Scott Shapiro Speaks Up (Obama Gun Presser)
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2013-01-16 12:26 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 15 references Ignore this thread
Scott Shapiro Speaks Up (Obama Gun Presser) *
Category thumbnail

Oh look what we have here!

As a former prosecutor in Washington, D.C., who enforced firearms and ammunition cases while a severe local gun ban was still in effect, I am skeptical of the benefits that many imagine will result from additional gun-control efforts. I dislike guns, but I believe that a nationwide firearms crackdown would place an undue burden on law enforcement and endanger civil liberties while potentially increasing crime.

Yep.  And the statistics?

The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.

Remember -- this is the former DC Prosecutor.  He saw the crime increase first-hand.  He also saw the dilution of police response since they were both chasing phantoms and violating people's civil rights.  The people living in DC received a negative outcome from both.

And since Heller, which struck the ban?

Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976.

More than a 50% reduction in four years? 

Hmmmm...

My view is that an unalienable right is just that.  So-called "background checks" are unlikely to stop an actual criminal from getting a gun and encourage more crime.  Believe it or not I'd rather eliminate the Brady Law and indeed the Gun Control Act of 1968 entirely, because it would improve the traceability of firearms and reduce crime overall.

That is, if you're going to murder I'd rather you buy the gun legally (where you get your mug on a security camera along with a recorded serial number in the store's computer) so when you commit a crime with that gun we know where you got it and what the pathway was that it took to get to you.  In addition we would eliminate the anciliary crime you commit in stealing the firearm, which could be something so simple as a B&E or something as complex as an additional murder, as was the case at Sandy Hook.

While it sounds insane at first blush if we got rid of the background check and restrictions we would actually reduce crime since most of the stolen guns would no longer be stolen.  Further, there are times when someone legitimately discovers a "sudden need" for a gun (e.g. a woman who finds out that "nice guy" she was dating is really a dangerous stalker -- three business days, as is the case here in Florida, is a hell of a long time to wait when you think someone is intending to******or murder you!)

The counter-argument of course is that felons would be easily able to get guns.  But they get them easily now -- they just commit another crime in the process.  Further, if you're convicted of a felony and serve your time, including any parole that comes with it, under our system of justice you've "paid your debt to society." 

Or so we claim.

Reality is that since felony records are public if you have one you are permanently disabled in earnings capacity and thus will be living in crappier parts of town and making less money forever.  That's bad enough.  What's worse is that you now get to either choose to commit another felony (owning a gun) or you're a target for every thug who doesn't give a crap about the law and decides to rob you. And just like we've seen in NY, the crooks can and do use those public records to identify "targets" for their violence.

The paradox, therefore, is that our gun laws promote recidivism! 

That's backward from what we should be promoting.

Instead, let's look at the facts on the other side of this problem.  The jackass who shot two firefighters in NY had previously been convicted of killing his grandmother -- with a hammer.  He got his gun through a straw purchaser (who has since been arrested.)  The law didn't stop him from getting a gun, just as it didn't stop Lanza.

What would have stopped him is if we never let him out after his first homicide.  But we did.

This is similar to a case I wrote about a couple of years ago in Florida where a jackass killed a Marshal who was coming to serve him some papers.  He blasted him with a shotgun.  Needless to say he didn't buy said shotgun at Cabelas, so our much-vaunted "background check" did nothing.

But this guy was a two time loser, and once his name was out I was easily able to find him through a Department of Corrections search here in Florida -- all public, on The Internet. 

He was first arrested for carjacking and did time for it.  Then, after being released, he decided that sexual assault was a good idea and was arrested, convicted and imprisoned for that

We let him out again and this time he shot the Marshal. 

Those are two murders that shouldn't have happened as the opportunity should not have existed to commit them.  In neither case, just as with Lanza, were laws requiring background checks effective.  Nor will they ever be, because a criminal willing to use a gun in the commission of a felony is willing to commit a second felony to acquire the weapon.  In the case of someone willing to murder all the other crimes are free since he can only be hanged once.

