Brady: Wrong Yet Again

The Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence's Dennis Henigan released today (Oct. 19, 2011) another hack job wrongly attacking the National Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822). He of course couldn't resist taking a few weak jabs at lawful gun owners as well, a disgusting tactic that should be beneath even the most fervent anti-gunners. But Brady has showed on countless occasions that no tactic is too low, no study is too suspect, and no crisis will ever go to waste.

In his article, which can be viewed here, Henigan makes several ignorant statements about the law's imagined effects. Some of them are examined below.

Henigan: "The House Judiciary Committee next week likely will report out a bill, H.R. 822, that will make it possible for dangerous people like the Tucson shooter to legally carry concealed weapons in virtually every state in the nation."

People like Loughner, who did not have a concealed carry permit and therefore would not be affected by this law, don't care about this kind of bill. People who are intent on committing mass shootings are not going to be dissuaded from doing so due to the lack of laws supporting their endeavors. Mass shooters break numerous laws to commit their crimes at both the state and federal levels. Would the absence of this bill stop a single shooting? It would probably stop just as many as "no guns allowed" signs have stopped - zero.

Henigan: "Arizona’s gun laws are so weak that Jared Loughner did not even have to get a permit to legally carry his hidden Glock, with its high-capacity assault clip, to the sidewalk in front of that Safeway. But he was certainly eligible for an Arizona concealed carry permit, and if he had obtained one, H.R. 822 would have enabled him to carry his Glock into Times Square."

Yes, Arizona has the unenviable distinction of being a state that does not restrict the rights of a person who has not been convicted of a crime. They really have some nerve. And to add insult to injury he had a "high-capacity assault clip," whatever the heck that is. I mean an assault clip? Tha sounds dastardly does it not? And of course the absence of H.R. 822 would prevent Loughner from leaving the state with his evil assault clip, just like the presence of laws criminalizing homicide stopped him from...oh wait.

Henigan: "[T]he version adopted by the House Judiciary majority last week would allow non-resident concealed carriers to pack heat in states where they were previously ineligible even to possess a gun."

This basically is saying that you would now be able to carry in states like Illinois, which have chosen to reduce the Bill of Rights to 9 non-scary amendments rather than the 10 that that most other states recognize. It does nothing to change the requirements for a background check when purchasing a new gun and doesn't change the requirements for obtaining a permit in any state that currently issues them.

Henigan: "In an ironic twist, during the same week the Judiciary Committee was considering this bill, Rep. Curry Todd, a Tennessee State legislator who championed a bill to allow concealed carry permit holders to take their guns into bars in his State, was arrested for possessing a handgun while intoxicated. (Perhaps we now know why he felt so strongly about the issue.)"

As a Tennessean I can't overstate how disappointed our state's gun owners are in the actions of Rep. Todd. But the fact is the law he advocated did not enable this to happen as it is still illegal to drink and carry. If the law allowing permit holders to carry in restaurants hadn't been passed, he would have been arrested and charged with the exact same crimes. This is just another example of a typical straw man by Brady and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is just another weak attempt by Brady to smear all gun owners and those who support us.

Henigan: "Apart from the irony, the legislator’s arrest demonstrates the folly of making it easier for individuals to carry loaded and concealed weapons in public. It is simply too difficult to ensure that those who get these licenses are, in fact, responsible, law-abiding citizens."

This may have some truth, but prior restraint laws have been shown to unconstitutional. And history supports granting carry permits. Permit holders are far less likely to be convicted of a crime than virtually any other segment of the population, including politicians. Surprisingly, even including police officers. So if Brady wants to disarm the most dangerous segments of society they a lot of work to do before disarming permit holders makes sense.

Henigan: "A recent Brady Center report documents thirteen cases of murder by persons who were legal concealed carriers until they pulled the trigger, including Jared Loughner."

And the report completely ignores the nearly 18,000 firearm homicides that weren't committed by legal concealed carriers during the same two year period and instead attempts to demonize a community consisting of approximately 40 million people because of the actions of about 0.00001625%, or almost 2/100,000ths of that population [(13/2)/40 million]. Once again, the general population could only dream of being this trustworthy. 99.93% of these firearms homicides were not committed by legal gun owners, but Henigan wants you to focus on the other 0.07%. Is that really their best idea for reducing gun crime?

