Frightening Trend of Prosecutors Who Unbelievably Decline to Prosecute

Soliciting for sex (Kay Chernush, US State Department. Public domain)

Across the country, several prosecutors elected in the last few years have won by saying they won’t prosecute certain crimes. Manhattan District Attorney (DA) candidate Tahanie Aboushi won’t prosecute prostitution or some burglaries or possessing weapons or stolen property. If she wins the November election, she also plans standard policies of dismissing certain assaults, larcenies, and most firearms charges for perpetrators who don’t get arrested and charged again within six months. In fact, each of the eight Manhattan DA candidates are struggling to be more decarcerating than their challengers. And big money is backing candidates who won’t prosecute law violations they cite as inherently biased. Billionaire George Soros is bankrolling many races through his Real Justice PAC. They say “all politics are local”, but Soros and Bernie Sanders are trying to subvert local elections.

Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner also doesn’t charge gun possession or sex workers. Candidates in Chicago, St. Louis, Orland, and Los Angeles won elections as reform prosecutors intending to institute similar agendas. Don’t misunderstand: the so-called “War on Drugs” has been an abject failure, resulting in the United States imprisoning more per capita than any other country in the world. But prosecutorial discretion is not the same as criminal justice reform, which falls to the legislative branch of government.

Big cities are not the only place where prosecutors don’t want to prosecute. Washtenaw County MI DA Eli Savit won’t charge illegal guns or contraband found during traffic stops because they’re the result of racial profiling. He also won’t charge “consensual sex”, meaning prostitution.

Apparently actual crime doesn’t enter into the equation. Gun violence is up 75% in New York state but the Manhattan DA candidates don’t plan to charge gun crimes. And how do these progressive Democratic reform prosecutors not prosecuting existing gun law violations square such policies with mainstream Democratic calls for a “War on Guns” to replace the War on Drugs?

On the surface of it, decriminalizing sex work seems a personal autonomy issue. But there is research suggesting sex work is traumatizing regardless of legality. Decriminalizing prostitution likely will result in decreased human trafficking investigations despite legalized prostitution resulting in greater human trafficking, including children. So, sex work is not victimless and, while the hookers should get the counselling and support they need, the people profiting off selling them for sex should still be held to account. And that includes the buyers who create the market, just like child pornography. Prostitution is not as “consensual” as some may think.

We need criminal justice reform. That’s why we elect legislators—to enact and change laws. It’s not up to radical DAs to arbitrarily decide to change a country based on the rule of law into a land where laws aren’t upheld.

Cuomo’s Revolting Spin on Truth about Nursing Home Deaths

Public domain

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D-NY) approach on the deaths in New York nursing home deaths due to COVID-19 is nothing short of Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde. First he denied it, then he claimed it wasn’t as bad, and now he’s apologized. But he’s also gone full Trump: Cuomo is claiming a media conspiracy against him for the alleged coverup.

To be sure, determining cause of death is not always clear cut. This is complicated by New York state not counting nursing home patient deaths in hospitals as a nursing home death even if the admission was due to a medical condition from the nursing home. And that’s the crux of a New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) report. The AG found nursing home-related deaths were 50% higher than the governor’s administration reported. Cuomo’s response to the AG’s report:

“Who cares [if they] died in the hospital, died in a nursing home? They died.”

Cuomo doesn’t seem to get it, though. The larger issue is whether there was a cover up. Way back in May of 2020, questions on nursing home COVID deaths surfaced. Central to the question was whether a Cuomo executive order was causal by directing nursing homes to readmit COVID-positive patients after discharge from hospitals. Whether that policy was contributory is a matter for debate and remains unresolved. New York’s unclear methods of tracking deaths to COVID, along with where those deaths are attributed, led to questions from the US Department of Justice. In response, Cuomo claimed the state’s nursing home deaths were among the lowest in the country. Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data, rather than New York’s skewed reporting system, it turns out New York’s nursing home deaths were near the middle. On a positive note, that seems to suggest Cuomo’s early pandemic policy of returning COVID patients to their nursing homes did not substantially increase deaths in nursing homes.

