment."

The Second Amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  "A well regulated Militia" is therein a subordinate clause.

Writing eleven months ago in the Duke Center for Firearms Law, linguist Kari Sullivan examines "being-clauses with the basic structure of the Second Amendment, in which the being-clause precedes the main clause and has a different subject." Sullivan concludes "the history of being-clauses does suggest that the applicability of the Second Amendment’s main clause was temporally and potentially causally contingent on the necessity of the “well regulated Militia” to the 'security of the free State'"....

A right to keep and bear arms is thus dependent on the need of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the nation. 

For a constitutional definition of Well Regulated Militia refer to the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 and 16. It clearly states the militia shall be formed and equipped by Congress. Congress shall also provide the weapons.

— David M Pyman 🇨🇦🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@David_M_Pyman) June 3, 2022

 

And here it is, as claimed:

Clause 15 To Call Militias

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

ArtI.S8.C15.1  Congress’s Power to Call Militias

Clause 16 Organization of Militias

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Applicability of the Second Amendment depends wholly on the existence of a well-regulated militia, formed and equipped by Congress, to protect the USA.

Banning firearms altogether for civilian use very likely would be bad policy, but one not precluded by the US Constitution.  All should believe in the Second Amendment- but only as it is written.  If right-wing jurists were the strict constructionists some of them claim to be, they also would recognize there is no constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Well, except maybe for muskets.

 

Share |

Not Militias

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So goes the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nonetheless, at 26:56 of the (very choppy) video below, Max Brooks can be (sort of) seen remarking

The real danger we're facing is homegrown insurgency. Think about it. This is the first time since the 1990s that militia enlistment has gone up during a Republican administration. It always goes up during Democrats, down during Republicans.

Thankfully, Bill Maher asks ""Militia,' meaning"? and Brooks replies "militia meaning any sort of armed government- anti-government group...."

A tweet from Matthew Ingram, self-described as a writer "about digital media for the Columbus Journalism Review," thus presumably a credible individual:

Militia leader Stewart Rhodes says he has men stationed outside of D.C. ready to engage in violence on Trump’s order https://t.co/H7P9945sCa

— Mathew Ingram (@mathewi) November 12, 2020

The article, from the solidly left Media Matters For America, to which Miller links is entitled "Militia leader Stewart Rhodes says he has men stationed outside of D.C. ready to engage in violence on Trump's order." Timothy Johnson writes

Oath Keepers militia leader Stewart Rhodes said that he has armed men on standby outside of Washington, D.C., to supposedly prevent the 2020 presidential election from being stolen from President Donald Trump....

Rhodes also indicated his militia will be involved in a rally to support Trump planned for this weekend in the nation's capital.

Johnson goes on to note "the organization’s purpose has shifted from opposing the government to instead act as a pro-Trump vigilante group." However, Johnson twice otherwise invokes "militia" in his article of eight paragraphs.

But it is absurd to refer to such right-wing paramilitary groups as "militias".

The Second Amendment specifically grants to members of a "well-regulated militia"- and to no one else- the right "to keep and bear arms." The framers were not speaking of, nor anticipating, individuals forming an armed anti-government group.

The founders conceived of either "a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency" or "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service." They did not mean individuals banding together to upend the government or intimidate the government, or to keep in power their hero against the popular will.

Nonetheless, we have reasonable, well-meaning, even ideologically liberal people referring to the Proud Boys and other armed groups as "militias." 

It is probably a stretch to label them all "terrorists" because their intended target generally are not innocents but the targets of their vendetta. Nevertheless, they do not comprise a "militia." Rather, they are vigilantes and affording them the credibility of "militias" is linguistically nonsensical- and strategically dangerous.

 

Share |

Threaten And Win

Police procedures vary widely depending on circumstances. Understandably

Seventy people were arrested outside of The New York Times building in Manhattan on Saturday, according to a New York Police Department spokesman, during a protest to call attention to the way news outlets cover the climate crisis.

Charges against the protesters are pending, an NYPD spokesman told CNN.

The protesters were affiliated with a group called Extinction Rebellion, which describes itself on its website as an "international movement" aimed at combating climate change through nonviolent protest and minimizing the "risk of human extinction and ecological collapse."

Those protesters were peaceful, however. The outcome is not as predictable when, as reported by Williamette (Oregon) Week

Oregon Senate Democrats hastily cancelled a planned Saturday floor session late Friday afternoon, citing reports that right-wing militia members were planning to rally at the Capitol.

Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward (D-Portland) posted on social media a text message from Senate leadership, stating that the Saturday session was cancelled.

 "The State Police Superintendent just informed the Senate President of a credible threat from militia groups coming to the Capitol tomorrow," the message says. "The Superintendent strongly recommends that no one come to the Capitol and President [Peter] Courtney heeded that advice minutes ago."

First: these extremists were not members of a "militia." They want the media and the public to label them "militia" because the Second Amendment grants to "a well-regulated Militia" the right "to keep and bear arms." Nonetheless, as this tweeter notes, "they're not the militia. They're an armed mob. The militia, as legally defined in Oregon State Law, consists of the organized militia (Military Dept) & the unorganized militia, the latter of which can only be mobilized by the governor."

If that sounds to you like the Oregon State Police were intimidated by threats of violence, you're paying attention. Willamette Week continues

"The Oregon State Police have advised us that there might be a militia threat tomorrow, so the Capitol building will be closed," said Carol Alice McCurrie, Courtney's communications director. "We don't have any details beyond that one."

The cancellation comes on the heels of right-wing militia members offering armed protection to Republican Senators who have denied Democrats a quorum by disappearing, probably across the Oregon border into Idaho.

Republicans left the Capitol on Wednesday, trying to block the passage of a cap on carbon emissions. Sen. Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) implied that he would shoot and kill any Oregon State Police officer sent by the governor to retrieve him.

That outburst seemed to embolden right-wing militia groups, which pledged Thursday to protect the Senate Republicans while they fled the Capitol. Those groups included members of the Three Percenters, an anti-government militia.

Boquist had told a local television station "Send bachelors and come heavily armed. I'm not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon. It's just that simple."  Emboldened right-wing radicals got the State Police to shut down the Capitol and the session to consider the climate bill was cancelled. Mission accomplished.





While in New York City dissidents who posed no immediate threat to the public order were arrested, extremists in Oregon threatening violence were pacified when the Oregon State Police turned tail and ran. The latter might be a harbinger of things to come, with a President who has informed the public of his intention:

The Democrats in Congress yesterday were vicious and totally showed their cards for everyone to see. When the Republicans had the Majority they never acted with such hatred and scorn! The Dems are trying to win an election in 2020 that they know they cannot legitimately win!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2019

So if and when Donald Trump loses in 2020, he'll claim the election was "rigged" or fixed, and his supporters, like the "armed militias" in Oregon, will get the message. Then if federal law enforcement authorities demonstrate the same (lack of) backbone that the administration of the Oregon State Police has, we're in trouble, where "we" is spelled "this republic."

Share |

No Gun Debate Forthcoming

At a Circle A Food convenience store in Clearwater, Florida on July 19, Markeis

McGlockton's girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, parked in a handicapped-accessible spot while McGlockton and their 5-year-old son went inside. (Michael) Drejka approached the vehicle and began a heated argument with Jacobs over parking in the spot without a permit.

Surveillance video shows McGlockton leaving the store, walking up to Drejka and shoving him to the ground. Just seconds later, Drejka, who has a conceal-carry permit, pulled out a gun and fired one shot at McGlockton, killing him.

Two days later, Michael Smerconish- who as a lawyer is a fine radio and television talk show host- spoke to Benjamin Crump, who represented the family of Trayvon Martin and now the family of Markeis McGlockton.

Immediately afterward, Smerconish talked to Mark O'Mara, who famously represented George Zimmerman, acquitted in the shooting death of young Mr. Martin. The old joke runs "What happens when you put 10 economists in a room? You'll get 11 opinions." In this case, the joke could be "What happens when you get two lawyers talking to each other? You'll get two opinions, they'll agree with each, and both be wrong."

It's not pithy enough to be funny, but it applies. O'Mara stated

I think that if you're going to exercise the Second Amendment rights and we have them- we'll always have them- but you have to do it responsibly and here's the problem: someone like Drejka who used their weapon in my opinion unreasonably really affects the rest of us in our abilty to utilize our Second Amendment rights because he used it inappropriately and now the focus is again on that.

"Great observation," Smerconish responded.

It wasn't. No one will deny that fatally shooting someone over a parking space is "inappropriate." However, O'Mara  argued also a) the response to the killing  will focus on Second Amendment rights; b) said response will be misplaced. (Smerconish seconded his statement.)