We also have a serious problem with the mentally ill.  Reagan closed most of the State Hospitals and we have since listened to the liberal left that claims that it's "inhumane" to confine people who are seriously mentally ill in some fashion.

The problem with severely crazy people is that if you can control their insanity with meds then they feel fine while taking the meds and thus many of them will decide to stop.  Once they get off the meds they're insane and therefore don't realize they need to start taking them.  In addition many of these people play the "self-medication" game with alcohol, illegal drugs or they run around from doctor to doctor shopping symptoms until they get something "fun" to add to their daily routine -- at which point they're nuts as well.

This is a one-way trip to Hell and it's a difficult problem -- but one we need to talk about and address. 

There is no means to address this other than civil confinement of some sort, since you can't monitor where the pills go if someone is living on their own. The "minimum" might be some sort of group home where compliance with medication can be monitored and so can potential side effects.

The current process of requiring someone to be judicially adjudicated as unfit is a good one; judicial review in an open court is an important guardian against abuse.  But what has to go with that is civil confinement, not "simply" firearms disability.  The reason is obvious -- again, someone willing to commit a crime of violence, whether insane or not, will also commit whatever other crimes are necessary to obtain the weapons. 

We therefore can only hope to control this if those people are under confinement of some sort, and open-court judicial intervention is about all we have that balances civil rights in a reasonably-congruent fashion with public safety, all while respecting The Constitution.  It's not illegal to be crazy -- this only rises to the level of intervention if you're dangerous to others, and an open courtroom is the only way we can determine that in a form and fashion that is able to be examined to prevent abuses.

Unfortunately what happens now is that you pretty-much cannot get someone referred into the system and examined on this basis.  This problem is not limited to "Blue" states.  And the "pill mill" problem which Florida claims to have addressed (among a few other states) has in fact not been addressed at all. 

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

At the same time we must address psychoactive drugs and their effects on young people.  While the incidence of "rage monster" behavior side effects only presents in a tiny percentage of those who use these substances the fact remains that this risk appears to be unique to people under the age of 25 on these drugs.  

This is clearly-documented both in the prescribing information and from the history of these offenses stretching back more than two decades!

While mass-shooting offenses are a very small portion of the total number of homicides (under 1%), they are nonetheless something we must explore, understand and put a stop to where we can do so without violating unalienable rights.

Biden and Obama are as I write this standing at the podium with their presser to announce how they wish to attack the Second Amendment, attempting to impose collective punishment upon the innocent because someone else committed a series of serious felonies.

Obama says he wants to take steps "right now." 

But notice that there is no talk about the prescription drugs that virtually all of these mass-shooters are on. 

None. 

Yet that is the singular common thread between all of these incidents.

The premise that "if there is even one life that can be saved we have an obligation to try" is utter crap.  I can stop virtually all gun violence tomorrow.  You simply need to make me Fuhrer and I will direct the military and police to go into every home every day and stop every walker and car driver, searching you all -- every single day.  Damn the Constitution, full speed ahead!

That would be tyranny, and it is exactly the sort of thing that Obama is trying to enact.

As for the "Assault Weapons Ban" perhaps you can tell me why the police need these weapons if they are designed solely to "kill as many people as possible" as Obama asserts?

The truth is a different matter -- these weapons are very effective weapons of defense and any law enforcement official will tell you straight up that many felony offenders are jacked up on drugs and unlike in the movies one shot does not stop them -- sometimes ten shots do not stop them.

The people have every right to own and bear the same defensive weaponry that our police officers have and use on a daily basis.  Indeed, the seminal case Miller said exactly this; the very definition of weapons that are protected under The Second Amendment are those suitable for militia use

As such these weapons and full-capacity magazines are not on the table for debate, restriction or negotiation Mr. President.  Your own security detail thinks they're necessary and that's all the evidence anyone in this country needs, in addition to being the very definition of Constitutional constraint as expressed by well-settled law.