Beyond bad data followed by efforts to put a positive spin on things, Cuomo and his staff purposely misrepresented COVID-related nursing home deaths for political purposes. After New York Assemblyman Ron Kim (D) spoke out about mishandling the nursing home controversy, Cuomo threatened to ruin Kim’s political career.

https://twitter.com/EddieZipperer/status/1362420625881636864

It seems there may be some merit to the nursing home policy increasing deaths. Cuomo’s policy was controversial from the start, which might be why, at best, they used fuzzy math for the fatality numbers. With more information coming out, after months of defending his administration’s actions, Cuomo finally accepted some fault, sort of. Kind of like when Cuomo walked back orders to throw away vaccine doses.

Daring Gun Violence Solution: Make Use of Existing Laws

Public domain

In the mid 1980s, the Justice Department tried to count the number of US laws on the books. They gave up after determining there were 3,000 or so federal criminal laws. From 1996 to 2016, Congress passed 4,312 new laws, not all of which were criminal. During the same period, Federal agencies created 88,899 new rules to enforce those laws. Add case law into the mix and it’s practically impossible for anyone to know if they’re breaking some law or rule, which they probably are.

There are already over 300 relevant gun laws on the books. It’s also against the law to assault someone, cause them bodily harm, or kill them, regardless of the weapon or method used. Prosecutors need to enforce the existing laws before we consider new gun control legislation, especially if those new laws create a new class of criminals out of law-abiding citizens without effectively addressing the issue of gun violence.

Apparently, we are enforcing the wrong laws. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Russia is fourth on the list and the next developed country, China, is 26th. The United Kingdom and Canada follow at 28th and 29th. More telling, the US rate is 639 prisoners per 100,000 in population. Russia has half that at 341; China (121), the UK (114), and Canada (107) all imprison less than a sixth what the US does. Makes you wonder if America is truly the land of the free.

On Sunday, President Joe Biden (D) called for “common-sense” gun control, including an “assault weapons” ban, magazine capacity limits, background checks on all gun sales, and holding gun manufacturers to blame when criminals use a gun illegally. I already discussed the coercive intent of the term “common sense gun control”. The National Firearms Act (1934) regulates fully automatic and selective-fire guns. Semi-automatic only rifles are not “assault weapons” even if they look like their selective-fire military counterparts. Conflating the two is another method used to justify infringing the Second Amendment. Not to be left behind, my Congress critter, also a Democrat, emailed me Thursday to let me know he’s a member of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and a co-sponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban bill.

Biden cites the 1994 assault weapons ban, which had questionable impact as a key element in his strategy to reduce gun violence. Even in horrific mass-shooting events like the Parkland murders 3 years ago, rifles of all types were only 24% of weapons used. Thus military-style weapons are not the weapon of choice in mass shootings, despite such claims by the media and politicians.

Chicago, along with Illinois, have pretty tough gun laws. But, Chicago has notoriously high gun violence despite extensive gun control measures. Never mind criminals don’t follow gun laws anyway, like the Gilroy CA shooter in 2019 who was underage and used a gun banned in California. And gun violence is up in Toronto ON despite Canada’s tough gun regulations. Gang activity is driving the gun violence spike, apparently, despite last year’s semi-automatic rifle ban. While gun control measures can have some effect on reducing gun fatalities, more laws will not stop people intent on mayhem and carnage.

Smoking-related illnesses kill 443,000 people every year. Gun homicides account for about 12,000 fatalities annually, including those from mass shootings. While every death is tragic and we should strive to reduce all loss of life, we have a bigger health issue with tobacco than we do with guns. There is no right to tobacco, but the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.

Perhaps a better answer is to look at improving social programs that might serve to interrupt the cycle of violence. Last summer’s protests seemed to demonstrate broad support for greater access to counseling, mental health, and other community improvement programs. Strong, supported families with vibrant communities and adequate social safety nets likely would yield better results in reducing violence than more criminal laws. Maybe Biden and his gun control posse should talk to the people who live where day-to-day violence occurs. That might help come up with some real solutions instead of just feel-good laws inteded to lower the risk primarily in suburban schools.

