Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the May 23rd edition of my Weekly Check on the Bias, where I take a gander at some coverage of Second Amendment issues by the media.

Remember my post yesterday about the repulsively slanted op-ed by NY Daily News columnist Michael Daly? He hates guns so much he decided to attend the NRA annual convention hosted in Milwaukee this past weekend and attempted to portray attendees there as uncaring, unfeeling barbarians. Among other things, he wrote:

Just inside and to the left was the booth for Smith & Wesson, which manufactures tw o of the three most-prevalent guns among the 5,551 recovered by the NYPD last year. The list was topped by the Smith & Wesson .38-caliber revolver, a number of which were on display for anyone to heft.

"It's simple. It's reliable. And it works," said S&W representative Matthew Gibson.

Among the gun lovers who had indeed brought their families was Peggy Irving of Missouri. She stood with her baby daughter cradled in a Snugli sling next to a display of the third-most-common gun on the NYPD list, the Smith & Wesson 9-mm. automatic.

"I have a Smith & Wesson 9-mm. lady's," Irving said, meaning a smaller version. "I love it."

Her daughter is named Katie, and she is 16 months old, just a little younger than the Bronx 2-year-old who was killed Easter Sunday by a stray round from a 9-mm. Little Katie now reached out and touched a compact 9-mm. that was on display.

"Mama loves these," Irving told her.

Katie's tiny hand moved to a bigger gun, a .40-caliber automatic.

"That one's a little big for you," the mom said playfully. "We don't want you to get a .40 yet."

The moment was all the more jarring for a New Yorker because the mother seemed to be as decent and amiable a person as you could ever meet.

Apparently, a mother who is comfortable around firearms and believes in personally protecting her family isn't -- to Daly's eyes -- a decent and amiable person after all. I wasn't the only one not amused. The New York Sun fired back with this editorial:

The National Rifle Association's just-concluded convention in Milwaukee has sparked outrage in some quarters of New York, but jealousy might be a more appropriate response. The outrage seems to be directed toward members of the NRA who live outside the New York City metropolitan area and dare to like guns. Consider a recent column by Michael Daly of the Daily News. He reports on a "jarring" encounter with one Peggy Irving of Missouri, who brought her 16-month-old daughter Katie to the convention and says she "loves" her Smith & Wesson 9-mm lady's. He seems astonished that a mother who comes across as "as decent and amiable a person as you could ever meet" would like guns, and might even joke about how her infant daughter will one day own a firearm.

Could it just be that Ms. Irving, a humble Missourian, knows something that Mr. Daly hasn't yet grasped - that there is little clear relationship between gun control, or gun ownership for that matter, and crime? According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report, in 2004, the most recent year for which complete statistics are available, there were 687.4 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in New York City, of which 7.04 were murders (the vast majority were robberies or aggravated assaults). We don't know from where in Missouri Ms. Irving comes, but it almost certainly has a lower crime rate despite her efforts to instill in her daughter a respect for guns. Columbia, Missouri, experienced a violent crime rate of 362.1 per 100,000 and a murder rate of 0.7. Jefferson City reported 279.8 violent crimes per 100,000, and no murders.

Unfortunately, the New York Sun won't let me read the rest of the editorial unless I pony up some money but I think they make their point in these first two paragraphs. All of us who enjoy firearms and the shooting sports, or who take our personal defense personally, have often run into the NYC elitest mentality by liberals such as Michael Daly, who look at us in shock when they find out that we don't fear guns and don't blame firearms for any mayhem caused by their misuse.

The NY Sun editorial also makes the point that we all have in the past; those cities and states that restrict 2nd Amendment rights for the law-abiding have greater problems with the non-law-abiding.

Update: My thanks to reader Jack Anderson for sending me the entire editorial. Here's the conclusion to it:

New York has been racked in recent months with a spate of tragic gun crimes, including the death of a two-year-old on Easter morning in the Bronx. The city grieves with the families of the victims, and applauds recent high-profile enforcement actions conducted by Commissioner Ray Kelly and New York's Finest. It would be a mistake, however, to think that more gun control will solve that problem. Taking a gun out of Ms. Irving's hands will not make New York safer. Nor will refusing law-abiding New Yorkers the right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed to all Americans in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Sounds like we have a pro-2nd Amendment friend at the New York Sun. I'd urge all who live in the NYC metro area to consider switching to that paper in support.

Big News in D.C. The top story yesterday was certainly the news that a DC Superior Court judge threw out the civil lawsuit by the District of Columbia filed against Beretta, Smith & Wesson et al. From a NSSF press release:

Judge Hedge ruled that, "Congress has made clear that manufacturers or sellers of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate commerce 'are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended,'" and that, "The imposition of such liability, according to Congress, 'is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nations laws.'"