Henigan: "Under this legislation, if someone with a Virginia concealed carry permit were caught armed and intoxicated in Tennessee, the State would be powerless to arrest him for gun possession while under the influence, even though it could enforce the same law against Tennessee residents. Does this make any sense at all?"

The part that doesn't make sense is the fact that Henigan thinks he can pass this off as truth. The law does not make it legal in Tennessee to drink while carrying. As a matter of fact the proposed bill explicitly states that you must follow the laws of that state in the following section:

`(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

Henigan: "Even now, dangerous individuals are bypassing their own states’ concealed weapon restrictions by obtaining permits from more lenient states. Take the case of Marqus Hill, who obtained a Florida permit after his Pennsylvania permit was revoked. At the permit revocation hearing, Hill had assaulted a police officer. With his Florida permit making him, once again, a legal concealed carrier in Pennsylvania, last year Hill shot 18-year-old Irving Santana 13 times and was charged with homicide."

Once again Henigan goes on a rant about an issue that has nothing to do with H.R. 822. Hill allegedly killed Santana in Pennsylvania. He didn't have to cross state lines so national reciprocity in no way helped him to commit the homicide. Not that it has been shown that the lack of national reciprocity has ever stopped a homicide. I have never heard of a case where a criminal admitted, "I was gonna kill that guy but it was illegal for me to carry concealed in his state so I just let it slide...this time."

As with all things gun related Brady bats a big fat zero with their analysis of H.R. 822. For the sake of fairness, the problem I have isn't that the folks at Brady don't like guns - they surely have every right not to like them - but with how they play loosely with facts, so-called studies, and statistics. As with debate on any topic, if you have to lie or even distort the truth to convince people you are right, your position is probably incredibly weak to begin with. Henigan's work here definitely is no exception to that rule.

Guns do not "discharge."

You may have noticed that there seem to be an increase in so-called "accidental shootings" being reported in the media lately. While I am uncertain whether the actual number is increasing it seems to be getting more media attention, at least in my view.

And in these media reports there seems to be a common phrase being repeated: "The gun discharged." This phrase, whether intentional or not, incorrectly places the blame on the shooting on an inanimate object. It also implies that guns themselves are dangerous. Especially when discussing modern firearms, this is completely inaccurate. But even if we're talking about antique firearms the blame is almost certainly to be lain at the feet of the person handling the firearm. In most cases I would wager that the responsible party ignored one of the four basic safety rules when handling firearms, which is why "negligent discharge" is a more appropriate description than "accidental shooting." The four basic rules, of which the first three are more applicable to negligent discharges, are:

1. ALWAYS treat every gun as if it is loaded until you have verified that it is not.
2. NEVER point the muzzle of a firearm at something or someone you do not intend to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4. Know your target and what is beyond it.

Recently I was made aware of an article on Yahoo! News about a woman who was fatally shot in a gun store by a 9mm pistol "when it discharged." (Article here) There's that phrase again. "[I]t discharged." Much more likely the relative who shot her ignored all of the first three safety rules. Without a doubt he ignored number 2, as it is not possible to shoot something at which you are not aiming, intentionally or not. Whether he knew the gun was loaded is not clear from the article but if he had treated it as such, or better yet, cleared the weapon when he took control of it, this unfortunate tragedy would have been easily avoided. It is also very likely he had his finger on the trigger as it is very unlikely that the gun discharged without the trigger being pulled.

Further research reveals that the gun in question was a Kel Tec 9mm. (Source) Kel Tec makes two 9mm pistols: the PF-9 and PF-11, both of which implement safety features to prevent accidental discharge. Common to both is a double-action only (DAO) trigger system. For those unaware, a double-action pistol is one where pulling the trigger performs two actions (or a double action, hence the name). The first is to cock the pistol by moving the hammer to the rear; and the second is to fire the pistol by releasing the hammer, which then strikes the firing pin, igniting the primer, and finally firing the projectile from the gun. The reason a DAO trigger is considered to be a safety mechanism is that they require a much sturdier pull on average than single action pistols, and therefore it is extremely unlikely that you would ever pull the trigger without actually intending to do so.

