Sensible Gun Control Isn't Fixing This; Neither Is Allah

As Mike Ford common sensibly pointed out here yesterday in "It's Time For Constitutional Carry"  the only common sense law regarding guns is constitutional carry.

Because, you see, the state of California, and therefore San Bernardino, already were protected under the liberal version of common sense gun laws.  But--and no surprise here--they weren't.  Liz Sheld of PJ Media explains California gun laws, which, for understandable reasons--or pure ignorance--or good old common sense, liberals have avoided.

California has very restrictive firearms laws, probably the most restrictive in America.  The laws are so restrictive that gun manufacturers have to make gunsspecifically for California. Many gun dealers or manufacturers just don't do business in California at all. It's a pain in the ass. (snip)

We don't know who bought the guns but if "an individual associated with the investigation" isn't the one using the gun, then it looks like this could have been a straw purchase. And while guns were legally purchased, we don't know if they were legally used. Also we don't know what capacity magazines were involved. Was it more than 10? Because that is illegal in California.

If these two murderers passed background checks and waited the 10 days that are required according to CA law, what other "common sense" laws could we consider? One important "common sense" law we do have here in America is the prohibition against murder. That law didn't stop these killers, why would we think more gun laws would be respected?

But when pressed for specificity about "common sense" restrictions on firearms, we don't hear much about a plan to stop gun violence. Following the California paradigm, where most assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines are straight out illegal, what additional restrictions are we missing? A longer waiting period? Background checks that include more information? What kind of information other than criminal history should be included in a background check?

So really? What's the plan? You know, the "common sense" one that doesn't involve a total ban on firearms?

Brian Doherty (hat tip, Sheld) provides a background of California gun laws at Reason. 

California has since 1989 banned a set of long guns it classifies as "assault rifles," see here for details. And "Generally, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine (able to accept more than 10 rounds) in California."

California also has a list of types of specific handgun models that are legal for sale, "available on the DOJ website at http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/," with all others presumptively illegal.

Here are types of people who can't legally obtain guns in California:

Any person convicted of any felony or any offense enumerated in Penal Code section 29905. [A wide variety of violent offenses, including murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping]

• Any person convicted of an offense enumerated in Penal Code section 23515. [anyone who had used a firearm in a violent offense]

• Any person with two or more convictions for violating Penal Code section 417, subdivision (a)(2) [anyone who has waved a gun in a quarrel, essentially, not in self-defense]

• Any person adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender...

• Any person found by a court to be mentally incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity of any crime, unless the court has made a finding of restoration of competence or sanity....

There are a wide variety of shorter-term prohibitions on gun ownership, including 10-year prohibitions for:

Any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation (snip)

The alleged shooter, Syed Farooq, successfully passed these common sense requirements plus the common sense hurdles to legally obtaining some of his guns which Doherty helpfully also explains. He also provides an overview of the law how guns can be legally used in California.  Ah, and here is a flaw of common sense gun laws: Mr. Farooq obviously did not use his guns legally. 

 Paris, France; Chicago, Illinois and many other areas in Europe, South America, the US  and elsewhere have restrictive common sense gun laws which make it difficult for decent law abiding citizens to obtain guns.  They are common around the world, not just in the US, despite President Barack Obama's (D) protestations.

Norway had the highest annual death rate, with 2 mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Macedonia had a rate of 0.38, Serbia 0.28, Slovakia 0.20, Finland 0.14, Belgium 0.14, and the Czech Republic 0.13.  The US comes in No. 8 with 0.095 mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Austria and Switzerland are close behind.

In terms of the frequency of attacks, the United States ranks ninth, with 0.09 attacks per million people.  Macedonia, Serbia, Switzerland, Norway, Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, and the Czech Republic all had higher rates.

 Non law abiding citizens or those up to now seemingly law abiding citizens with evil on their minds--the perhaps culturally oppressed Syed Farooq forced to attend a Christmas party negating his Allah comes to mind--also have problems obtaining guns but using their perverted common sense, manage to obtain them via methods that common sense citizens wouldn't/couldn't access.  So do the shootings and the murders and the terrors.

So, to continue paraphrasing the hyped New York Daily News cover, let's stop being cowards by hiding behind meaningless gun platitudes and fix the gun laws so those with guns and murderous intent will be disarmed and eliminated by those with guns and peaceful intentions.