Obama wants to more-severely punish straw purchasers.  I'm ok with that, but why do we need new laws?  The law already provides for such punishment!  Can you not already try someone as an accessory before the fact if they are a straw buyer?  You sure can, under existing law.  Do so.

The real problem here is that the left, including Obama, refuses to lock people up for the felonies they commit and keep them locked up until they're not dangerous any longer.

As for the BATFE director, let's first find out exactly what happened with Fast And Furious and indict, try, convict and imprison everyone involved.

I'll be happy to talk about a BATFE director confirmation when all the accessories before the fact for the hundreds of murders that resulted from that criminal enterprise and both were and are employed within our government go straight to prison.

Look in the damned mirror first Mr. President and clean your own house, then come talk to we the people.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 



 
Comments on Scott Shapiro Speaks Up (Obama Gun Presser)
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 4  First1234Last
Checkthisout 327 posts, incept 2010-10-01

I hope you caught what Obama is up to with his executive orders. He wants doctors to ask if there are firearms in the home. Once the doctor checks off that box, that home goes into their system as a home with a gun.

Voila! -> Defacto gun registration

Next up, they will require annual health check-ups.

----------
There are no gun free zones where free men tread.
Uppity_peasant 4k posts, incept 2009-06-26

Quote:
I hope you caught what Obama is up to with his executive orders. He wants doctors to ask if there are firearms in the home. Once the doctor checks off that box, that home goes into their system as a home with a gun.

Voila! -> Defacto gun registration


Right. It's a dog whistle for the Statists. And they'll probably be quite pushy about it, marking you as a GunJuden if you are coy or defiant.

addendum:

Samadams wrote..
Well, you could just say, "no" - what's the penalty for lying to your doc? He's not an official of any law enforcement agency. Ends the problem right there.


How does it "end the problem" if they mark you as having guns if you refuse to "cooperate". You'll have to be convincing.

There are probably all sorts of weaselly ****cago-type "directives" being prepared for dissemination "under the radar".

After all, Das Gov owns a lot of the upcoming doctors through their student loans.

----------
====
If it's true that "assault weapons" are "weapons of war" and don't belong on the streets of America, why do the police need them? Who are the police at war with?

Reason: addendum
Samadams 595 posts, incept 2008-12-03

This is a boundary violation - the docs are not licensed by the states as safety experts, so if any harm comes to you because of their advice on the matter (i.e. "lock up the guns" - and you can't get it out in time to resist a thief/rapist/etc.), then their malpractice insurance won't cover it.

Docs need to be reminded of this constantly. Also, getting up and walking out when you're asked that question will have an effect.
Samadams 595 posts, incept 2008-12-03

Quote:

Right. It's a dog whistle for the Statists. And they'll probably be quite pushy about it, marking you as a GunJuden if you are coy or defiant.


Well, you could just say, "no" - what's the penalty for lying to your doc? You're not under oath. He's not an official of any law enforcement agency. Ends the problem right there.

Wearedoomed 4k posts, incept 2009-01-14

Yeah, Sam, but then you'll be at risk of losing your "insurance" if the Feds find out. Oh, you don't have an alternative? So solly!

----------
Being successful is like being the Homecoming Queen. All the ugly bitches hate you.
- Charles Barkley
Donethat 945 posts, incept 2009-04-22

Don't stop writing about this and the lousy enforcement of current laws.

As far as psychoactive drugs, I know they are dangerous at any age. It just appears to me that older people are less prone to violence drugged or undrugged. to paraphrase the masters, a 12 or 14 year old may not have lived long enough to want to continue to savor the fruits of life.
Samadams 595 posts, incept 2008-12-03

Quote:
Yeah, Sam, but then you'll be at risk of losing your "insurance" if the Feds find out. Oh, you don't have an alternative? So solly!


