Michael R. Weisser's Blog, page 33
September 12, 2018
Want To Reduce Gun Violence? It’s These Guns That Count.
Perhaps without realizing it, our friends at The Trace have published data which could help the gun-control movement have its first, really informed discussion about how to regulate the product that causes gun violence, namely, the guns. The reason we experience gun violence and other countries don’t, is because we are the only advanced nation-state which regulates this particular consumer product by trying to control the behavior of product users, rather than by regulating the product in and of itself.
[image error] This rather unique (and bizarre) regulatory approach was reaffirmed by SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who defended the ownership of assault rifles as a ‘matter of law,’ based on the fact that such weapons are commonly found in the home and therefore deserve 2nd-Amendment protection. Whether Gun-control Nation likes it or not, using ‘common ownership’ as the basic criteria for Constitutional gun rights happens to be the core argument advanced by gun-nut Scalia (and accepted without question by the dissenting justices) in the 2008 Heller case.
No other advanced (OECD) nation-state obliges its citizenry by allowing free access to guns that are used in violent crimes. And the reason that certain guns show up again and again at crime scenes is because those kinds of guns were designed to be used as assault weapons and have no other function or use at all.
I’m not just talking about AR-15’s and AK-47’s. I’m talking about pistols from Sig, Glock, Kahr, Smith & Wesson, Beretta and just about every other handgun manufacturer because these guns are also designed to be used in assaults. Now you can argue from today to next year whether an assault is ‘offensive,’ or ‘defensive;’ I really don’t care. The bottom line is that if you point a gun at someone else and pull the trigger, it’s an assault.
The article which sheds some important light on this issue is complete listing of every gun connected to a criminal investigation conducted by the Chicago Police Department from 2010 through 2016. I decided to analyze all of these ‘crime’ guns picked up in 2014, which was a total of 4,511 guns. Although gun homicides dropped slightly from the previous year, overall criminal gun injuries increased by almost 15 percent, meaning that the gun-violence rate in 2014 was 95.6 per 100,000 city residents. The national rate that year for gun homicides and assaults was 22.4. So a lot of guns were used to commit gun violence in the Second City during 2014.
Of the total crime gun listing, I was unable to identify 184 guns, which reduces the known crime guns to 4,327. Of these guns, center-fire handgun calibers accounted for 3,160, the remaining crime calibers being either 22-caliber or rifle calibers. In other words, nearly 75% of all guns connected to criminal activity in Chicago were centerfire weapons, whose only purpose is to inflict an injury on someone else (this listing did not include guns picked up in suicide investigations.) Of the remaining guns, 369 were 22-caliber weapons, the remaining 800 guns being shotguns and rifles, of which a grand total of 30 were assault-rifles (AR & AK.)
So the ‘crime’ gun problem in Chicago, which is probably true of all high-crime jurisdictions, isn’t so much a ‘gun’ problem, as it’s a problem of handguns. But even within this category there is an interesting subset of data, because of all the crime handguns, nearly one-third (n=978) can only be described as real junk; i.e., cheap guns, many if not most no longer manufactured, all of which floating around somewhere for at least the last thirty or forty years.
According to the gun stock survey published in 2017, roughly 40% of all guns in the United States are handguns. Doing a little extrapolation from what we found in Chicago, there’s a good chance that as many as 40 million crummy but nevertheless very lethal handguns are sitting in God knows whose pockets, drawers, and everywhere else, none of which could ever be traced to anyone at all.
Comprehensive background checks to reduce gun violence? Yea, right.
September 11, 2018
No Go Zones: A Guide to Western Failed States and European Secessionist Movements.
The failed state is to post-modernity what the nation-state was to modernity. It’s a recent development that is a hallmark of our age – like a state, but incapable of exercising sovereignty over all of its nominal territory. And while it might sound a little far-fetched, the failed state isn’t just coming to the West. It might already be here.
[image error]
What Is a Failed State?
A failed state is a state no longer exercising effective control over the whole of its nominal territory. This can take a number of forms in practice, such as:
A de facto separatist nation or nations existing within the boundaries of their de jure territory, competing for the monopoly on legitimate use of physical force .
Failure of the legitimate authority of the nation to make practical, collective decisions.
Inability to adequately provide basic social services such as policing, firefighting or emergency medical services to some or all of its territory.
Inability to connect with other states through diplomatic channels; a lack of participation in the international community.
A central government incapable of collecting enough tax revenue to operate effectively.
One or several of these factors can be present in a failed state. Once a state is “failed,” this often means widespread crime, corruption and outsized influence by non-state actors.
Who Decides If a State Is “Failed?”
You and anyone else can have an opinion on whether or not a state is failed. Politicians have less leeway, as calling a state “failed” can result in serious geopolitical consequences. As a result, most politicians would be hesitant to describe any state as “failed.”
The “Fragile States Index” (FSI) is calculated by the U.S.-based think tank Fund for Peace. They use a number of objective and subjective factors to determine whether or not a state is failed (or “fragile” as they call it) by scanning media for indicators of social, economic and political failure or fragility in a country.
Among the top-ten most fragile states include: South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Zimbabwe. Haiti is the first representative from the Western Hemisphere at number 12. The next appearance in the Americas is Venezuela at 46, followed by Colombia at 71. Of the 10 most stable countries, eight are in Europe (Finland, Norway and Switzerland get the gold, silver and bronze respectively) and two are in Oceania (unsurprisingly, Australia and New Zealand). The most stable non-Western country is Singapore at 161, followed by Japan at 158 and Mauritius at 151.
The FSI does not hold a monopoly on deciding what nations are and are not “failed.” It is, however, the only major organization ranking countries.
Most people under 40 were probably introduced to the concept of a “failed state” by Somalia, after the collapse of its dictatorship in the early 1990s. This led to an extended American adventure in Somalia, resulting in the events described in Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War. Not only were American lives lost, but so was a significant amount of American prestige, as Washington neocons got their first bitter taste of “nation-building” in a nation which didn’t want to be built. The central government collapsed and nothing effectively replaced it.