Actually, Judge Hedge said quite a bit more than that and I suspect the story as reported by the Washington Post was designed to stir up anger at the new federal law:

In a 37-page opinion, Judge Brook Hedge wrote that the city and the federal government had two competing policies, and only one could prevail.

The D.C. Council, she wrote, had determined that assault weapons have "little or no social benefit but at the same time pernicious consequences for the health and safety of District residents and visitors." Congress, however, "has trumped local law by passing legislation to protect the profits of such manufacturers," she wrote.

The suit, filed by the city and by victims of gun violence and their families, aimed to hold gun manufacturers liable for the flow of firearms into the District and for the carnage created by the sale of illegal weapons.

First let's look at Judge Hedge's bias: Congress did NOT enact The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to protect the profits of gun makers. The legislation was passed to prevent greedy cities and trial lawyers from trying to mint cash by suing gun makers because of the actions of criminals or trying to legislate by litigation.

Put another way (yet again!), when a band of gang mutants beat-to-death four Wendy's workers in Florida with aluminum baseball bats last year, it wasn't the baseball bat's manufacturer who was at fault or should have been held liable.

To the Judge's credit, she didn't let her bias interfere with her ruling; she followed the law.

Now to the bias by the Washington Post: Since the sale of handguns (all guns, actually) is illegal in the District, any guns "flowing into the District" must by definition be illegal. No gun maker is selling any of their products there. How could they possibly be held liable for "the carnage created" by guns illegally brought in or possessed? That would be like holding a drug company liable for the illegal trade in Oxycontin and the crime resulting from it's illegal use.

Creating Criminals in N.J. Democrats in New Jersey are well on the way to passing legislation that will likely make criminals of many law abiding residents there. From the N.J. Times:

A package of 17 bills aimed at quelling gun violence passed the state Assembly yesterday despite protests from Republicans concerned that the legislation does more to crack down on gun enthusiasts than gang members.

[...]

The bills are intended to prevent gun violence, protect witnesses and bolster police powers. New Jersey is home to more than 17,000 gang members and authorities last year filed about 1,900 criminal cases involving gun violence.

The proposals range from toughening criminal sentences to establishing gang violence prevention seminars for educators and employment programs for disadvantaged youngsters.

Republicans said bills in the package that stiffen penalties for firearms possession and regulate the sale of ammunition are overly broad and shortsighted. They attempted to amend the controversial bills and have them sent back to committee. In each case the majority Democrats voted against them.

Republicans said legislation intended to increase prison terms for persons convicted of possessing illegal assault weapons or transferring firearms to youths unwittingly could put someone with an unregistered pellet gun or a father who buys a BB gun for his child behind bars.

"This is overkill," said Assemblyman Richard A. Merkt, R-Mendham. "I would support this bill if it were directed at gangland activity."

Republicans also objected to a bill that would allow authorities to seize vehicles in which officers discover illegal weapons and another that would regulate the sale of ammunition. They argued that the brunt of enforcement would fall not on gang members, but on gun enthusiasts who don't have all the right permits or who buy ammunition out of state.

"My sense is these criminals fail to follow the law," said Assemblyman Guy Gregg, R-Washington Township (Morris County). "You will be with this legislation creating criminals of people who did nothing wrong."

Listening to Cam Edwards yesterday, it seems that NJ will even make it illegal to have ammunition purchased out of state. Sounds like an ammo-registry in the making.

I have always been against "car seizure" laws for any reason. Here's what can happen: Dad has an unregistered BB gun (Yes, in NJ you have to get a permit for your Daisy) he was bringing home from his deceased Grandfather's estate. He gets pulled over and searched. The gun is found in the trunk. Goodbye car. Think it couldn't happen? Think cops would show some common sense and restraint? Are you nuts?

Lastly though, if there are 17 thousand gang members in New Jersey, I'd say the problem there isn't guns, it's gang members. But of course, it's easier to blame guns and to make criminals out of the law abiding than it is to go after the criminals.

Being Fair to Cops. In another of those stories that just won't go away and that I've covered here in past years, the San Diego County Fair is once again wrestling with allowing off-duty cops and sheriffs who want to carry their off-duty weapons with them. This is a no-brainer, right? Wrong. In past years the fair organizers prohibited off duty law enforcement from doing just that. From the North County Times (CA):

Citing public safety, fairgrounds personnel banned off-duty sheriff's deputies and police officers from carrying their weapons into the popular annual event when a new fair security program was started in 2003.

However, last year the San Diego County Deputy Sheriffs' Association and the San Diego Police Officers Association got a temporary federal restraining order against the ban while the fair was in progress.

With deputies and officers threatening to get another restraining order if necessary this year as the fair prepares to open June 10, fairgrounds General Manager Timothy Fennell said Monday in an interview that a policy addressing the issue will probably be on next week's board agenda for a vote.