Don't think so...and don't give a rat's ass. Anyway, unless I come in for the treatment of a gunshot wound, guns and my medical condition have exactly zero to do with each other. I'm not going to cooperate in giving the statists any more information about me than they already have. Let them work for it, at least.
Kylafoon 2k posts, incept 2009-02-05

CC's are issued by the state and my state (NC)
requires that your Doctor be contacted and provide
something of an opinion on the eligibility of applicant.
Will the Feds be able to harvest that info now?

----------
"...But whenever we see things done wildly, but taken tamely, then the State is growing insane..." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton 1910

"I found a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical
Docj 1k posts, incept 2009-09-10

Left unsaid by King Putt is how any of these EO's would have prevented any of the recent tragedies that are, allegedly, the push behind "doing something about guns."

It's almost as if he wants it that way.

Up next? An executive order banning "re-loading".

----------
The preservation of liberty depends upon the intellectual and moral character of the people. As long as knowledge and virtue are diffused generally among the body of a nation it is impossible they
Checkthisout 327 posts, incept 2010-10-01

Kyla, I don't remember having to get my Dr. involved to get my cc here in NC...perhaps they perform the check as part of the issuance process? I know for sure I didn't have to provide a Dr.'s name though. I guess they just check the MIB for issues

----------
There are no gun free zones where free men tread.
Rubberchicken 1k posts, incept 2007-08-29

Quote:
He wants doctors to ask if there are firearms in the home.


Note to self: Move guns to shed tonite.

D: "Any guns in yer home?"

RC: "Nope!"

----------
All this time you've been eating **** and all you can do is argue about which flavor is better!!! - Internet comment about Dem / Repub sparring

Reason: HTML novice
Tristan 730 posts, incept 2009-04-08

Pediatricians asking about guns in the home? Does my kid have a bullet wound? You do your job, I'll do mine.
Zzt 3k posts, incept 2007-06-26

A bit off topic - The essence of gun ownership in America has nothing to do with crime , hunting , personal protection , etc. It is also a subject which will never be discussed when debating gun controls. All of the statistics and logic will fall on deaf ears if a person has a preconceived conclusion. Logical argument backed by fact have no affect on one that will not consider your argument but the argument must be made never the less. A Ticker , and others like it , are useful and should be made and I appreciate the information although it will fall on deaf ears when speaking to gun control advocates.

Our founding fathers mentioned one reason for Americans to have guns and in that statement from the Dec. of Ind. the word 'gun' is never mentioned :



"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "

It is their "RIGHT" ......it is their "DUTY" ..........

That's why we have guns in America. The primary reason we have guns in America. Everything , every other reason , is secondary.
Wineaux 559 posts, incept 2009-03-23

I'm surprised that this announcement came so quickly. I was thinking post debt ceiling finale. One thing for sure is that Oblabla got a giant set of clankers. Banking his second term legacy on gun control with everything else going on....FOOL!

----------
What wine goes with unemployment?
Bertdilbert 2k posts, incept 2008-12-22

Karl, You cannot apply common sense and logical thinking to a government hell bent on violating your rights. Government are the criminals.

Case in point. When we elect politicians we are basically hiring people to mind the store. Then they sell off the store in exchange for campaign contributions.

They are selling off that which is not their property, that to which they were entrusted. For their own personal benefit.

Karl, if you had an employee under your charge and you caught them doing that they would be instantly fired. Yet this criminal activity goes on daily.

You ticker your complaints of bankers not going to jail and medical monopolies. Yet these are but symptom of a bought government. Until you can remove the common criminals that are minding the store and replace them with honest people none of the problems that currently plague us can be fixed.

Unless we can come up with a plan to change the current system and route out the criminals in Washington and states, as a country we are doomed.

----------
Dear Euroland: Relax, Germany has a plan for your money!Political Capital Defined: We are out of money but will tax our citizens for whatever it takes to "SAVE" the Euro.

