Alphecca

Weekly Media Check on Guns

Welcome to the August 23rd edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias by media regarding firearms and the Second Amendment. Let's get right to it.

It's not uncommon at gun shows to have a few ATF agents prowling around looking for violations of the law. In fact, it's their job. But what happened in Virginia a couple weeks ago seems way over the top. From Crosswalk.com:

The federal agency that regulates U.S. gun dealers stands accused, along with at least three Virginia law enforcement agencies, of trying to shut down legal gun shows through alleged intimidation of gun buyers and sellers. The law enforcement organizations also allegedly broke the law by sharing gun buyers' information with members of the public.

Annette Gelles, owner of gun show sponsor Showmasters.us, told Cybercast News Service that at least 30 agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) along with nearly 500 Virginia State Police, Henrico County Police and Richmond City Police officers were assigned to the ATF operation targeting her gun show on Aug. 13 and 14 at the Richmond International Raceway and Fairground Complex, outside Richmond, Va.

[...]

Gelles explained that, when gun dealers took the paperwork to the Virginia State Police on-site office to complete the background checks on prospective buyers, ATF agents copied the names, home addresses and telephone numbers of the applicants.
Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, told Cybercast News Service that he has received numerous complaints alleging that as handgun buyers were waiting for their National Instant Check System (NICS) background investigations to be completed, ATF was secretly conducting the so-called "residency checks."

According to the complaints he received, Van Cleave said officers were dispatched to the homes of the prospective gun buyers to speak with family members, asking for example: "Gee, did you know your husband was going to a gun show today? Do you have his cell phone number? Did you know he was buying a gun?

"If people weren't home they, in some cases, went to neighbors" to ask the same questions, Van Cleave said.

"I'm not an attorney but, I'll tell you what, in my opinion that would be a violation of federal law," Van Cleave said. "To go off on a fishing trip with that information, much less sharing information like that with neighbors, there's no way that's legal."

[...]

Gelles and her attorneys were in Washington, D.C., Aug. 15 to meet with ATF officials and seek an explanation for what happened over the weekend. After talking with several people in the ATF headquarters, Gelles said she finally spoke with a supervisor, whom she would not identify, who assured her that ATF "is out of the residency check business, effective immediately."
She was hesitant to give further details about the meeting in the event that a lawsuit is filed over the agency's actions.

You should read the whole thing since there's a lot more and I don't want to be too blatant about posting copyrighted material around here.

This is creepy. It's especially creepy since Virginia is known as a relatively gun-owner friendly state. What specific type of operation was going on isn't known. The only things I can think of are:

1) They were attempting to identify gun runners or smugglers.

2) They were looking for suspected terrorists.

If one or both of those were the case, law enforcement certainly went about it in a heavy-handed method. The story details several cases of the agents trying to intimidate legitimate gun buyers. Indeed, just the presence of so many cops and agents was enough to cost the show operator almost half of what she usually earns from these shows.

Furthermore, the "residency checks" are absolutely outrageous. If I go to a show and legally buy a gun, it is NOBODY'S BUSINESS. Not my family, not my landlord, not my neighbors. I've really never heard of such an aggrievous abuse and violation of the right to privacy that is supposed to be coded into the NICS legislation.

Remember when certain newspapers were publishing the names of CCW permit holders in Ohio? That was wrong but at least in those cases, the neighbors had to have bought and read the paper to obtain such information. Here, agents went knocking on doors and offering it to them.

I really think some better explanation should be required of the ATF and the various Virginia police agencies that took part in this operation. Why did it happen? What can be done to prevent it from ever happening again? The simplistic explanation that the ATF is now "out of the residency check business" isn't enough.

Yesterday, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel had an editorial saying:

...In contrast, the "resolved" clause is mild - merely, putting the County Board on record as supporting efforts by the state Legislature "to enact legislation that will regulate the sale of handguns, rifles, shotguns and machine guns to convicted felons and minors." The mild language no doubt helps explain why the resolution enjoyed unanimous support.

Yet, County Executive Scott Walker vetoed the resolution, saying it would be too burdensome for law-abiding gun owners. He said the county should focus instead on getting people off the streets who commit gun crimes and addressing "the symptoms (sic) that lead to more violence in our community."

Well, we're happy to report a bit of news buried by more headline-grabbing topics as the County Board rushed to recess for August. The board overrode Walker's veto - and unanimously.

The criminal justice system is striving as best it can to get gun criminals off the street, and indeed the community, including Walker, must do a better job of addressing crime's causes. But one contributor is the easy access of weapons to criminals and minors. Public officials mustn't be so beholden to the gun lobby that they won't take even modest steps to keep guns out of the hands of those prohibited from having them.

The force behind the resolution is a group called Mothers Against Gun Violence, which consists of mothers of slain children. In that organization's behalf, state Rep. Spencer Coggs (D-Milwaukee) has commendably drafted a bill that would require the registration of firearms every time ownership changes - a needed step that would enable the authorities to better trace guns used in crimes.

First of all, I suspect that Wisconsin already has laws regulating the sale of guns to convicted felons and minors. If they don't, FEDERAL LAW prohibits such sales. That's why we have the NICS system in the first place. Furthermore, if the end purpose of all this is to have state-wide registration of firearms -- as seems the goal of MAGV -- it won't work. Why? Because crooks and felons and gang members aren't going to bother to comply with such a law. They don't obey any laws, that's why they're crooks and felons in the first place.