The second safety feature on the PF-9 is a hammer block. A hammer block prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the trigger is actually pulled. It is a mechanical safety which is very unlikely to fail. The PF-11 accomplished the same thing through a lightweight hammer and spring loaded firing pin. A muzzle down drop of the PF-11 should not create enough pressure for the firing pin to ignite the primer. In other words, it is almost guaranteed that the gun did not simply "discharge," causing the unnecessary death of Beverly Dively Klepic. And even if it did, if the the basic safety rules had been followed, there would simply be another hole in a target or a wall somewhere and Beverly would be alive.

All this to say, very rarely does an accidental shooting happen. More often than not the shooter ignores safety rules and as a result shoots himself or some other innocent person. The media would do well to take these things into account when reporting these incidents and leave out such phrases as "the gun discharged" as they do not accurately portray the events that lead to the injuries or loss of life that result from them.

Chicago politicians think you're stupid.

Recently the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's 28 year-old handgun ban as unconstitutional. While the outcome surprised few, Chicago's reaction to the ruling has raised a few eyebrows, especially among the pro-liberty crowd.

In response to the ruling, the city of Chicago has moved to revise its handgun ownership laws. Among the new laws, which are already being challenged, with support from the NRA, are a restriction to one gun per household and a continued ban on sale within the city limits of Chicago. None of this is surprising to anyone following the continuing saga of gun ownership rights in Chicago and across the nation. What is surprising, is the notion, promoted by "city leadership" that these tough new restrictions are necessary to prevent an outbreak of handgun violence in the city.

Hello! Planet Earth calling. This is Chicago, Illinois we're talking about, right? The same city that earlier this very year was contemplating calling in the National Guard to help with the outbreak of violence in the city? The very type of outbreak about which they are warning us now? Is that really the position they are taking?

This wouldn't be so sad if they weren't serious and the stakes weren't so high. There have already been at least 152 murders with a firearm in Chicago (as of June 15) and more are sure to follow. The city has become so dangerous that an 80 year-old Korean war veteran, a month before the ban was lifted, shot and killed an intruder who first fired at him. This, despite it being against the law at the time to own a handgun. But being 80 years old with your wife and grandson in the home leaves you few realistic choices for self defense. Luckily for this family one person made the right choice and it saved lives.

So why do I suggest that Chicago politicians think their constituents are stupid? The same reason most politicians think the same about their constituants. They present scary sounding facts to their adoring public and count on you to not read between the lines, or worse yet, not read what is right in front of them. And in most cases, they are correct. Case in point, directly from the text of Chicago's new ordinances:

"Whereas, between the beginning of this year and June 15, 2010, there were 742 aggrevated batteries with a firearm, of which 36 took place inside a residence, and 152 murders with a firearm, of which 19 were inside a residence;"

Let's look at this deeper, since this is part of their reasoning for limiting Chicagoans' right to defend life to the inside of their residence (not even the front porch or yard is legally defendable under the new laws). They argue that self defense must be limited to the home because of statistics like those above. And what they count on you to NOT notice, is the facts staring you right in the face, namely that over 95% of the aggrevated batteries mentioned took place OUTSIDE the home, as did over 87% of the murders. They are also counting on you to be grateful to them for making you a whopping 5% safer from aggrevated battery, or 12% safer from murder. Of course that's not true either.

Since, according to their own numbers, you are about 20 times more likely to be assaulted with a firearm outside your home, or about 8 times more likely to be murdered, to the astute observer this comes as very little comfort. As long as you cower within your home with your one, and only one, properly registered firearm at the ready, you will be safe. If, however, you choose not to live the life of a hermit you must leave that firearm at home, unlike the criminals in the above offenses who will have no fear taking your property, or your life, or both.

Chicago politicians supporting this bill also point out other obvious pitfalls of higher gun ownership, like increased danger for paramedics and other first responders, even though this has not been shown to be an issue in the other 48 states. But Daley and his cronies have never been known for their use of facts in support of gun control, so I guess this latest news really comes as no surprise. More to follow as facts, and the next court case, unfold.