Previously on gun control:

• What Is Common Sense Gun Control?
• Effective Dialogue Requires Some Mutual Respect

Shameless Exploit of Rules for $1.9 Trillion COVID Bill

Pres. Biden meets with Democratic Senators on the COVID stimulus bill. (Public domain)

Despite routinely being called a stimulus bill or COVD relief, President Joe Biden’s $1.9 Trillion proposal includes tax relief and policy changes, particularly the $15 minimum wage. The move by Democrats to rush this huge bill through Congress by using budget reconciliation rules rather than normal procedures is the direct opposite of any claims at inclusivity and unity. It’s a calculated move to advance an agenda, all other opinions be damned. And it’s not the first time Congress members have been disingenous.

Regular Senate rules call for a 60-vote majority to pass bills. Under reconciliation rules, a simple majority of 51 votes meets the threshold. Bills under the reconciliation process must involve budget matters—government income and expenses. The minimum wage hike is more of a policy matter. But Bernie Sanders argues minimum wage is a budget issue because a Congressional Budet Office (CBO) report estimates raising minimum wage to $15 will increase the deficit to $54 billion. I’m not sure how adding to the deficit equates to an economic stimulus.

Some economists argue the $1.9 trillion bill is too large. Other experts argue the stimulus checks should be more targeted to those actually suffering from the economic effects of the pandemic.

However, Wharton emeritus finance professor Richard Marston questions the targeting of direct transfers. “The $1,200 checks in the CARES Act made no sense last spring because they were not targeted towards those in need,” he said. “The December 2020 bill and the Biden proposal just perpetuate this bad public policy. Help the families who have lost employment or need child care or are otherwise adversely affected by the pandemic. Why send checks to those who are still getting their regular paychecks?”

Some studies suggest the stimulus checks will help 22 million. Others find 73% will put the checks into savings, thus not stimulating anything. And if they can put the check into savings, those recipients are not in need of aid like the hardest hit—those with low-wage jobs and who were laid off due to the pandemic. People want financial aid distrubted based on need. That’s just fiscally prudent. On top of that, there is disagreement over whether the $1.9 trillion bill is affordable, much less helpful.

Beyond whether Biden’s stimulus plan will help people, families, and the economy through the pandemic, the contains tax and wage policy provisions. The tax measures won’t make any difference until people file their returns next year. That’s not stimulus nor is it time sensitive. Changing tax laws, minimum wage, and other policy changes should be debated honestly and on their own merits. Burying them in the stimulus bill and purposely handling the whole thing under special rules to omit participation by half the Senate is disingenous at best. Never mind the reconiciliation process could see about 1,000 amendments so it might not even look anything like its original intent.

Previously on Congressional tricks:

• Constitution Day—Our Way of Life is at Risk (2011)
• Political Brinskmanship, the Debt Bubble, and Impending Anarchy (2011)
• Some Things Don’t Get Better with Age (2011)
• Surprise! House Passes Tax Cut Extensions (2010)
• Constitution’s Fate Hangs on Slaughter House Rule (2010)
• No Fair Except for Me—Dems Planning Nuclear Option (2010)

Spotlight: Winners and Losers of the $15 Minimum Wage

All-Nite Images (CC BY-SA 2.0)

At $7.25, the Federal minimum wage has not been raised since 2009. Biden wants to make it $9.50 this year, an increase that would affect 25 states with minimum wages lower than $9.50. The other half of the states won’t see any increase this year for most workers. Youth and sheltered disabled workers’ minimums would jump from $4.25 to $6 and $5 this year. In reality, they will only see that increase in 7 states; all the other states already have those workers making the standard minimum wage.

In case you weren’t aware, the Raise the Wage Bill eliminates the lower direct pay for tipped workers putting everyone on the same base pay. The Federal minimum for tipped workers is $2.13, so a $15 wage is a 600% increase! Unless your favorite restaurant is fast food, expect eating out to get a lot more expensive by 2027. Tipped, youth, and disabled workers won’t make $15 until 2027. Politicians don’t talk about that disparity in their $15 claims, though.

