Virginia, since it’s democratic electoral swing, has been in a bit of a crisis around the 2nd Amendment. Virginia has gone full bore on 2A restrictions including a de facto ban on firearm training. However, as has become common in place like Oregon which also swung anti-2A, Viriginian counties have held their own votes and many have elected to ignore Richmond.

BATSUKH: Sheriffs ought to obey state gun control legislation

Bilge Batsukh over at The Cavalier Daily believes that isn’t a good idea.

I disagree.

Batsukh has a point worth considering. Virginia is… well here’s the explanation.

The reality is that those local measures are entirely symbolic. Virginia is a Dillon’s Rule state, meaning the authorities of local governments are derived from the legislature such that counties cannot legally obstruct the will of Richmond on most issues. With a Democratic grip on statewide executive offices and both houses of the legislature, counties face the option of following the law or having their authority rescinded by the state. 

Though the constitution of Virginia provides for the creation of local governments, it does not allow said governments to act as truly independent organizations. If counties were empowered to create “sanctuaries” for certain actions or properties, they would be able to completely circumvent state laws regarding educational curricula, regulation of commercial activity and all other facets of government that impact our everyday lives. 

True, Batsukh, true. But what if they all do it anyway. Or at least a significant number of counties like… oh say… all the green ones plus a few more that could pass the option.

What I’m saying is there is a critical mass of counties within the State of Virginia that, if they go sanctuary, it doesn’t really matter what the rule in Richmond is. The State will not have enough mechanisms in place to enforce their rules, it is the open expression of ‘governance at the consent of the governed’, and the whole of Virginia does not consent.

At best, gun control laws will be enforced by state troopers instead of by sheriffs’ offices, usurping the traditional role of law enforcement in many jurisdictions. Refusal to serve the interests of the legislature is futile, and can only end in either extreme divisiveness or the end of elected, local control of law enforcement duties. The existence of the sheriff’s office bridges the creation of laws by the state and their enforcement by local authorities. Law enforcement ought to be carried out by those close to the community, but the state does have the supreme right to intervene and see its will carried out. Having law enforcement officers refuse to carry out the law is a recipe for apartisan anarchy in the future.

Again, critical mass argument. There aren’t enough State LEO’s to effectively enforce unconstitutional prohibitions. Is this divisive? Yes. It’s time to stop pretending that it isn’t, or that we should all “enforce it until it gets figured out in the courts” when we know the courts have are very partisan as well.

This division is running amok because bad laws keep getting passed. Every time a bad law makes it into the books, erosion of legitimate authority occurs and divisiveness increases. The consent of the governed wanes further and we get closer to less than ideal political climates like that currently illustrated in Virginia. When the government is focusing the the defense of its citizens individual liberties and is carefully framing each and every rule with that in mind, the legitimate authority is retained. Even if a citizen group disagrees with a rule the spirit of good governance overall can be maintained by the transparent and overt policy decisions being disected in the light of being as minimally invasive as possible to be effective.

I see your point, Batsuhk, I really do.

And ideally it would be an easy, quick, apparent ‘law passage’ to ‘law struck down as unconstitutional’ for these onerous ineffective restrictions. But people are worried because they do not see that. They don’t see an even hand in the courts across the nation right now, they see a piecemeal application that leaves the rights of a New Yorker and Californian vastly different than that of a Texan or Michigander. With the massive partisan disparity and court cases that should probably see the light of day and get a decision sometimes dying because they simply can’t be funded… faith in larger governing bodies is eroding.

So ultimately, even if this is a symbolic gesture, the fact that it has entered into the political discourse is a salient point that Richmond and Washington D.C. need to pay very close attention to. If Richmond wants to clash with its counties on this resulting legal fallout and further erosion is something I don’t know if Richmond is ready to take the necessary steps to avoid and regain the confidence of its citizens.

We will see.

The Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act is introduced to the Ways and Means committee this week and to the House of Representatives as a whole by Congressman Dr. Roger Marshall.

Yes, M.D. Marshall is a physician by trade and wants Short Barreled Rifles (SBRs) deregulated.

“Opponents of the Second Amendment want to use bureaucracy and regulations to obstruct citizens attempting to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms. The firearms addressed in this bill are commonly used for hunting, personal defense, and competitive shooting,” said Dr. Marshall. “Since I came to Congress, I have fought tooth and nail to stop attempts that would strip our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This bill will eliminate regulations designed not to protect Americans, but to deny them their Constitutional rights.”

The full text of the bill is not yet available but from the tone of the introduction it is pretty simple. Get SBRs off the National Firearms Act. It’s a technologically moot distinction. Rifles of certain barrel lengths are not more or less dangerous than other rifles. Especially when they exist as pistols too.

According to statistics from the ATF, some 413,167 SBRs were listed on the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) as of May 2019. In 2014 there were only 137,201 SBRs on the books. This doesn’t even count the popularity of “AR Pistols” that avoid the tax penalty and weight times of the NFA.

Would this mean the end of the ‘Brace’?

No.

AR Pistols inhabit a unique legal niche, not just a physical one or a technical NFA work around. In many locales a ‘pistol’ is required to be the firearm transported for personal protection and so AR type pistols would still have a market, just a shifted one. The rifles, of any length, would just be purchasable in any desired configuration with no one having to parse out the idiocracies of barrel length and overall length just because it has a buttstock. Buttstock+rifled barrel = rifle. Easy.

