Until We Stop Focusing on the Tool Instead of the Individual, Mass Shootings Will Continue

Last night, Mark Levin talked about the latest shootings in California and how we are never going to solve these things as long as one side's default position is to ban a certain type of gun:

The fallback position for the Democrats, for the media, Pelosi today is we need an assault weapons ban. We had a so-called assault weapons ban in 1994. We’ve had John Lott on this program before with his genius and his ability to comprehend and explain statistics like nobody else. And it made no difference. But why did it make no difference? Because if you’re a career killer or you’re a member of a gang, or you’re plotting to kill people. You’re not going to acquire a gun necessarily, legally maybe, or steal it from somebody, a family member. Maybe you’ll get it on the black market. There’s just enormous numbers of ways they assume, to do this sort of. And so their default position is assault weapons ban. So we’re never going to resolve this as long as there’s an ideological default position. I don’t know that we can ever solve it, period. Given there are nutjobs out there, there’s evil people out there and so forth and so on. 

You can listen to the entire clip here.

Jim Geraghty wrote over at National Review that you can't ban something that is already banned.  You see, the firearm that was used was already on the list of banned firearms in California:

The shooter in Monterey Park reportedly used a Cobray M11 9mm semi-automatic weapon, which is designed to look like, and is often mistaken for, the MAC-10. Cobray purchased the rights to the design from the Military Armament Corporation and created its own smaller, lighter, cheaper version. Those who take shooting seriously consider the Cobray M11 “one of the most useless handguns in existence” and conclude that, “Everything about this gun just makes it hard to shoot accurately, so it’s much better to fire from the hip and keep your enemies guessing.”

Both the MAC-10 and the Cobray M11 are illegal to possess in California.  

 He continued:

Gun-control advocates have a problem here, in that they are calling for the ban of a weapon that is already illegal. The state can increase the criminal penalties for possessing one, but it cannot ban it harder. ...This is the distilled essence of the modern gun-control movement: throwing additional civil penalties atop the considerable criminal penalties imposed on illegal-gun dealers, in the hopes of keeping guns out of the hands of those who, because they are not in their rights minds and don’t necessarily plan on living long enough to face justice for the crimes they intend to commit, will go to nearly any length to procure weapons.

As Levin noted, Democrats are focused like a laser on banning guns with Gavin Newsom calling the Second Amendment a "suicide pact" and Joe Biden using the shootings to push for banning so-called "assault weapons".

Both Levin and Geraghty make a good point.  The individuals who commit these heinous crimes don't care about the law.  They are intent on doing evil.  And no amount of gun control is going to change that fact.   

What Starts in California Moves Across the Country

Craig DeLuz of the Firearms Policy Coalition spoke recently at the Gun Rights Policy Conference.  Without mentioning Virginia, he laid out pretty well what will likely come our way if we don't hold our pro-rights majority in this year's election.  Please take the just over 6 1/2 minutes of the video to watch his entire remarks.

Gun Control Proponent Adam Winkler Says Banning Standard Capacity Magazines is a Bad Idea

It has been said that once a gun control proposal is passed in California it is only a few short years before it makes it's way to the east coast.  That is one reason we should all be watching very closely the proposal of California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom to require background checks for ammunition and to ban standard capacity magazines that have previously been grandfathered under previous laws.  It is quite telling how useless this proposal is in preventing crime when gun control proponent Adam Winkler takes to the LA Times to write how the magazine ban is a bad idea (he is fine with the background checks for ammunition however).  Winkler says the proposal focuses on mass shootings, which are rare and would do nothing to prevent the "daily death toll from guns."  He also said passing such a law would create less respect for laws in general.

Even the slight benefit promised by a ban on large magazines — forcing mass shooters to delay momentarily — is outweighed by the unfortunate consequences of passing a law that normally law-abiding people won't obey. If past experience is any guide, the magazine ban is just such a law. In 2013 Sunnyvale banned high-capacity magazines and, after a grace period for gun owners, police reported that not a single person had turned in a magazine. Los Angeles and San Francisco enacted similar laws and few, if any, gun owners have disposed of their magazines.

As more gun laws that gun owners believe are wrong or foolish have been adopted, noncompliance has become a significant problem. When California required registration of assault weapons in 1990, only about 7,000 of the estimated 300,000 assault weapons then in the state were registered. In New York, which required registration of assault weapons in 2013, the compliance rate is about 5%. Connecticut has also seen a remarkably low rate of compliance with its law mandating registration of large magazines.

Why is compliance with such laws so low? Some people have an ideological opposition to any gun control law. Yet when 95% of gun owners don't comply with a law, it's not just the die-hards objecting. Legal theorists argue that people are more likely to comply with laws they view as morally or socially just. To a person whose gun came standard with one of these magazines and who has owned it for years without incident, the idea that these devices are inherently dangerous does not resonate.

Winkler, who is a professor at the UCLA School of Law, is a realistic gun control advocate.

Like alcohol, drugs and file-sharing, guns — including the ones with large magazines — are here to stay. Gun policy is going to be more effective when we stop fighting against that simple fact.

Don't hold your breath for other gun control advocates to get that fact.

California Proposes Gun Control Measure Pushed at December UVA Forum

The New York Times reports that the California legislature is pushing a so-called "gun violence restraining order" bill that would allow family members to notify courts or law enforcement officials if they are concerned that a family member or friend is at risk of committing violence.  The gun ban lobby has been pushing this in state legislatures this year and unveiled the proposal as part of a gun control forum held at the University of Virginia last December.  Sebastian noted the problems with such proposals yesterday:

I want to especially focus on the mental health law in California, especially given Bob Owens piece this morning about how California is going to make it easy for your friends or family who may not like guns to deny you your fundamental rights with no due process. They are proposing to make a means for friends and family to petition to have you denied your Second Amendment rights. How many people you know, coworkers, etc, think you’re nuts just because you own a gun?

The gun ban lobby was not successful in passing such a law in Virginia this year and the Times notes that even though California has some of the harshest gun control in the nation, it could be tough going getting the bill passed and signed by Governor Brown:

Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the California Senate, said in an interview on Wednesday that he was not familiar with the details of the restraining order legislation, though he foresaw concerns being raised about civil liberties. Such a bill “would have to be very carefully crafted, because you do not want the law to get into the middle, or just to be used as a pretext or excuse for leverage in an intergenerational family fight,” he said. “You could see the potential for abuse.” 

On the other hand, Mr. Steinberg said: “There might be circumstances where it is appropriate for this additional protection. I think this is worthy of a real serious conversation.” 

If the gun ban lobby is successful in California, look for them to come back for another bite at the apple in Virginia next year.