Much has been made about an increased minimum wage lifting people out of poverty. That’s great for them, but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects 1.4 million people will lose their jobs. Progressive Seattle set a $15 minimum wage and many workers saw a net pay loss due to reduced hours. Prices will go up on many things. A lot of mom-and-pop and low-margin businesses would close because they couldn’t absorb the increased costs. Those small business people will lose their American dream instead of benefiting.

Frankly, the minimum wage should be a states’ rights matter since the cost of living varies across the country. It costs much more to live in New York City or San Francisco lower cost of living places like Danville IL. Three-fifths of states already have higher minimums, so states can take care of their own minimum wages. People needing higher wages should their state politicians, not take the easy way out with national politicians who only care about the sound bite.

There is general consensus not to raise the Federal minimum wage during the pandemic but it’s being folded into the $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill. Businesses are already struggling and many are out of work or working fewer hours due to the pandemic. Some 1.5 million new unemployment claims were filed in the last two weeks. What if the real intent of the new minimum wage is just to keep people trapped in bottom-rung jobs rather than improving their lot in life? They might be making more than they would at $10 per hour, but it would make more sense to spend money on training and apprenticeship programs so they can qualify for hourly pay of $20 or $25 or more so they can actually improve their lives.

Elusive COVID Vaccine Equity Lost to Shameless Privileged Recipients

Despite a stated desire for equity in vaccine availability, there are growing stories of the privileged classes getting theirs ahead of time. As if tens of thousands of wasted doses wasn’t bad enough. There are lots of reasons for getting shots before their time. They range from proving it’s safe for the rest of us, for continuity of government, or “being told to”, or because sports are important, to because some wealthy people pay more taxes so they’re entitled. Consider 31-year-old Rep. Alexander Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). She got vaccinated to show us it’s safe and because of guidance in PPD-40—Presidential Decision Directive 40 on continuity of government, issued by her arch nemesis former President Trump in 2017. I guess she thinks orange man bad, but he told me to get vaccinated before you.

If you have any questions or unease about the COVID vaccine, I got you!

I’d *never* ask you to do something I wasn’t willing to do myself.

Yday per national security policy (PPD40), Congress began getting vaccinated.

I took the jab & am here to answer your questions. Ask away! pic.twitter.com/ZyBgXi7kRl

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 19, 2020

AOC isn’t the only one, though. How about media mogul Tyler Perry, 51, who got his shot for his TV show to allay “a general distrust towards the vaccine in the African-American community. ‘If you look at our history in this country, the Tuskegee experiment, Henrietta Lacks, it raises flags for us as African American people. So I understand why there’s a healthy skepticism about the vaccine.'” Just a point of information: the Tuskegee study was a syphilis study conducted by the US Public Health Service and Tuskegee University, a historically Black college. Public health officials have been decrying the disparate impact of COVID on minorities since early on in the pandemic. It seems disingenuous to claim inequities in healthcare while declining to accept preventive treatment that’s being administered around the world with reported efficacy rates up to 95%.

Beyond the Nancy Pelosis, Mitch McConnells, and other elected royalty, ranking members of Congress can get more Congressional staffers vaccinated early, I guess because committee chairpersons are more important than committee members who are more important than you. Former President Barack Obama (D), who is 59, got to go in front of senior citizens, healthcare workers, and first responders. So did actors Sean Penn, 60, and NeNe Leakes, 54. Now there’s a move to vaccinate professional sports players earlier than if they waited for their due time based on age. Dallas Mavericks owner Cynt Marshall, 60, was vaccinated, along with her husband, and they’re not even players nor in any of the current eligible categories. They’re just rich and privileged. At least Charles Barkley didn’t hide his disdain for ordinary fans and 99-percenters:

“I think they should let the NBA players and coaches all get the vaccine,” Barkley said. “That’s just my personal opinion.”

Barkley included athletes from other major sports as well — arguing that the higher taxes paid by those in professional sports ought to secure them a place at the head of the line.