To this day, some organizations operating within Somalia claim to be the ruling authority. Others claim to be separate, but completely legitimate nations. And those who must do business in Somali waters arm themselves via floating barges filled with guns and ammunition to fight off pirates.
Are Failed States Coming to Europe?
As with most things, the answer to this question depends on how we define “failed state.” For example, the presence of terrorism within a state doesn’t necessarily make it a failure, but rampant terrorism is a signature feature of a failed state. No one would suggest that the 9/11 attacks on America make it a failed state. However, the constant terrorist attacks against the Afghan state might be an argument in favor of Afghanistan as a failed state.
A more useful concept in terms of understanding whether or not failed states are coming to Europe is the so-called “No Go Zone.” United States President Donald Trump made headlines when he suggested that Sweden was on the verge of civil war or collapse. The press quickly lambasted him. How could this possibly be true of a country ranking in the top ten most stable countries in the world?
There are two answers to this question: First, the Fragile States Index measures how failed a state is, not how likely it is to become a failed state in the near future. Second, the manner by which Sweden might become a failed state could be something completely novel – and why wouldn’t it be, as Sweden would be the first failed state in Western Europe?
Yugoslavia might be the model for this. Remember, Yugoslavia was a stable nation until it wasn’t. It then turned into a bloodbath that defined a generation. While it’s tempting to blame this on Communist rule, nowhere else in Europe has there been similar levels of bloodshed. Other multinational Communist states such as Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union broke apart with very little fuss and almost no spilled blood.
What Are European Secessionist Movements?
A little-known story about 21st-century Europe is that it’s filled with secessionist movements. Catalonia, a region currently part of Spain, made headlines when it voted overwhelmingly to declare independence.
In fact, there are dozens of secessionist movements in Western Europe operating at any given time. Some are more serious than others. For example, Catalonia voted decisively to leave Spain, which led to a constitutional crisis. Scotland came pretty close to voting to leave the United Kingdom. Some other active secessionist movements in Western Europe include:
Belgium: It’s been joked that Belgium is made up of six million Walloons, three million Flemish and one Belgian – the monarch. The country is largely an artificial marriage between a Dutch and French population, with little in the way of shared cultural heritage that was engineered by the British due to its strategic location.
France: France is filled with secessionist movements, many of which it shares with Spain, due to their proximity and shared history. The Basque Country, French Catalonia and the Celtic region of Brittany all have thriving independence movements. So does the Southern Occitan region, the island of Corsica and the formerly Italian territory of Savoy.
Germany: Even stable, sensible Germany has a secessionist movement. The southern, conservative and Catholic region of Bavaria has never comfortably fit into the nation of Germany. Indeed, prior to the formation of a unified Germany, Bavaria was closer to Austria. After World War I, several proposals were made to create a nation out of Austria and Bavaria. A number of other movements seek autonomy for regions within Germany.
Italy: Much like Germany, Italy was not a unified nation until relatively late in modern European history. And, much like France, it’s never quite integrated all of its parts into a whole. Venice, South Tyrol, Sicily, Sardinia, Northern Italy (known as “Padania”), Southern Italy (known as “Ausonia”) and Lombardy are just some of the regions of Italy with active secessionist movements. Of these, Northern Italy’s is the most robust. The Lega Nord (League of the North) is in a ruling coalition with the Five Star Movement.
Spain: The Catalonian independence is the most famous, but not the only independence movement in Spain. There’s the Basques, Andalusia, Aragon, Asturias, Castille, Galicia, Leon, Navarre and Valencia. Spain is comprised of autonomous regions, nearly all of which were once independent kingdoms. Virtually all of them have independence movements of varying relevance and strength.
Switzerland: Despite being a federation of largely autonomous cantons, Switzerland has secessionist movements in at least two: Jura (a French-speaking canton) and Ticino (an Italian-speaking canton).
United Kingdom: The United Kingdom has seen an uptick in secessionist movements since the Scottish independence movement gathered steam. Of course there’s also an independence movement for Wales and even Ulster. No, we don’t mean Irish in Ulster who want to be reunified. The Ulster independence is an ultra-British movement that sees London as having sold out Irish Protestants. Other independence movements in the UK include one for Cornwall, Shetland (which might seek union with Norway), Mercia, Yorkshire and – wait for it – England. Some in England resent that Scots can vote to decide policy in England, while the Scottish Parliament controls Scotland. This is known as the West Lothian question .
If any of these secessionist movements gains enough traction to break apart a Western European nation state, that could result in civil war and failed states without help from any other factors.
What Are Irredentist Movements?
A similar phenomenon is irredentist movements in Europe. Irredentist movements seek to reunite external territories with their “home nation.” The most famous example in Western media is probably “Greater Serbia,” which was the goal of Serbian ultranationalists in the rump Yugoslavia during the Yugoslav wars. While these are more common in the Balkans than probably anywhere else in the world, Western Europe has no shortage of irredentist movements including:
South Tyrol: Mentioned above, South Tyrol is a part of Italy seeking either independence or union with Austria. Nationalists in Austria likewise seek to reclaim South Tyrol, which was part of Austria for centuries.
Ireland: The government of Ireland, for its part, still claims that the six counties of Ireland that are a part of the United Kingdom are an occupied part of Ireland.
Portugal: Portugal claims Olivenza, a Spanish border town, as part of an obscure dispute with Spain dating back to the Napoleonic era.
Spain: Spain’s claim on Gibraltar, nominally British territory, is so strong that under the Franco regime “The Ballad of John and Yoko” was banned because of the line “Gibraltar near Spain.”
As stated above, these kinds of disputes are far more common in Eastern Europe, where borders are much newer and much less rigid than they are in the Western half of the country.
What Is a No Go Zone?
A No Go Zone is sort of a failed state in miniature form, and is not that recent of a development. In the strictest sense, a No Go Zone (or ”No Go Area”) is an area that has been barricaded off by military or paramilitary authorities. However, a broader definition has emerged in recent years as governments such as France and Sweden use euphemisms such as “vulnerable area,” “exposed area” or “sensitive urban zone” for what are effectively No Go Zones.