Registration is always the first step towards confiscation. History has shown that. And it is a burden on law-abiding gun owners both in time and money. If a dad buys his son that first .22 caliber rifle for Christmas, does he then have to "register" it as a transfer? What nonsense.

Meanwhile in Minnesota, two churches are still fighting the legislation allowing the law-abiding to carry concealed weapons. Any religious institution (or business, for that matter) can post a simple sign prohibiting CCW in their buildings but apparently that isn't enough. From the Duluth News Tribune:

David Lillehaug, attorney for the Edina Community Lutheran Church, and Marshall Tanick, representing the Unity Church of St. Paul, argued that requirements to put up signs using a specific size, typeface and language were infringing on the churches' religious messages. Such requirements make the state an editor over the churches' message, Lillehaug argued.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Ragatz argued that the law mandates that those signs contain state language and also allows churches to add religious language. He said that using the state-mandated, religiously neutral words is not a substantial burden on the churches and does not cause them irreparable harm, two legal standards the churches must prove in order to get the injunction.

Lillehaug and Tanick argued that religious institutions shouldn't be prohibited from banning guns in their parking areas, either. Those areas are used to further religious missions when people talk about services on the way to their cars or when a church holds a fundraiser or services in a parking lot, they argued.

Ragatz argued that when a church is holding an activity in the parking lot for a religious purpose, it may ban guns under the law.

Lillehaug and Tanick also argued that by not allowing landlords to ban tenants and their visitors from carrying guns, the law burdens religious organizations. Edina Community Lutheran Church lets a child care center use its space, for instance. And Unity Church sometimes allows space to be used as a homeless shelter.

This is actually good reporting, presenting the arguments by each side one after the other. I do think that the signs need to be a specific size so that those who are carrying can easily spot them and disarm themselves if they still want to patronize the place. Is this any different than, say, a handicapped parking sign?

The argument that landlords ought to be allowed to ban tenants and visitors is wrong in my mind because I presume that the churches are not actually charging the homeless for staying there overnight, therefore they're not really "tenants". Are they renting the space to the child care center? I wouldn't think it mattered since the owners, that is the churches, still have the property posted with the signs. We can assume that the child care operators aren't carrying themselves as there are very young children around. I'd welcome clarification on all of this from readers since I'm not a lawyer (though I play one on TV) nor have I read all of the current bill.

This past Friday the National Black Police Association met in Canada to discuss gun violence in black neighborhoods. Inside Toronto covered the meeting. I do feel the pain of such areas where street gangs are out of control but the problem is that laws passed and more laws passed will not rid those areas of firearms anymore than they've rid them of drugs. Here's a typical quote:

"This gun thing has been a scourge in our communities. I liken it to something as bad as the AIDS epidemic or drugs," said Ron Stalling, a 32-year veteran of the U.S. Secret Service, who was among the more than 700 police officers attending an international conference presented by the National Black Police Association in Scarborough this week.

No, Mr. Stalling, it's not a "gun thing" but a Crime Thing. A Gang Thing. A Thug Thing. A lack of Parenting Thing. Just as drunk driving isn't a car thing, so too crime isn't a "gun thing". Some of the solutions presented were silly:

Mike Franklin, a commissioner with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in the Brixton and Lambeth area of southwest London in the U.K., talked about the success of a gun amnesty in the area that encouraged community members to take a stand against guns.

"The first thing we had to do in the community was to empower people to say no to guns," he said. "We decided to enable our community to voice their disgust with the guns, murders and killings."

During that 30-day amnesty, 28 firearms and 3,500 rounds of ammunition were taken off the streets, Franklin said.

"We learned that communities can solve this problem," he said, noting that people have to overcome their fear and know that it's okay to express an anti-gun view.

Really? The problem was "solved" with a gun amnesty program that netted a whopping 28 guns? Is that why, according to the BBC, violent crime and gun crimes in England are skyrocketing?

Violent offences in England and Wales reached record levels in 2004-5 with police recording one million crimes - up 7% from the previous year.

[...]

Total recorded crime fell 6% to 5.6m incidents, but gun crime was up 6%.

One sensible quote was included in the Inside Toronto story:

Mike Sherman, a 30-year veteran of the Toronto Police Service who retired 10 years ago, maintained that investing in the community is key.

"Our approach has to be dealing with communities. I am really encouraged to hear the nexus of the solution is in the community," Sherman said, adding, "Guns are not a solution, but guns are not the problem. Guns are a symptom of the problem.

The real problem is too many children not being properly raised and supervised and disciplined. Isn't it interesting that many gangs are far tougher in their rules and regulations and punishments and supervision than that provided by many parents? Is there a message there? That perhaps these kids WANT supervision and guidance? That what they aren't getting at home they seek from the gangs they join? A lot of questions. I don't have the answers. I hope that those solutions are found.

Lastly, I know you all are waiting for the first range report on the BFG-50 that Serbu Firearms sent me and that I picked up Friday night. [Very pleasant] Family obligations kept me from the range this past weekend but Thursday night we're all heading out there. I wish I'd been able to take this week off from work...

I'll be on NRA News this afternoon and as always, I thank you for stopping by.

Posted by Jeff Soyer at August 23, 2005 10:02 AM