That's common sense.

As Mike Ford common sensibly pointed out here yesterday in "It's Time For Constitutional Carry"  the only common sense law regarding guns is constitutional carry.

Because, you see, the state of California, and therefore San Bernardino, already were protected under the liberal version of common sense gun laws.  But--and no surprise here--they weren't.  Liz Sheld of PJ Media explains California gun laws, which, for understandable reasons--or pure ignorance--or good old common sense, liberals have avoided.

California has very restrictive firearms laws, probably the most restrictive in America.  The laws are so restrictive that gun manufacturers have to make gunsspecifically for California. Many gun dealers or manufacturers just don't do business in California at all. It's a pain in the ass. (snip)

We don't know who bought the guns but if "an individual associated with the investigation" isn't the one using the gun, then it looks like this could have been a straw purchase. And while guns were legally purchased, we don't know if they were legally used. Also we don't know what capacity magazines were involved. Was it more than 10? Because that is illegal in California.

If these two murderers passed background checks and waited the 10 days that are required according to CA law, what other "common sense" laws could we consider? One important "common sense" law we do have here in America is the prohibition against murder. That law didn't stop these killers, why would we think more gun laws would be respected?

But when pressed for specificity about "common sense" restrictions on firearms, we don't hear much about a plan to stop gun violence. Following the California paradigm, where most assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines are straight out illegal, what additional restrictions are we missing? A longer waiting period? Background checks that include more information? What kind of information other than criminal history should be included in a background check?

So really? What's the plan? You know, the "common sense" one that doesn't involve a total ban on firearms?

Brian Doherty (hat tip, Sheld) provides a background of California gun laws at Reason. 

California has since 1989 banned a set of long guns it classifies as "assault rifles," see here for details. And "Generally, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine (able to accept more than 10 rounds) in California."

California also has a list of types of specific handgun models that are legal for sale, "available on the DOJ website at http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/," with all others presumptively illegal.

Here are types of people who can't legally obtain guns in California:

Any person convicted of any felony or any offense enumerated in Penal Code section 29905. [A wide variety of violent offenses, including murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping]

• Any person convicted of an offense enumerated in Penal Code section 23515. [anyone who had used a firearm in a violent offense]

• Any person with two or more convictions for violating Penal Code section 417, subdivision (a)(2) [anyone who has waved a gun in a quarrel, essentially, not in self-defense]

• Any person adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender...

• Any person found by a court to be mentally incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity of any crime, unless the court has made a finding of restoration of competence or sanity....

There are a wide variety of shorter-term prohibitions on gun ownership, including 10-year prohibitions for:

Any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation (snip)

The alleged shooter, Syed Farooq, successfully passed these common sense requirements plus the common sense hurdles to legally obtaining some of his guns which Doherty helpfully also explains. He also provides an overview of the law how guns can be legally used in California.  Ah, and here is a flaw of common sense gun laws: Mr. Farooq obviously did not use his guns legally. 

 Paris, France; Chicago, Illinois and many other areas in Europe, South America, the US  and elsewhere have restrictive common sense gun laws which make it difficult for decent law abiding citizens to obtain guns.  They are common around the world, not just in the US, despite President Barack Obama's (D) protestations.

Norway had the highest annual death rate, with 2 mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Macedonia had a rate of 0.38, Serbia 0.28, Slovakia 0.20, Finland 0.14, Belgium 0.14, and the Czech Republic 0.13.  The US comes in No. 8 with 0.095 mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Austria and Switzerland are close behind.

In terms of the frequency of attacks, the United States ranks ninth, with 0.09 attacks per million people.  Macedonia, Serbia, Switzerland, Norway, Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, and the Czech Republic all had higher rates.

 Non law abiding citizens or those up to now seemingly law abiding citizens with evil on their minds--the perhaps culturally oppressed Syed Farooq forced to attend a Christmas party negating his Allah comes to mind--also have problems obtaining guns but using their perverted common sense, manage to obtain them via methods that common sense citizens wouldn't/couldn't access.  So do the shootings and the murders and the terrors.

So, to continue paraphrasing the hyped New York Daily News cover, let's stop being cowards by hiding behind meaningless gun platitudes and fix the gun laws so those with guns and murderous intent will be disarmed and eliminated by those with guns and peaceful intentions.

That's common sense.