For our purposes, a No Go Zone is anywhere that the government is incapable of providing basic support services – policing, firefighting and emergency medical services. This is also the common meaning when “No Go Zone” is used in the media.
Uncomfortable for some to consider, it is an undeniable fact that most, if not all, of the No Go Zones in Europe coincide with large Muslim populations. In these areas, large radicalized immigrant populations are indifferent or hostile to the central government.
Beyond the merely uncomfortable for some and into the deeply disturbing for all, second-generation Muslim immigrants tend to be more radicalized than their parents, not less. This is true across Europe. Second-generation Muslim immigrants have been behind nearly every terrorist attack in Europe post-9/11. The kind of assimilation America saw after its massive immigration wave between the Civil War and the First World War simply is not happening with Muslim immigrant communities in Europe.
No Go Zones in Europe
Much of the debate around whether or not Europe has “No Go Zones” comes down to how terms are defined. A 2017 article on RT’s website put the matter very succinctly: “Thus those looking to dismiss no-go areas as a ‘myth,’ can argue the semantics of what constitutes a ‘no-go zone,’ or how much of a threat they present, but not that term represents a real phenomenon.” Here are some examples of growing civil unrest in Europe:
Belgium: Following the November 2015 terror attacks in France, Belgium’s Home Affairs Minister Jan Jambon stated that the Belgian government does not “have control of the situation in Molenbeek.” He described this as a “gigantic problem” without actually using the term No Go Zone.
France: Fox News created controversy in 2015 when they declared France had No Go Zones after the Charlie Hebdo shooting. However, looking beyond the hysteria, there’s considerable evidence that France has No Go Zones. In fact, Reuters referred to No Go Zones in Paris in October 2016. In June 2018, the French President Emmanuel Macron gave a speech with repeated euphemistic references to No Go Zones. The National Post, Canada’s paper of record, did an in-depth feature on No Go Zones in 2016. In 2017, an app launched called “No-Go Zone,” allowing the French to report lawless areas to be avoided. So while there may be a reflexive reaction to dismiss reports from Gatestone Institute or Breitbart on French No Go Zones as “right-wing propaganda,” there are no shortage of so-called “mainstream” sources reporting on No Go Zones in France.
Germany: Angela Merkel has spoken about No Go Zones as a “reality” in Germany. In April 2018, the Daily Mail reported on a poll showing that a majority of Germans feared No Go Zones, with over three quarters stating they believed the government should crack down harder on organized crime.
Sweden: Much of the media attention surrounding No Go Zones is centered on Sweden. Despite vehement denials, there is overwhelming evidence of No Go Areas in Sweden, no matter what term one chooses to use. An April 2018 Sputnik report described areas where emergency services cannot enter without significant police support. In 2018, the Prime Minister of Sweden referred to “parallel societies” in Sweden . The spectre of civil war in Sweden is openly discussed in Parliament. A 2017 RT article quoted Swedish National Police Commissioner Dan Eliasson as saying “we cannot continue in this direction ten more years.” In December 2017, the nation’s chief prosecutor described a Stockholm suburb as being like “ a war zone ” and stating that she would look to countries like El Salvador and Colombia for potential strategies.
United Kingdom: President Donald Trump was ridiculed for suggesting the presence of No Go Areas in the UK , however, there is evidence to suggest he was correct. Raheem Kassam, a UKIP activist and former Breitbart UK Editor in Chief has written an entire book on the subject . Kassam is of Tanzanian extraction and was raised as an Ismaili Muslim, though he now identifies as an atheist. An anonymous London police officer went on popular British radio program LBC and stated that the British capital did in fact have “No Go Areas.” Councillors for Leeds suburb Bradford have similarly described areas of that city .
How Is the Specter of No Go Zones Influencing European Politics?
No Go Zones are not currently dominating political discourse in any European country. They are, however, forming a persistent backdrop in nearly every European nation. Populist-nationalist parties use them as a frequent talking point to pillory the establishment parties of both the left and the right. For their part, establishment political parties tend to deny the existence of No Go Zones entirely. To what degree No Go Zones are a factor in anyone’s vote is highly speculative.
In the middle of summer 2018, riots broke out in Sweden. Many on the left blamed the riots on the popularity of Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigration populist party. This only seemed to bolster their support among Swedes. Moderate Party MP Hanif Bali denied that this was the cause of the riots. Bali, the son of immigrants, is a staunch critic of Sweden’s immigration policies, showing that these criticisms are not limited to the Sweden Democrats. Bali is the only Swedish politician of note within the more mainstream parties to state that he is open to the possibility of a coalition with Sweden Democrats.
How Likely Are No Go Zones to Result in Failed States?
This is a difficult question to answer, because there’s no history of pockets of No Go Zones metastasizing into failed states in Western Europe. However, some Western European countries have hallmarks of incipient failed states, such as:
Ceding their monopoly on legitimate violence. Sharia courts , for example, operate with relative impunity in the UK.
An unwillingness or inability to exercise sovereignty over its territory. The extended rioting in France and Sweden’s No Go Zones provide an example of this.
Escalation of communal or tribal conflicts. As No Go Zones grow, it’s almost a given that communal conflicts will escalate.
Guerilla conflict. Similarly, as No Go Zones grow, they may come to resemble completely autonomous areas and bases for terrorist attacks, such as the Moro areas of the Philippines.
Finally, there’s the specter of democratic collapse in Western Europe. What will happen, for example, if the Sweden Democrats win a plurality in parliament, but cannot form a government and neither can any collection of their rivals? How about if sections of the military or security apparatus start taking sides?
How Can I Protect My Family From No Go Zones?
The short answer is by not living near any. The problem with being “prepared” for No Go Zones and failed states is that even the most prepared people in these areas lead somewhat desperate qualities of life. Even all the tactical weapons and gear in the world won’t make living in what’s effectively a war zone any prettier.