No, and no. Though noting "we have all these laws for gun rights in the State of Florida," Benjamin Crump a moment earlier was not emphasizing gun safety when he contended

You know, that's troubling for many in communities of color, that you can pick a confrontation, you can be the initial aggressor, you kill the unarmed black person that you say it was self-defense, I was standing my ground, and you get to go home and sleep in your bed at night.

We think it's a bad law. It encourages people to take the law into their own hands. It's a license to kill black people and people of color because many times when black people make the stand your ground argument, it's behind the bars of a jail cell. But white people make their stand our ground arguments a week later after they've been  in their bed comfortably. So the law has been applied racially and calculated, we believe it's a terrible law that Florida needs to address...

It's likely that Crump's focus is common in Florida. He did not indicate whether there has been a comparison of the outcome when a white kills a black (as in this case) and when a black kills a white, but nevertheless emphasized the notion that the law has been applied in a racially discriminatory manner.  It's not clear whether he would be opposed to a stand your ground law which protect black assailants as much as it does white assailants or what he thinks of what he benevolently labels "gun rights."

O'Mara- and Smerconish, who agreed with him- likely will be proven wrong that this will spark a debate on alleged "Second Amendment rights."  But he's wrong, additionally, in believing that debate would "unreasonably" affect those highly misunderstood privileges.

Let's review: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  O'Mara does not belong to a militia any more than Drejka does.

That's a diversion, though. Central to the confrontation in Clearwater was that Drejka, with or without Second Amendment rights, did not pull out a knife. If he had, McGlockton (and Drejka) would in all likelihood now be alive. Yet, O'Mara seems to believe that Drejka's possession of the firearm and even his decision to threaten the victim with it can be cleanly separated from his unreasonable decision to fire it.

Drejka is a mere civilian, who may not understand that one does not draw a weapon without a willingness to use it if necessary.  Were he a firearms instructor, law enforcement employee, or trained in the use of a firearm, he would realize that if appearance of the weapon does not have the desired deterrent effect, the desire to fire it might overtake common sense.

Drejka did not understand the implication of drawing the weapon or even of possessing it for a routine trip to a store. That's understandable- neither do lawyers Mark O'Mara or Michael Smerconish.

Share |

Guns Are Not Black America's Best Friend

Based on 2010 statistics reflected in the graph below, Katie Leach-Lemon in 2014 observed "rates of homicides from guns were  6.6 times larger in the US than in Portugal, the country with one of the highest rates in Western Europe."

If you think that would be disconcerting to a supporter of the #black lives matter movement, you are thinking logically, but would be wrong.  Political science assistant professor Alex Gourevitch believes it "easy to see how" enactment of "feasible gun control laws"

will become part of the system of social control of mostly black, mostly poor people. There are already too many crimes, there is too much criminal law, and there is far too much incarceration — especially of black people. To the degree that all that is part of the “dark chapter in our history,” given the deep injustice of our society, and especially its policing practices, the actual practice of gun control will continue that dark chapter, not resolve it.

In 2013, after a review conducted by Vice President Biden following the Sandy Hook massacre, President Obama, the Huffington Post reported

recommended requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales; reinstating the assault weapons ban; restoring a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines; eliminating armor-piercing bullets; providing mental health services in schools; allocating funds to hire more police officers; and instituting a federal gun trafficking statute, among other policies. The cost of the package, senior officials estimated, would be roughly $500 million, some of which could come from already budgeted funds.

Of those seven proposals, five would come under the rubric of gun control, one other to law enforcement, though not a gun control measure.

Those five, which would marginally at most impinge upon the privileges and prerogatives of hunters and/or weapons collectors, presumably are the sort of thing Gurevitch would consider "feasible," rather than more radical, gun control.    (Gurevitch doesn't specify what laws he's talking about. If I were he, I wouldn't, either.)  So it is hard to understand why "gun control responses to mass killings"

are a deep mistake. The standard form of gun control means writing more criminal laws, creating new crimes, and therefore creating more criminals or more reasons for police to suspect people of crimes. More than that, it means creating yet more pretexts for a militarized police, full of racial and class prejudice, to overpolice.

The standard form of gun control means creating new crimes.  Well, yes, obviously.  If the proposals had been enacted, selling or purchasing an assault weapon or a weapon with a magazine greater than 10 rounds, or armor-piercing bullets would be a crime, as would being involved in a federal gun trafficking scheme.   That hardly seems racist, and cracking down on gun trafficking is hardly likely to affect minorities disproportionately.