This would also open up a vast market of original firearms that would no longer have to worry about violating the NFA in their original forms. The X95 that has a native 13″ barrel, just a rifle. M4 and M4A1 clones, just rifles. SCAR with a 14.5″ barrel, just a rifle. Owners and buyers who want certain variants of firearms would no longer be required to get them multistep. Manufacturers would be free to optimize their builds and parts based solely on performance and not on an arbitrary length they must hit with their parts configuration.

Will it pass?

Sadly… probably not. It’s in sitting in an anti-gun seated house at the moment and it stops revenue into the government coffers. How much? About $55.2 Million since 2014. Small change to a government that spends in the trillions but still 8 figures of operating revenue.

But I want it to. I want to support it fully once the text hits and we see all of what it will do towards gutting the NFA back to oblivion.

No.

We.

Can’t.

The headline quote is from a piece in the Daily Bulletin, Titled: Congress must enact common sense gun control… Penned by Norma Torres, a congressional representative of California’s 35th district.

Ms. Torres, no we can’t.

We can make it illegal for such a person to possess a weapon, as it already is, and we can it make illegal for them to misuse a weapon, as it already is, but we cannot pass a law that prevents. We can only pass laws that fine, that punish for a breach of social contract on a stated action.

A speed limit does not prevent speeding, it penalizes it with a cost incentive. Speeding is a calculated risk based on a myriad of factors that influence a drivers decision to do so. A speed limit may reduce speeding, it may reduce accidents, it does not prevent.

When we are discussing items like firearms and in instances of such select occurrence as a mass casualty attack we must speak of prevention in terms of absolute prevention, or at least near absolute. To do anything else or to target this problem in any other way and term it prevention is inaccurate and disingenuous.

So why are we allowing this language, why are we speaking in this manner instead of the more accurate vocabulary which would speak of reduction, response, intervention, and most importantly probability of success.

I know why. I know this is an appeal to your largely firearm and risk ignorant voter base. I know this is crafted in a language that is comforting and makes people who do not know better feel safer. I know that feelings matter. But promising that which you cannot and that you know you cannot deliver is voter pandering at its lowest.

“The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 and the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019 both passed the House of Representatives, and are currently collecting dust in the Senate. If they were passed and signed into law, they would immediately address the background check issues I outlined here.”

How, Ms. Torres? How would those two acts immediately address the problems you outlined of incomplete criminal records or agencies not talking with each other? How would this prevent those without disqualifying records of planning an attack as happened in Las Vegas or Norfolk? How would this cure poor recordkeeping overnight and prevent errors like the United States Air Force made from allowing a sale?

“I’m a co-sponsor of the Ghost Guns are Guns Act, which – if passed – would require assembly kits to be considered firearms so we can start tracking them and ensure they don’t fall into dangerous hands.”

Ensure? You, through this act… the ‘Ghost Guns are Guns Act’ are going to ensure (make certain of, guarantee, verify) that such firearms don’t fall into dangerous hands? How so? What methodology do you have to assure us that you can ensure our safety? If we just pass one more rule, this is it this is the one! This rule will make it so people of ill intent cannot harm us with Ghost Guns?

Your solution, I assume, is to force any piece that can be assembled into a firearm receiver and is sold with that intent to be serialized and have to pass NICS. Which will only prevent criminal misuse of a weapon if this was the only method that person was willing to use. Are you willing, Ms. Torres, to stake your professional reputation on this? Your position? Your safety? Because you are most assuredly asking your constituency to place their safety under the assurance of your legislation.

“And I am the author of the Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act. It would require gun dealers to file a report anytime a customer buys more than one rifle within five days. This is a commonsense step that would help law enforcement crack down on gun trafficking. We already require it for handguns, so why wouldn’t we require it for assault-style weapons, too?”

This might be the most valid of your proposals yet. But please, Ms. Torres, provide me some evidence base from the ATF, FBI, or other law enforcement body which shows me a chain of information and where this is being used to substantial effect on handguns. What is the breakdown of trafficking stopped, suspected trafficking disrupted, and estimates on the disruption to the illegal trafficking in rifles? What percentage of multiple sales reports are just personally identifiable information on law-abiding citizens and do not generate an arrest at all?

It’s a cost/benefit analysis, Ms. Torres. The cost in giving up a greater portion of a natural right, constitutionally enshrined. The cost in manpower and working hours spent chasing information that doesn’t stop an attack. What does this list of additional rules do and at what cost?

Because what I see, Ms. Torres, is another list of unfulfillable political promises, either through naive altruism or wilful deceit.

If I ask why a road needs a speed limit and the answer comes back, “The speed limit is designed to, along with properly maintained vehicles and drivers adjusting for weather conditions, allow safe and efficient transit of the road its paths, turns, and reaction to sudden changes A, B, and C…” then I am getting the answer needed to the question, and the restriction on speed can be considered in proper well educated context.

Where is the plan, Ms. Torres?

“Two of my constituents died four years ago in San Bernardino. At a bare minimum, we owe it to them to pass the common-sense laws that would prevent the same events from playing out, over and over. It sickens me to think that so much time has passed, and so little change has occurred.”

Prevent… Common Sense… Ensure…

I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean, Representative. And therein lies the problem in ‘having a conversation’ about common sense gun control.