“NFL players, hockey players, as much taxes as these players pay — let me repeat that — as much taxes as these players pay, they deserve some preferential treatment,” Barkley said.

Sadly, even ordinary people are cutting the vaccine line. Influencer and exercise coach SoulCycle instructor Stacey Griffith, 55, lied to get her vaccine, claiming she was a teacher. In Seattle, home of the infamous CHOP (Capitol Hill Occupied Protest) experiment in an equitable society, “vaccine line-jumping has become a hushed sort of sport around [Seattle], a parkour for the pandemic.” One clinic volunteer said up to half of people coming through were younger people, under 50, and not healthcare workers. Lansing, MI, Mayor Andy Schor (D), 45, got a vaccination because he could cut the line, as did a bunch of staff at conservative Hillsdale College. Some people are using social media to game vaccinations before their turn. Brad Johnson rationalized his actions: “as a private citizen, I’m trying to fill in the gap, to make sure that no vaccines are wasted.” Does the end justify the means? And does circumventing the system, which claims to be equity-focused, fix our societal issues? Or is it really just a matter of “sucks to be you”?

Previously on COVID vaccines:

• Vaccine Dose Waste Due to Bureaucratic Rules

Vaccine Dose Waste Due to Bureaucratic Rules

By Heather Hazen, Self (CC BY 2.0)

Increasingly complex, and sometimes onerous, rules for the COVID-19 vaccination rollout have both stymied “shots in arms” and led to disparities in eligibility across the US. Each state, and sometimes counties and cities, make up their own rules. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have changed their guidelines numerous times. Sometimes the goal of the rules is like Michigan’s “using the CDC Social Vulnerability Index (CDC SVI) for to [sic] adjust the allocations of vaccine” rather than actual medical rationale. With SVI, the language spoken is one of the criteria in the SVI. So ,are non-English speakers at higher priority for vaccination?

Initial phasing to prioritize vaccinations, the shelf-life of the vaccine once pulled from storage, and bureaucratic procedures has led to a lot of vaccine wastage. Despite requirements to reported doses thrown away, you can’t find a clearcut answers on squandered doses with an internet search. But you can find stories of the 2,000 doses wasted in Texas, North Carolina’s trashed 1,780 doses, and another 1,200 shots down the drain in Massachusetts. Despite a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requirement to report spoiled doses, many states are silent on the topic. How’s that for transparency? Just guestimating the loss of an average of 1,000 doses per state means 50,000 people were not able to get a COVID vaccine. Compare that to 79,200 COVID deaths in January 2021. With rising monthly death tolls, it should be criminal to dump any vaccine down the drain rather than administering it to someone. What about that herd immunity we’re striving for?

Government is not good at the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid. As a result, the rules make it difficult to use up all the vaccine in a vial when scheduled recipients don’t show up. Just ask Dr. Hasan Gorkal who used up the doses left over at the end of a vaccine clinic by finding mostly elderly recipients. Now he faces criminal charges from the overzealous Harris County District Attorney, Kim Ogg (D), prosecuting the doctor for not wasting vaccine. Or consider New York where Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) wants it both ways. Hospitals and medical providers who don’t use their vaccine doses face big fines while healthcare providers who give shots to people outside the current eligibility guidelines could lose their licenses and face criminal charges. Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

HR 127 is the New Poll Tax

Poll taxes lasted in Texas and some other states until 1966. The 24th Amendment to the US Constitution abolished poll taxes at the Federal level upon ratification in 1964. In Harper v Virginia Board of Education, the US Supreme Court applied the prohibition to all public elections. Wikipedia defines a poll tax as “a tax of a fixed sum on every liable individual.” HR 127 is like a poll tax because it includes a provision that requires an $800 fee annually from all firearms owner in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Public domain (c. 1918)

HR 127 was introduced in the House of Representatives on 4 January 2021 by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX-18). The bill’s provisions call for:

• Licensing of firearms and ammunition owners, which requires:
• Being at least 21 years old
• Passing a criminal background check
• Being found not “psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm” (every 3 years)
• Completing an undefined 24-hour training course
• Registration of all firearms
• Paying $800 annually to the Federal government for “firearm insurance”
• Prohibits magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (except for .22 rimfire)
• Prohibits .50 caliber and larger ammunition
• Penalties of 1 to 40 years in prison and/or $10,000 to $150,000

The license will need annual renewals for the first five years, and then every three years thereafter. License renewal also requires a psychological assessment within 3 years plus an 8 hour training course completed within 3 years of the renewal (2 years for “military-style weapon”). There are separate licenses for displaying antique firearms (which must be stored in a safe or approved facility) and “military-style weapons”. HR 127 describes all the usual culprits, including AR-15s, AKs, and semiautomatic weapons with a pair of cosmetic features, as “military-style weapons”.

Regressive

Estimated initial license cost
Basic and “military-style” training	$1,200
Psychological assessment (4 people)	2,400
“Insurance” fee	800
Basic and “military-style” licenses	50
Total	4,450

Lower income citizens may find it difficult to pay the costs for a license under HR 127. The bill doesn’t specify a cost for the license itself, so let’s assume a modest $25 fee (you know there will be some kind of fee). That’s $50 if you need the basic license and a “military-style weapon” license if your gun is the most popular semiautomatic rifle in the country—an AR-15 style. Don’t forget the $800 “insurance” fee. Will the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check be covered by that fee or will it be extra? Gun stores aren’t likely to do a NICS check for you unless you’re buying or they can charge you or get reimbursed for it.

A new licensee will require 24 hours of training (regardless of any previous training or experience). The 8-hour NRA Basics of Personal Protection Outside the Home course costs $225 at one Houston TX area training facility. So, let’s assume a 24-hour course costs $600. Wait. For that AR-style rifle, you need another 24 hours of training because it’s a “military-style weapon”. That brings the initial training cost to $1,200.

The real kicker is the psychological evaluation. HR 127 doesn’t specify what the evaluation requirements are. It does require interviews of at least 4 people: the licensee, licensee’s spouse, and at least two others. It also includes any former spouse and may include other members of the household. Not knowing the evaluation standards, it’s difficult to estimate cost, but low end testing was around $600 in 2018. That’s $2,400 to assess four people.

We can safely estimate the initial license cost at around $4,450, equal to about $370/month (but you can’t pay it monthly). How much is your car payment? How much do you pay for groceries? In Rep. Jackson Lee’s district, the median household income is $42,000. So the cost to exercise a Constitutional right would be more than 10% of income! Heck, the Texas poll tax in 1966 was only $1.75, or about $14.33 in today’s dollars.

According to Pew Research, people making under $25,000 were twice as likely to be crime victims than people making over $50,000. In the US, the official 2019 poverty rate was 10.5%. For a family of four, the poverty threshold income was $26,370. Why should a poor family have to cough up almost 17% of their annual income to protect themselves? Nearly 20% of households are on food stamps in Rep. Jackson Lee’s district. Of these, half are below the poverty line. Essentially, Jackson Lee wants to disenfranchise a significant number of her constituents.

Racist

Only 16.5% of Texas’ 18th congressional district are white, meaning over 80% are minorities. With average housing costs of $1,269/month, how can they afford $4,450 for a gun license? Never mind USA Today ranked Houston the 28th most dangerous city in the US in 2019, edging out Chicago (at 29) even with that city’s notorious “gun violence” problem. The 18th district is sometimes referred to as the “Downtown Houston” district. Apparently Rep. Jackson Lee is not concerned about the safety of her constituents.

Across the US, 2018 median income was $63,179, but only $51,450 for Hispanics and $41,361 for Blacks. Why should any group pay more for a universal Constitutional right than another?