Police may suspect more people of crimes if those individuals are illegally possessing firearms or ammunition.   Often (though Gurevitch seems to doubt it) such per persons are contemplating additional crimes- or at least have given themselves a greater capability of committing them, and for going undetected.

Unfortunately (though probably not for his argument), Gurevitch fails to tell us what he means by a "militarized police." To most individuals, "militarized police" refers to law enforcement with military weapons, such as bayonets, M-16 rifles, and armored personnel carriers (Ferguson from Google images, below). Nonetheless, Gurevitch conflates them which irregularly make an appearance with a situation "full of racial and class prejudice."

Neither are weapons in the hands of criminals, though they are there, leading to situations in which law enforcement reacts- sometimes overreacts- in a manner drawing comparisons to the military.   The prevalence of weapons in urban areas, so unconcerning to Gurevitch, is more- not less- likely to prompt the racist overreaction by police which understandably unnerves the professor.

Gurevitch argues

As multiple police killings of unarmed black men have reminded us, the police already operate with barely constrained force in poor, minority neighborhoods. From SWAT to stop-and-frisk to mass incarceration to parole monitoring, the police manage a panoply of programs that subject these populations to multiple layers of coercion and control. As a consequence, more than 7 million Americans are subject to some form of correctional control, an extremely disproportionate number of whom are poor and minority.

The police operate with barely constrained force in poor, minority neighborhoods.  It's a hedge, given that "barely constrained" is literally "constrained," though on the cusp of reacting with maniacal fierceness. Still, it's only fair to ask in which jurisdictions police are possessed of such dark motivations. The police... where? In what poor, minority neighborhoods do the police "operate with barely constrained force?"   No clue is forthcoming.

Police possess deadly weapons and are involved in law enforcement daily. The NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, hardly a hotbed of Klannish sentiment, has found there have been 76 "people of color" (colored people?) killed by police from 2/5/99 through 2014.  Awful, particularly for those families; also, 76 in 15+ years in a nation of 319 million people and 13,200,000 blacks.

Gurevitch's obsession with racial justice to the exclusion of all other democratic values is reflected in his remark

Poor Blacks and Latinos are easily intimidated by charge-happy prosecutors into accepting plea deals, meaning they never see their day in court. Some even end up admitting to crimes they did not commit just to avoid the possibility of more severe punishments. More criminal gun laws would only feed this deeply unjust system.

This fellow really needs to get out more. He needs to observe the manner in which poor people of any race are treated in the criminal justice system.  Once he recognizes that poor whites also are abused, he may notice that even middle class folks admit responsibility for crimes they did not commit, in order to avoid serious punishment and going deeply into debt. Usually, only the rich can afford private legal counsel, without which one has little recourse but to plead guilty "just to avoid the possibility of more severe punishments."   Criminal gun laws often merit severe punishment if they're violated. The life of an innocent person may depend on it.

"Racial justice." Alex Gurevitch summarizes, "is a precondition for any reasonable gun control regime." No, it is not. Currently, we have neither, with one an important goal and the other an important means to an end, reduction in crime.  We also are nowhere near either. Most of those individuals abusing the Second Amendment are young men and, except in mass shootings, often black.  With their motives hardly benign and lifestyles short of exemplary, encouraging them to possess lethal weapons without legitimate cause is unlikely to spur white Americans to embrace that cause of racial justice Gourevitch emphasizes





Share |

Steele, Assault Weapons, Mexico

In April, 2008, ABC News' Brian Ross and Esposito found

U.S. gun stores and gun shows are the source of more than 90 percent of the weapons being used by Mexico's ruthless drug cartels, according to U.S. and Mexican law enforcement officials.

"It's a war going on in Mexico, and these types of firearms are the weapons of war for them," said Bill Newell, the special agent in charge of the Phoenix field division of the ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has primary law enforcement jurisdiction for investigating gun trafficking to Mexico.

"It's virtually impossible to buy a firearm in Mexico as a private citizen, so this country is where they come," said Newell.

But U.S. efforts to stop the smuggling of tens of thousands of guns to Mexico, including high-powered assault weapons, have been hampered by lenient American gun laws and the Bush administration's failure to give priority to anti-gun smuggling efforts....

U.S. and Mexican officials say they have traced most of the thousands of high-powered weapons seized from the drug cartels to gun dealers in Texas, California and Arizona.