Imustbenutz 343 posts, incept 2010-11-04

If one uses critical reasoning skills to dissect the 23 new Executive orders, one would reach the conclusion that they encroach on:

2A - right to keep and bear arms

4A - right to privacy

5A - right to remain silent

9A - enumeration of right, shall not be construed to deny or disparage rights retained by the people

10A - powers not delegated by the Constitution are reserved to the States

Damn near a clean sweep!
Docj 1k posts, incept 2009-09-10

As expected, the MSM are in full-throated All-Hail-King-Putt mode right now.

----------
The preservation of liberty depends upon the intellectual and moral character of the people. As long as knowledge and virtue are diffused generally among the body of a nation it is impossible they
Machinist123 187 posts, incept 2010-02-27

Gen, thank you
very few people speak up for the rights of people like myself (felon) I've never commited an act of violence and statistically someone who's been out as long as I have is no more likely to than anyone else. But I am considered dangerous and will do 5 years for even wearing a bullet proof vest the gov wants me to be easy to kill. Most people NRA included agree I don't have rights.

no one complained when they took my right and now their shocked that its time for them to lose their rights.
Marvinmartian 759 posts, incept 2011-03-16

Bert wrote..
Unless we can come up with a plan to change the current system


We have a system that could work if the population was applying reason when deciding to cast a vote.

Unfortunately reason has been abandoned.

One thing that has really gone wrong is that an independent and critical free press has been taken over by a handful of corporations with their own agendas.
Lostinspace 237 posts, incept 2009-05-06

The ironic thing is all that Obama is doing is encouraging people to want to own a gun, not the other way around. Not only a gun, but other products such as tasers and pepper spray to carry as protection. Gun bans make people feel less safe. I bet sales of all these products are skyrocketing.

Doctors don't have enough to do. Obama wants them to start asking patients if they own a gun? Either say no with conviction or don't go to medical doctors unless you have to go to the ER for an emergency (then God help you). Go to Alternative Care Health providers such as naturopaths, chiropractors, nutritionists (not the RD kind). Unless these people are insurance providers they aren't required to report anything (not yet anyway). Stay away from psychologists and psychiatrists. It will probably ban you from buying a gun because you will be labeled mentally ill even if you are just discussing family problems. Work out your own problems with close friends and family. What did people do before therapists anyway?
Riposte 341 posts, incept 2010-01-08

For some reason the leftists only care if the "violent crime" was committed with a gun. If violent crime skyrockets, but there were no guns involved, apparently it doesn't matter.

Therefore they want to ban guns and reduce "gun violence" even though overall violent crime skyrockets.
Lostinspace 237 posts, incept 2009-05-06

Supposedly gun crime decreased in England after banning guns but overall violent crime increased significantly. The gun crime is all that seems to count. So it's OK if someone breaks in your house and beats you over the head or stabs you to death. He didn't use a gun so not in the statistics. Gun crime is down.
Samadams 595 posts, incept 2008-12-03

Quote:
For some reason the leftists only care if the "violent crime" was committed with a gun. If violent crime skyrockets, but there were no guns involved, apparently it doesn't matter.

Therefore they want to ban guns and reduce "gun violence" even though overall violent crime skyrockets.


Oh, like former Mayor of NY Dinkins who, after several tourists from Utah were stabbed in the subway, called for more gun control? Like that? Seems to me that anyone capable of making such a statement who is not then intoxicated, should be labeled as mentally incompetant.
Captainkidd 2k posts, incept 2010-05-25

Don't you guys realize that removing baseball bats, knives, and clubs from the peasants is simply not necessary. These pose no risks to the storm troopers.

But guns........ Well, those must be beyond the reach of the peasants. For they pose a true risk to the storm troopers.

Knives, clubs, baseball bats... No these are enough for the peasants to feel as if they can defend themselves. But even the peasants know that You can't win by taking a knife to a gun fight.

************************************************

----------
A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a thousand men with guns. --Mario Puzo

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did,
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 4  First1234Last