Still, the last 30 years of European history teaches us that No Go Zones and failed states can crop up anywhere. Preparation should be focused on having adequate ammunition, water, food and power in the event of a disruption of normal civil society. More than anything, what you need is not supplies, but an escape plan.
No Go Zones: A Guide to Western Failed States and European Secessionist Movements
The failed state is to post-modernity what the nation-state was to modernity. It’s a recent development that is a hallmark of our age – like a state, but incapable of exercising sovereignty over all of its nominal territory. And while it might sound a little far-fetched, the failed state isn’t just coming to the West. It might already be here.
What Is a Failed State?
A failed state is a state no longer exercising effective control over the whole of its nominal territory. This can take a number of forms in practice, such as:
A de facto separatist nation or nations existing within the boundaries of their de jure territory, competing for the monopoly on legitimate use of physical force .
Failure of the legitimate authority of the nation to make practical, collective decisions.
Inability to adequately provide basic social services such as policing, firefighting or emergency medical services to some or all of its territory.
Inability to connect with other states through diplomatic channels; a lack of participation in the international community.
A central government incapable of collecting enough tax revenue to operate effectively.
One or several of these factors can be present in a failed state. Once a state is “failed,” this often means widespread crime, corruption and outsized influence by non-state actors.
Who Decides If a State Is “Failed?”
You and anyone else can have an opinion on whether or not a state is failed. Politicians have less leeway, as calling a state “failed” can result in serious geopolitical consequences. As a result, most politicians would be hesitant to describe any state as “failed.”
The “Fragile States Index” (FSI) is calculated by the U.S.-based think tank Fund for Peace. They use a number of objective and subjective factors to determine whether or not a state is failed (or “fragile” as they call it) by scanning media for indicators of social, economic and political failure or fragility in a country.
Among the top-ten most fragile states include: South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Zimbabwe. Haiti is the first representative from the Western Hemisphere at number 12. The next appearance in the Americas is Venezuela at 46, followed by Colombia at 71. Of the 10 most stable countries, eight are in Europe (Finland, Norway and Switzerland get the gold, silver and bronze respectively) and two are in Oceania (unsurprisingly, Australia and New Zealand). The most stable non-Western country is Singapore at 161, followed by Japan at 158 and Mauritius at 151.
The FSI does not hold a monopoly on deciding what nations are and are not “failed.” It is, however, the only major organization ranking countries.
Most people under 40 were probably introduced to the concept of a “failed state” by Somalia, after the collapse of its dictatorship in the early 1990s. This led to an extended American adventure in Somalia, resulting in the events described in Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War. Not only were American lives lost, but so was a significant amount of American prestige, as Washington neocons got their first bitter taste of “nation-building” in a nation which didn’t want to be built. The central government collapsed and nothing effectively replaced it.
To this day, some organizations operating within Somalia claim to be the ruling authority. Others claim to be separate, but completely legitimate nations. And those who must do business in Somali waters arm themselves via floating barges filled with guns and ammunition to fight off pirates.
Are Failed States Coming to Europe?
As with most things, the answer to this question depends on how we define “failed state.” For example, the presence of terrorism within a state doesn’t necessarily make it a failure, but rampant terrorism is a signature feature of a failed state. No one would suggest that the 9/11 attacks on America make it a failed state. However, the constant terrorist attacks against the Afghan state might be an argument in favor of Afghanistan as a failed state.
A more useful concept in terms of understanding whether or not failed states are coming to Europe is the so-called “No Go Zone.” United States President Donald Trump made headlines when he suggested that Sweden was on the verge of civil war or collapse. The press quickly lambasted him. How could this possibly be true of a country ranking in the top ten most stable countries in the world?
There are two answers to this question: First, the Fragile States Index measures how failed a state is, not how likely it is to become a failed state in the near future. Second, the manner by which Sweden might become a failed state could be something completely novel – and why wouldn’t it be, as Sweden would be the first failed state in Western Europe?
Yugoslavia might be the model for this. Remember, Yugoslavia was a stable nation until it wasn’t. It then turned into a bloodbath that defined a generation. While it’s tempting to blame this on Communist rule, nowhere else in Europe has there been similar levels of bloodshed. Other multinational Communist states such as Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union broke apart with very little fuss and almost no spilled blood.
What Are European Secessionist Movements?
A little-known story about 21st-century Europe is that it’s filled with secessionist movements. Catalonia, a region currently part of Spain, made headlines when it voted overwhelmingly to declare independence.
In fact, there are dozens of secessionist movements in Western Europe operating at any given time. Some are more serious than others. For example, Catalonia voted decisively to leave Spain, which led to a constitutional crisis. Scotland came pretty close to voting to leave the United Kingdom. Some other active secessionist movements in Western Europe include:
Belgium: It’s been joked that Belgium is made up of six million Walloons, three million Flemish and one Belgian – the monarch. The country is largely an artificial marriage between a Dutch and French population, with little in the way of shared cultural heritage that was engineered by the British due to its strategic location.
France: France is filled with secessionist movements, many of which it shares with Spain, due to their proximity and shared history. The Basque Country, French Catalonia and the Celtic region of Brittany all have thriving independence movements. So does the Southern Occitan region, the island of Corsica and the formerly Italian territory of Savoy.
Germany: Even stable, sensible Germany has a secessionist movement. The southern, conservative and Catholic region of Bavaria has never comfortably fit into the nation of Germany. Indeed, prior to the formation of a unified Germany, Bavaria was closer to Austria. After World War I, several proposals were made to create a nation out of Austria and Bavaria. A number of other movements seek autonomy for regions within Germany.
Italy: Much like Germany, Italy was not a unified nation until relatively late in modern European history. And, much like France, it’s never quite integrated all of its parts into a whole. Venice, South Tyrol, Sicily, Sardinia, Northern Italy (known as “Padania”), Southern Italy (known as “Ausonia”) and Lombardy are just some of the regions of Italy with active secessionist movements. Of these, Northern Italy’s is the most robust. The Lega Nord (League of the North) is in a ruling coalition with the Five Star Movement.