Repressive

Courtesy California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Despite the fact US Federal law prohibits a national registration system, HR 127 mandates firearms registration within 3 months of the effective date. Is that even possible? The Small Arms Survey estimates there are 393,000,000 civilian-owned guns in the US. That means the ATF would have to register 131 million guns per month, or 4,366,667 every day, 7 days a week, to meet the deadline. On the first day of the fourth month, whoever’s guns are not registered becomes an instant felon even if they’ve never broken another law in their lives. Canada gave up on national gun registration after costs to register an estimated 15 million guns owned by 34 million residents. How many instant felons will Jackson Lee’s oppressive bill create if Canada couldn’t register just .04% the number of guns as in the US?

HR 127 only targets law-abiding citizens. Existing felons are exempt from compliance with any mandatory registration or licensing requirements because it would violate their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Never mind criminals are already barred by law, both Federal and state, from having guns. Even if they weren’t exempt from registering, criminals likely won’t comply:

It should go without saying that violent criminals will be even less motivated to comply with Lee’s requirements than the average gun owner. They already obtain, possess, and use guns illegally. They will not be fazed by another layer of criminality.

Gallup says 32% of US adults own a gun. That means there are in the neighborhood of 67 million legal gun owners in the country. With a Federal work week of 1960 hours per year (after holidays and vacations), it would take a workforce of 34,184 a year to process that many license applications if each one took an hour to review, input into a database, and issue or deny. Even if there was such a pool of Federal employees waiting to process license applications full time, would 67 million Americans be guilty of a felony crime while awaiting their license?

There are around 106,000 licensed psychologists in the US. If each of them gave up their regular practices (pay no attention to the impact on mental health that would have) to dedicate themselves to the psych evals required by HR 127, they would need to spend 2,528 hours apiece, assuming only 4 interviews for each of the 67 million gun owners. That’s a 49 hour work week with no holidays or vacations for a year. Just for the initial licensing effort. And no other mental health services to the community by these psychologists. If mental health is the largest concern regarding workplace and school shootings, as well as suicide prevention, why divert such a critical resource from where it’s needed? I guess it doesn’t matter to Rep. Jackson Lee that about 50% of people with severe psychiatric disorders go untreated or that some 45 million Americans need mental health services. But, then again, Jackson Lee’s bill would exclude those people from qualifying for a license no matter how long ago their problem was without regard to how well and for how long they had been fully functioning, productive members of society.

Disingenuous

Penalties in HR 127 range from 1 to 40 years in Federal prison, fines of $10,000 to $150,000, or both. With the highly unlikely ability to even comply, especially in the first several years the bill comes into effect, millions of law-abiding citizens will turned into instant felons. Apparently Jackson Lee is not interested in de-incarcerating people like she claimed in 2015 when introducing a prison reform bill (emphasis mine):

We come together today armed not only with the knowledge that our criminal justice system is deeply flawed, but with the commitment to fix these flaws. The cost of this system is incredibly high, not just in dollars spent, but also in dollars lost. Every person taken out of a community and placed into a prison is a person who cannot contribute to a family, a community, and our society. Worse, this system takes an incredible human toll, with the cycle of incarceration in a constant state of destruction.

Today, with this legislation, we unify to reject a system that is often more effective at creating criminals and collateral damage than actual justice. We have come together for change.

Wait, what? If Rep. Jackson Lee is opposed to incarcerating law-abiding citizens, why is the average penalty in her bill a 10-year term in a federal penitentiary?

HR 127’s title is the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act. Sabika was one of 10 killed in the Santa Fe TX school shooting. Her story is a sad one, to be sure. But the 17-year-old shooter killed 10 and wounded 13. Don’t the other victims matter? Does it escape Jackson Lee’s notice the murderer was underage under current law and so wouldn’t be stopped by HR 127’s requirement for licensees to be 21 years of age? Does the Representative realize only about 13.7% of guns are registered in Pakistan where Sabika was from? That’s a pretty low compliance rate, with some 37,917,000 illicit guns in circulation in Pakistan, a country of 223.5 million people. If the US had a similar 86% non-compliance rate, Jackson Lee’s bill would result in 57.6 million new felons overnight. Do we have enough space in the system for them all?