"We're going to bring it before the board, so that everybody knows what it is," Fennell said.

Although Fennell declined to reveal what the proposal is until the fair board sees it, he said he expects everyone "will be comfortable" with it.

Asked if the proposal might end the legal wrangling in U.S. District Court, Fennell said he couldn't say.

It's hard to fathom what reasons the fair organizers could have for not wanting the extra security -- for free! -- that armed off-duty law enforcement would provide should something bad happen at the fair. I just don't get it.

*There's another way of looking at this, though.* Since regular, non-LE citizens are not permitted to conceal carry at the fair, maybe this is just fair-play in an ironic sense. Why should off-duty cops receive special treatment that the general public doesn't? Why should LE feel more secure because they're armed than the average Mr. and Mrs. Smith (who isn't armed) does? I might add that those with carry permits in California have already demonstrated that they obey the laws so why discriminate against them? Unfortunately, there aren't enough permit holders in the San Diego area where calling for a boycott of the fair would have any noticeable impact.

Feminine Firepower. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the most unbiased news stories concerning gun ownership generally come from the business pages of newspapers. From the Miami Herald:

Women make up 15 percent of the marketplace when it comes to shooting sports and hunting, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the shooting, hunting and firearms industry. Participation in hunting and target shooting has risen 50 percent to 6.3 million women from 1999 to 2004, the group said.

Women will spend at least $285 million on firearms this year, the group said, plus at least $135 million on ammunition, accessories and hunting equipment. It's a small drop in the entire market, which was worth $2.8 billion in 2004, but manufacturers believe it's worth pursuing, said group spokesman Steve Wagner.

[...]

Remington has been making lighter, shorter guns geared toward women and youths for the past 15 years, said spokesman Al Russo. The segment is among the fastest growing for the Madison, N.C.-based company, which declined to release sales figures. Of the company's 450 different guns, 5 percent to 7 percent are for women and kids.

''The more astute manufacturers are catering more and more to women and youth,'' Russo said.

Remington worked specifically to reduce the amount of force its guns give off, he said. The type of ammunition used also affects how much force -- or recoil -- guns give off, so that has been tweaked as well, he said.

[...]

A self-proclaimed lover of pretty guns, shop owner Clark Miculek said one of her favorites is a 24-karat gold handgun she uses in competition.

''I don't wear any jewelry, so my gold is on my gun,'' she said.

But attracting women gun buyers isn't as simple as putting designs on guns or offering them in different colors, said Paul Pluff, a spokesman for gunmaker Smith & Wesson. Instead, manufacturers must focus on making their guns more versatile, such as changing the grip size so women can control the weapons better, he said.

'You're not buying a pair of shoes or a dress here. Women who decide to buy firearms want firearms they feel comfortable with and they can control,'' Pluff said.

Smith & Wesson, the country's largest producer of handguns, has long had a line called ''Lady Smith.'' Its best selling product for women is a compact, aluminum alloy gun that shines a laser on a target, helping improve aim, he said.

Filling niches is one road to success in any business. I sort of do that here at Alphecca!

Meanwhile in Louisiana... Progress on two related fronts. From the Times-Picayune:

Legislation that would prohibit local, parish or state police officers from seizing firearms from law-abiding citizens during a state of emergency sailed out of the Senate, 36-0, on Monday and headed back to the House for final approval of minor changes.

Senators approved House Bill 760 by Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson, with a change that would make the bill law as soon as Gov. Kathleen Blanco signs it, not Aug. 15 when most new laws from the session take effect.

Blanco can sign the bill, veto it or let it become law without her signature.

Scalise's bill is a reaction to New Orleans area police agencies' seizure of weapons after a state of emergency was declared for Hurricane Katrina. The bill allows a police officer to disarm someone when the officer "reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection" of the law enforcement agent or someone else. If the police officer does not make an arrest or take the gun as part of a criminal investigation, it must be returned.

On a related matter, the House voted 99-0 for Senate Concurrent Resolution 17 by Sen. Edwin Murray, D-New Orleans, ordering the New Orleans Police Department and other law enforcement bodies in the area that seized weapons in the aftermath of Katrina to "develop and implement a plan" for returning the firearms. Scalise, who handled the Murray measure on the House floor, said that officials have started to return weapons but "the process is not working as well as it should."

The resolution, which does not have the force of law, directs that a plan be developed and implemented by Sept. 1. The measure has already passed the Senate.

By September 1st? Here's a better plan -- return the damn guns today!

Hey, time to get this posted. For those of you new to Alphecca, just keep scrolling because I cover this stuff all week long. Naturally, I'll be yacking it up on the Cam Edwards - NRA News Show later today. As always, thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at May 23, 2006 10:02 AM