Spain: The Catalonian independence is the most famous, but not the only independence movement in Spain. There’s the Basques, Andalusia, Aragon, Asturias, Castille, Galicia, Leon, Navarre and Valencia. Spain is comprised of autonomous regions, nearly all of which were once independent kingdoms. Virtually all of them have independence movements of varying relevance and strength.
Switzerland: Despite being a federation of largely autonomous cantons, Switzerland has secessionist movements in at least two: Jura (a French-speaking canton) and Ticino (an Italian-speaking canton).
United Kingdom: The United Kingdom has seen an uptick in secessionist movements since the Scottish independence movement gathered steam. Of course there’s also an independence movement for Wales and even Ulster. No, we don’t mean Irish in Ulster who want to be reunified. The Ulster independence is an ultra-British movement that sees London as having sold out Irish Protestants. Other independence movements in the UK include one for Cornwall, Shetland (which might seek union with Norway), Mercia, Yorkshire and – wait for it – England. Some in England resent that Scots can vote to decide policy in England, while the Scottish Parliament controls Scotland. This is known as the West Lothian question .
If any of these secessionist movements gains enough traction to break apart a Western European nation state, that could result in civil war and failed states without help from any other factors.
What Are Irredentist Movements?
A similar phenomenon is irredentist movements in Europe. Irredentist movements seek to reunite external territories with their “home nation.” The most famous example in Western media is probably “Greater Serbia,” which was the goal of Serbian ultranationalists in the rump Yugoslavia during the Yugoslav wars. While these are more common in the Balkans than probably anywhere else in the world, Western Europe has no shortage of irredentist movements including:
South Tyrol: Mentioned above, South Tyrol is a part of Italy seeking either independence or union with Austria. Nationalists in Austria likewise seek to reclaim South Tyrol, which was part of Austria for centuries.
Ireland: The government of Ireland, for its part, still claims that the six counties of Ireland that are a part of the United Kingdom are an occupied part of Ireland.
Portugal: Portugal claims Olivenza, a Spanish border town, as part of an obscure dispute with Spain dating back to the Napoleonic era.
Spain: Spain’s claim on Gibraltar, nominally British territory, is so strong that under the Franco regime “The Ballad of John and Yoko” was banned because of the line “Gibraltar near Spain.”
As stated above, these kinds of disputes are far more common in Eastern Europe, where borders are much newer and much less rigid than they are in the Western half of the country.
What Is a No Go Zone?
A No Go Zone is sort of a failed state in miniature form, and is not that recent of a development. In the strictest sense, a No Go Zone (or ”No Go Area”) is an area that has been barricaded off by military or paramilitary authorities. However, a broader definition has emerged in recent years as governments such as France and Sweden use euphemisms such as “vulnerable area,” “exposed area” or “sensitive urban zone” for what are effectively No Go Zones.
For our purposes, a No Go Zone is anywhere that the government is incapable of providing basic support services – policing, firefighting and emergency medical services. This is also the common meaning when “No Go Zone” is used in the media.
Uncomfortable for some to consider, it is an undeniable fact that most, if not all, of the No Go Zones in Europe coincide with large Muslim populations. In these areas, large radicalized immigrant populations are indifferent or hostile to the central government.
Beyond the merely uncomfortable for some and into the deeply disturbing for all, second-generation Muslim immigrants tend to be more radicalized than their parents, not less. This is true across Europe. Second-generation Muslim immigrants have been behind nearly every terrorist attack in Europe post-9/11. The kind of assimilation America saw after its massive immigration wave between the Civil War and the First World War simply is not happening with Muslim immigrant communities in Europe.
No Go Zones in Europe
Much of the debate around whether or not Europe has “No Go Zones” comes down to how terms are defined. A 2017 article on RT’s website put the matter very succinctly: “Thus those looking to dismiss no-go areas as a ‘myth,’ can argue the semantics of what constitutes a ‘no-go zone,’ or how much of a threat they present, but not that term represents a real phenomenon.” Here are some examples of growing civil unrest in Europe:
Belgium: Following the November 2015 terror attacks in France, Belgium’s Home Affairs Minister Jan Jambon stated that the Belgian government does not “have control of the situation in Molenbeek.” He described this as a “gigantic problem” without actually using the term No Go Zone.
France: Fox News created controversy in 2015 when they declared France had No Go Zones after the Charlie Hebdo shooting. However, looking beyond the hysteria, there’s considerable evidence that France has No Go Zones. In fact, Reuters referred to No Go Zones in Paris in October 2016. In June 2018, the French President Emmanuel Macron gave a speech with repeated euphemistic references to No Go Zones. The National Post, Canada’s paper of record, did an in-depth feature on No Go Zones in 2016. In 2017, an app launched called “No-Go Zone,” allowing the French to report lawless areas to be avoided. So while there may be a reflexive reaction to dismiss reports from Gatestone Institute or Breitbart on French No Go Zones as “right-wing propaganda,” there are no shortage of so-called “mainstream” sources reporting on No Go Zones in France.
Germany: Angela Merkel has spoken about No Go Zones as a “reality” in Germany. In April 2018, the Daily Mail reported on a poll showing that a majority of Germans feared No Go Zones, with over three quarters stating they believed the government should crack down harder on organized crime.
Sweden: Much of the media attention surrounding No Go Zones is centered on Sweden. Despite vehement denials, there is overwhelming evidence of No Go Areas in Sweden, no matter what term one chooses to use. An April 2018 Sputnik report described areas where emergency services cannot enter without significant police support. In 2018, the Prime Minister of Sweden referred to “parallel societies” in Sweden . The spectre of civil war in Sweden is openly discussed in Parliament. A 2017 RT article quoted Swedish National Police Commissioner Dan Eliasson as saying “we cannot continue in this direction ten more years.” In December 2017, the nation’s chief prosecutor described a Stockholm suburb as being like “ a war zone ” and stating that she would look to countries like El Salvador and Colombia for potential strategies.