And the problem is only getting worse. On January 15, 2009, Shannon O'Neil, a Douglas Dillon fellow for Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations who blogs at www.LatIntelligence.com, noted

There are about 6,650 Federal Firearms Licensees in this area, and the border is 2,000 mile long, meaning that there are 3.3 gun shops per mile (I said 3 per mile in the article). If we include all the shops in border states (not just near the border), the number rises to 9,161 locations....

The U.S. government recognizes that U.S.-purchased weapons are fueling Mexico’s violence. In fact, ATF acting director Michael Sullivan said last year that investigators have traced 90 to 95 percent of weapons seized in Mexico to the United States.

Currently, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms assigns approximately 200 agents to monitor the licensed gun dealerships along the Mexican border. By contrast to the ease with which military-style weapons can be purchased in the U.S.A., "Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons," according to The New York Times.

And the cartels are moving much of their operations northward. With its growing Hispanic population and access to major highways and population centers, Atlanta, Georgia now is a major storage center for marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines smuggled in from Mexico. They then are moved to distribution operations in methamphetamine, Carolinas, Tennessee, the Mid-Atlantic, New York and New England, reports USA Today.

So what in the name of pandering to the NRA and Rush Limbaugh is Michael Steele sending this e-mail message to right-wing supporters, including one from something called the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner?:

The Obama Administration has revealed its intention to reinstate the so-called "assault" gun ban -- Step One of their plan to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Having already taken advantage of our country's current economic woes to speed the largest, most pork-laden spending spree in history through the Democrat-controlled Congress, the Obama team is again using fear tactics to impose bad policy.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced his desire to once again deny law abiding Americans their 2nd Amendment rights, using the ongoing violence in Mexico as justification.

Perhaps Michael Steele should be asked why he condones the distribution of over 500 metric tons of cocaine, 15,500 metric tons of marijuana, 18 metric tons of heroin, and a still unknown amount of methamphetamines which make their way through Mexico into the United States. Or why he condones the proliferation of high-powered weapons along the Mexican border. Or why he condones murder and rape on American soil in the name of a distorted interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The Right To Bear Arms

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

On Wednesday, June 26, 2008, five Justices of the United States Supreme Court chose to confirm the Second Amendment's subordinate clause- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"- and to ignore the independent clause- "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

There is simply no constitutional right to bear arms. None. As written, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms is dependent on a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. According to answers.com, the U.S. History Encyclopedia describes a "militia" as

a form of citizen-based defense that shaped early American history and created an American tradition of citizen soldiery. Early American colonies faced dangers from Native American and European foes. Colonial governments quickly established universal military obligation for white males. At its simplest, men were armed or ordered to arm themselves, organized into units, and trained.

Now, of course we have not had such a militia in the U.S.A. in quite some time. Nevertheless, pledging loyalty to the Second Amendment has become a ritual in presidential politics, with the Repub nominee currying favor with the NRA and its followers and the Democratic nominee frightened of a backlash if he should question the relevance of the Amendment in modern America. So if the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, perhaps the right also will demand fealty to the Third Amendment of the United States Constitution:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

A Cryptic Statement From A Cryptic Politician

According to The Huffington Post, Barack Obama had this to say about the United States Supreme Court ruling today, June 26, 2008, striking down the District of Columbia's law on handgun possession:


I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.


As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

At first glance, this is a sensible position advocating the kind of gun control favored by most Americans- a statement supporting reasonable restrictions which are politically acceptable.

But look again- "I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." Mr. Obama is not running for mayor of Chicago or even governor of Illinois. He is running for President of the United States. He will be responsible, among other things, for consideration of the advisability of gun control in the United States of America. And the remark about Chicago/Cheyenne suggests, in the unlikely event that Obama is being sincere, that he would not favor restrictions unrealistic in Wyoming or other rural states.... which suggests that he is not in favor of federal gun control at all. Fortunately for all of us Americans, he probably doesn't mean it.

Condoleezza Rice, Gun Control Advocate

As a reminder, here is the second amendment to the United States Constitution:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And here is Condoleezza Rice speaking on April 20, 2008 in Baghdad, encouraging Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to fight the militias of Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr:

But clearly, the prime minister has laid down some ground rules which any functioning democratic state would insist upon, having to do with, you know, arms belonging to the state, not to -- not in private hands," she said. "The current circumstances come out of what I think is a very important and indeed appropriate action that the Iraqi government has taken."

To repeat: "ground rules (of) any functioning democratic state (to include) arms belonging to the state.... not in private hands." Exactly.