How many murders, or crimes for that matter, have you heard about being committed with muzzleloaders? Like the old muskets that some gun-ban people claim the Second Amendment was written for, many muzzleloaders fire a .50 caliber round, one at a time. Muzzleloaders don’t have any magazine and must be hand-loaded for each shot. But HR 127 would ban rounds .50 caliber or larger. Because a .50 caliber has been used in a total of 18 crimes in the US since the country’s founding.

Maybe HR 127 is just a red herring. After the onerousness of Jackson Lee’s bill, just about any other gun control measure will seem moderate by comparison. I won’t mention gun control measures have not proven to reduce crime in either the US or abroad.

Previously on gun control

• What is Common Sense Gun Control?

What Is Common Sense Gun Control?

An internet search does not return any specific answer to what “common sense gun control” is. Sure, many people have opinions on what restrictions they would like to see put on guns, but there is no consensus on what constitutes common sense, let alone common sense gun control.

Photo: Screenshot via YouTube: “Common Sense” Gun Control Debunked! (Man-On-Street)

It seems the most frequent use of the term is to shut down discussion. After all, who wouldn’t be in favor of measures to curb mass shootings? Therefore, if you don’t support common sense gun control, you must not support saving lives, especially kids’ lives. Adding “common sense” to gun control, gun reform, and gun safety measures seems to be just a less offensive way of vilifying gun owners.

Since the Parkland, FL, massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the trend has been to label the National Rifle Association (NRA) a terrorist organization or child murderers. How can reasonable discourse, discussion, and concurrence take place in such a toxic environment? We’ve become a very polarized society in which the mindset is you’re either for us or your against us.

The failures of Parkland had little to do with guns, but a lot to do with personal responsibility. The Parkland killer should not have been able to buy a gun, but he was not held accountable for his behavior in school. Yet, the conversation is largely focused on AR-15s (AR is short for ArmaLite, the company that introduced the gun, not assault rifle, as some believe) in particular, and assault rifles, assault weapons, or assault-style guns to some degree. These terms, too, are intended to inflame and place the user on the moral high ground. After all, no decent person could reasonably espouse the killing of others, especially not unjustified like these “weapons of war”. Never mind the AR-15 was developed in 1956 but did not become a military rifle—the M-16—until 1964.

We all want to see an end to mass murders, regardless of the means of perpetrating them. The conversation needs to be open and honest, with all sides willing to listen to the other. While words have meaning, and terms and terminology are important when it comes to writing laws, mocking gun control advocates with “gunsplaining” is an attempt to one-up the other side in most instances. While I’m at it, let me also call for an end to blaming opponents of virtue signaling. The only purpose of this term is an effort to delegitimize the other party by implying they don’t actually believe in their position. Talk about shutting down dialogue.

Since common sense isn’t very common, let’s stop being so adversarial when it comes to common concerns. Gun control advocates need to stop being so inflammatory and high and mighty. And believers in gun rights need to stop being so dismissive and pedantic. Then maybe we can develop practical solutions to keep our children and society safe.

Previously on mass shootings:

• Misplaced Blame—The Failure of Parkland

Effective Dialogue Requires Some Mutual Respect

Frankly, the near complete lack of willingness by either major political party to even listen to the other is a sad state of affairs in our country. It is symptomatic of the polarization of our society. We need good ideas, regardless of where they come from, in order to develop suitable solutions to the many problems facing the nation today. That requires some open-mindedness and a willingness to listen. That only comes with a “certain degree of mutual respect,” as Virginia state delegate Nick Freitas (R-Culpepper) said in session at the state house on March 2nd.
 

HT: The Daily Wire

It’s a short, seven-minute speech with some great points. The Daily Signal summarized seven key points.

1. Find out if gun-free zones work
2. Understand the Second Amendment
3. Make self-defense possible
4. Consider arming teachers
5. Stop calling opponents Nazis and segregationists
6. Continue the dialogue with mutual respect
7. Admit government failed in Parkland shooting

Successful solutions need reasoned approaches, based on facts and evidence. Emotion, rhetoric, and name-calling don’t advance any cause and certainly don’t yield positive results one could be proud of.