United Kingdom: President Donald Trump was ridiculed for suggesting the presence of No Go Areas in the UK , however, there is evidence to suggest he was correct. Raheem Kassam, a UKIP activist and former Breitbart UK Editor in Chief has written an entire book on the subject . Kassam is of Tanzanian extraction and was raised as an Ismaili Muslim, though he now identifies as an atheist. An anonymous London police officer went on popular British radio program LBC and stated that the British capital did in fact have “No Go Areas.” Councillors for Leeds suburb Bradford have similarly described areas of that city .
How Is the Specter of No Go Zones Influencing European Politics?
No Go Zones are not currently dominating political discourse in any European country. They are, however, forming a persistent backdrop in nearly every European nation. Populist-nationalist parties use them as a frequent talking point to pillory the establishment parties of both the left and the right. For their part, establishment political parties tend to deny the existence of No Go Zones entirely. To what degree No Go Zones are a factor in anyone’s vote is highly speculative.
In the middle of summer 2018, riots broke out in Sweden. Many on the left blamed the riots on the popularity of Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigration populist party. This only seemed to bolster their support among Swedes. Moderate Party MP Hanif Bali denied that this was the cause of the riots. Bali, the son of immigrants, is a staunch critic of Sweden’s immigration policies, showing that these criticisms are not limited to the Sweden Democrats. Bali is the only Swedish politician of note within the more mainstream parties to state that he is open to the possibility of a coalition with Sweden Democrats.
How Likely Are No Go Zones to Result in Failed States?
This is a difficult question to answer, because there’s no history of pockets of No Go Zones metastasizing into failed states in Western Europe. However, some Western European countries have hallmarks of incipient failed states, such as:
Ceding their monopoly on legitimate violence. Sharia courts , for example, operate with relative impunity in the UK.
An unwillingness or inability to exercise sovereignty over its territory. The extended rioting in France and Sweden’s No Go Zones provide an example of this.
Escalation of communal or tribal conflicts. As No Go Zones grow, it’s almost a given that communal conflicts will escalate.
Guerilla conflict. Similarly, as No Go Zones grow, they may come to resemble completely autonomous areas and bases for terrorist attacks, such as the Moro areas of the Philippines.
Finally, there’s the specter of democratic collapse in Western Europe. What will happen, for example, if the Sweden Democrats win a plurality in parliament, but cannot form a government and neither can any collection of their rivals? How about if sections of the military or security apparatus start taking sides?
How Can I Protect My Family From No Go Zones?
The short answer is by not living near any. The problem with being “prepared” for No Go Zones and failed states is that even the most prepared people in these areas lead somewhat desperate qualities of life. Even all the tactical weapons and gear in the world won’t make living in what’s effectively a war zone any prettier.
Still, the last 30 years of European history teaches us that No Go Zones and failed states can crop up anywhere. Preparation should be focused on having adequate ammunition, water, food and power in the event of a disruption of normal civil society. More than anything, what you need is not supplies, but an escape plan.
September 10, 2018
California’s New Ammunition Law Will Only Make Matters Worse.
Want to take a look at a new law for controlling gun violence which will probably have the exact, opposite effect of what the law is supposed to do? Take a look at the California law going into effect next year which requires that everyone who buys ammunition must go through the same kind of background check that is now required for every California resident who want to buy a gun. The law is being touted by, among others, the current Lieutenant Governor, Gavin Newsom, who is now running for Governor as the Golden State’s most fervent gun-control politician because, as a recent campaign ad says, he has shown ‘bold leadership’ in taking on the NRA.
[image error] What Newsom is really taking advantage of is the complete and total lack of understanding about the whole ammunition issue, a knowledge gap which he shares with a group of gun-control researchers who published a peer-reviewed article on this new ammunition law in a widely respected journal, Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences last year. The authors of this article interviewed 140 inmates in Los Angeles county jails and found that these lovely individuals knew next to nothing about laws covering purchase and/or ownership of ammunition; in particular, they seemed to be completely in the dark about this new ammunition law. The scholars raised serious concerns about this lack of legal awareness on the part of the jail-bird population since this would probably mean that the new law would be broken the moment these fellows got out of jail.
Know what? When it comes to understanding the gun business, stupidity can break out at any time. And in this case, as dumb as those county inmates might appear when it comes to the legal issues surrounding the purchase of ammunition, the scholars who did the research and wrote up their findings have a much greater dumbness quotient than the guys in the clink. Having discovered that these criminal detainees are unaware of ammunition law, the researchers ask: ”How can we expect individuals—and prohibited possessors in particular—to be deterred from illegally possessing guns and ammunition if they are not aware of the laws to begin with?” The research team concludes by saying that what we need to do is come up with some more effective messaging within the criminal class.
The point is folks, that the people who aren’t allowed to buy ammunition because they won’t be able to pass muster during a background check already know a simple and easy way to get around the new law – knowledge which seems to have somehow not yet been processed by the Russell Sage research team. And for that matter, the new California law, designed to enhance public safety and reduce gun violence, contains specific reference to the manner by which the so-called unqualified population will be able to get their hands on all the ammunition they need.
Last time I checked, there were at least 20 commercial shooting ranges operating within Los Angeles County. Now let’s say that each range attracts 10 shooters a day – that’s probably far below the actual traffic – and each shooter buys 50 rounds of range ammo before he/she leaves. Range operators make their money selling reloaded ammunition for a fraction of the price shooters would pay for the factory stuff from Remington, Federal, Winchester, et. al. This means that every day in LA County at least 10,000 ammunition rounds are being sold, of which the purchase of not one single round requires any kind of background check at all.
The California ammunition law exempts purchases at gun ranges, which basically means that once the law goes into effect, the result will be to open up the handloaded ammunition market for everyone who would otherwise be unable to get their hands on the stuff they need. And the Russell Sage research team had the balls to publish a peer-reviewed article which claimed that criminals don’t understand gun laws?
September 6, 2018
What Kavanaugh Said About Assault Rifles Happens To Be True.
I hate to say this, folks, but the big flap over Brett Kavanaugh’s supposed endorsement of assault rifles and other pro-gun issues is nothing other than a big nothingburger. Understand that I’m not trying to find a back-door way to support his nomination. I’m also not trying to imply in any way that his nomination shouldn’t be opposed based on concerns that he might help the Supreme Court undo fundamental decisions that guarantee justice and equality for all.
[image error] My problem is that I keep reading and hearing things that Kavanaugh allegedly believes about guns, and then when I listen to what he actually says, it doesn’t add up. Is he a pro-gun guy? No kidding – gee, what a surprise. Will he tilt the Court to the right if and when another gun-control law comes up for review? Of course he will. On the other hand, his response to Senator Feinstein’s question about his views on assault rifles was not only well within accepted legal parameters, but followed directly from the majority Heller opinion written by Scalia in 2008.
First of all, contrary to what appeared on the Giffords website, he did not say that ‘assault weapons can’t be distinguished from handguns.’ What he said was that as semi-automatic weapons they could not be distinguished from semi-automatic handguns as a “matter of law.” And what he obviously meant by that statement is the fact that since 1934, federal gun law has made a clear distinction between semi-automatic weapons, as opposed to weapons which fire full-auto, the latter being very heavily regulated, the former much less so.
Incidentally, David Hogg is also jumping into the argument by saying that the ‘effective’ range of a handgun is 75 feet but the ‘effective’ range of an AR-15 is 1600 feet; hence, the AR is not a gun to be used for self-defense. David’s a lovely young man, he’s a big and important cog in the gun-control machine. He doesn’t know squat about guns.
I notice that every, single anti-Kavanaugh post somehow neglects to mention the words ‘matter of law.’ But that’s exactly the point. Kavanaugh is absolutely correct in following the precedent set by Scalia whose opinion gave Constitutional protection to privately-owned guns, with the exception of ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons, by which Scalia meant guns designed for military use.
Do me a favor, okay? Please don’t send me a nasty email or accuse me of being some kind of gun-sucking troll until you read what I am now going to say. The problem with the 2008 Heller decision is that Scalia, the Court’s alleged gun nut, really didn’t know much of anything about guns. If he did, he could never have made a distinction between so-called ‘weapons in common use’ and ‘weapons of war’ because most of the handguns owned today happen to be guns that were designed and initially manufactured for military use. The most popular handgun sold today – Glock – was designed for the Austrian Army and is carried by many troops in the field, including American troops. Every, single polymer gun in the Sig catalog is designed on the same platform which was used for the U.S. Army’s new handgun. The most popular handgun of all time, the Colt 1911 45acp pistol was designed for the Army by John Browning in 1907.
The United States is the only country that makes no distinction between small arms for the military and small arms for civilian use. In fact, even the whole idea of full-auto versus semi-auto is nonsense, because the current battle rifle, the M4, can be shot in semi-auto mode.
When the Supreme Court decided to extend Constitutional protection to weapons in ‘common use,’ it created a definition that had nothing to do with history, law or anything else. It was nothing more than an ill-founded opinion by a jurist whose colleagues knew even less about guns. Sorry, but when it comes to guns, the collective stupidity of our highest court can’t be blamed on what Brett Kavanaugh said or didn’t say.
September 5, 2018
Levi-Strauss Understands Gun Violence – It’s The Gun.
, If there’s one brand name out there which we associate with the Old West, it’s not Smith & Wesson or Colt, it’s Levi’s, as in Levi-Strauss. Their signature product, denim jeans held together with copper rivets rather than just plain thread, didn’t really become a mass market item until long after the frontier was closed, but the name and those leather labels still evokes everything which symbolizes how and when the U.S.A. was formed.
[image error] All of a sudden it seems, the company has decided to make a very strong and very public statement about guns. And it’s not a statement about how Winchester and Levi-Strauss won the West. To the contrary, in an open letter to Fortune Magazine, a publication you’ll find on the coffee table of virtually every business leader in the United States, Levi’s CEO, Chip Bergh, is urging the business sector to take what he calls a ‘stand on gun violence, which follows from a company policy announced in 2016 which banned guns from all Levi’s stores. The policy even applies to stores located in jurisdictions where carrying a gun is permitted by law.
Did the company receive the usual assortment of nasty emails and threats from the usual collection of pro-gun trolls? Of course. Did Bergh and the company’s other executives back down? Here’s his final comment from the 2016 piece: “In the end, I believe we have an obligation to our employees and customers to ensure a safe environment and keeping firearms out of our stores and offices will get us one step closer to achieving that reality.”
Did Levi-Strauss suffer at the cash register the way that a gaggle of alt-right trolls is claiming Nike will see its sales collapse because of the new ad campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick that even has Sleazy Don weighing in to remind everyone that he’s America’s Patriot Number One? Levi’s has been privately-owned so we can’t determine whether they have paid any kind of price with falling revenues since they announced the ban. The company has left open the issue of enforcement but the message is clear: one of America’s most storied and celebrated business organizations has decided to turn its back on guns.
In addition to the open letter, the company is also putting its money behind its mouth in the form of a million-dollar Safer Tomorrow Fund that will support what it calls “the work of nonprofits and youth activists who are working to end gun violence in America.” The company is also doubling the match it donates when employees support organizations that get involved with the Fund. Most important, and this is a point which needs to be emphasized by anyone and everyone who supports the decision by Levi-Strauss, the company is going to partner with a new group of business leaders who want to reduce gun violence; it’s called the Everytown Business Leaders for Gun Safety, started by you-know-who.
Nobody on either side of the gun issue should underestimate the importance of this move. And the importance isn’t a function of the deep pockets of Mike Bloomberg, although that never hurts. What’s really important about this new campaign is that we finally have an effort to focus gun violence where it really belongs, namely, on the companies who create the 125,000 gun deaths and injuries each year because they make the guns.
I don’t know of another advocacy campaign aimed at reducing injuries from a consumer product in which the companies which make the product are so hidden from public view. And please don’t make the mistake of thinking for one minute that the 2nd Amendment is any kind of protective shield behind which gun manufacturers can hide. It’s not. Period. But again and again the gun-control movement tries to come up with policies and laws that regulate the behavior of gun owners while exempting the gun makers from greater scrutiny and regulatory review.
Recall the 1992 Presidential campaign slogan ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ Now replace the word ‘economy’ with the word ‘gun’ and you have the real importance of what Levi-Strauss plans to do.
September 4, 2018
The Russian Spy And The NRA: The Story’s Fading Fast.
If there is still anyone out there who still believes that the Keystone Cops story about Maria Butina running around as a secret Russian agent trying to help Sleazy Don rig the election, last week’s New York Times story should finally put all that nonsense to rest. In fact, what has now been revealed isn’t the Keystone Cops – that’s way too professional. It’s really a script right out of Laurel & Hardy, or maybe Cramden & Norton. But whatever it is, the idea that this half-witted little playgirl got together with the NRA to somehow subvert our political system is beyond absurd.
[image error] [image error] Even the NYT reporters, who had previously been pushing the Mata Hari storyline, felt it necessary to cover themselves by admitting that “during her time in the United States, she surrounded herself not only with high-profile American conservatives but also with dubious characters who seemed bent on making a fast buck — and it was not always easy to tell one from the other.” Not easy to tell one from the other – no sh*t Sherlock.
On the other hand, to cement the image of a nefarious NRA leadership hell-bent on doing whatever illegal or unethical things were done to promote Sleazy Don’s campaign, we now have the appearance of yet another suspicious character whose agenda was also being shaped by a connection the pro-gun gang, in this case none other than Donna Keene, wife of David Keene, who happens to be a former President of the NRA.
Donna Keene is described in the NYT article as a ‘well-connected Washington lobbyist,’ whose connections – surprise, surprise – all happen to be on the Far Right. She currently makes appearances for an outfit called The Leadership Institute, which was founded in 1979 as a place where young conservatives can learn how to promote the right-wing message on college campuses, social media, political movement, the whole bit.
The way she got involved with the Russian ‘spy,’ however, had nothing to do with politics, or lobbying, or the NRA, or anything else. Keene reached out to Maria Butina because she allegedly was fronting for some guy who wanted to buy Russian jet fuel and, after all, since Butina had taken husband David on an NRA junket to Moscow, why not ask her for help?
Why not? Because Butina didn’t know anyone who had any connections at all in the Russian energy industry, and she was so obvious in her attempts to promote herself and make a buck that even her boyfriend, or her ex-boyfriend, or whatever he is, another two-but hustler named Paul Erickson, admitted that he actually wrote all the emails which Butina then cut and pasted so that it looked like she knew what to say.
The whole, stupid deal collapsed because there never was a deal. All that happened was that Butina asked Donna to put up $25,000 as a ‘good faith’ payment; we all know where that money would have ended up.
Let me break it gently to my good gun violence prevention (GVP) friends. The NRA was founded in 1876 to promote gun ownership and the safe use of guns. For reasons having absolutely nothing to do with Trump, or Putin or anyone else, gun owners have always been politically conservative and are easily persuaded that political liberals are against gun ‘rights.’ If you want to come over here from anywhere else and try various shlock schemes that will appeal to folks on the right, my suggestion is that you’re wasting your time going to a meeting of the local chapter of moveon.org.
So far, super-spy Butina has tried to promote the AK-47 assault rifle without any success; she’s now tried to make a connection between an unnamed American and an unidentified Russian who may or may not be able to come up with some jet fuel for sale. This is how you get the NRA to help you subvert the American political system? As my grandmother would say, “gai mach,’ which means blow it out your proverbial rear end.
August 31, 2018
Where Do Mass Shootings Occur?
[image error]
One of the issues which has dogged gun-violence research has been the difficulty in retrieving valid data from any countries outside of a small grouping of the most advanced nation-states, a.k.a, the OECD.
For that reason, I was pleased to join John Lott in his attempt to measure mass shootings on a worldwide basis, particularly since I was not able to find the data allegedly collected by other scholars whose work on this issue has been circulating throughout the mass media, as well as within the gun violence prevention community, a.k.a., the GVP.
John and I have substantive disagreements about many issues which form the core of the gun-violence debate. But where we come together is on the absolute and unquestioned requirement that scholars should always be willing to share access to the data which they use to define and support their research. Either we debate and argue on the basis of facts or we don’t – it’s as simple as that.
Here is our op-ed in today’s New York Post. The data can be accessed here.
August 30, 2018
Gun Control in America: A Historic Guide on Major State Acts.
The Second Amendment guarantees American citizens the right to bear arms, but both federaland state governments determine how citizens may legally exercise that right. And while both federal and state gun control laws regularly change, laws at the state level change more frequently and often without the media coverage that surrounds changes at the federal level.
[image error] This results in a constant challenge for gun owners to keep up with the latest state laws, especially for those who carry their weapons across state lines. Because while some states have more restrictions than others, state gun control policies across the country are diverse and can change quickly – too easily putting responsible gun owners on the wrong side of the law.
This guide is a timeline of major state gun control acts throughout the history of the United States – not only to help gun owners understand the state laws that have influenced our nation, but also to showcase how one state’s gun laws can set an example for others, creating a domino effect of gun control policy for the entire country.
Colonial America: Slavery Versus The Second Amendment
Pre-Constitution, the original Articles of Confederation established that “every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia.” The Bill of Rights’ Second Amendment holds that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” However, those rights were at that time granted specifically to white males.
Fear of slave and Native American uprisings prompted many colonial states to establish laws banning “free Mulattos, Negroes and Indians” from having firearms. By the antebellum period, southern states like South Carolina, Louisiana, Florida, Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi and even Delaware all had various laws denying guns to people of color and allowing search and seizure of weapons as well as punishment without trial. Crucial to all of this was the Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Previously a slave, Dred Scott sued for freedom based on the fact that he’d lived in the free state of Illinois and a free area within the Louisiana Territory for a decade. When his suit was unsuccessful in Missouri, he appealed to the federal courts. The contention was whether “a free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves,” was a citizen with protections under the Constitution. The Supreme Court decision on Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1857 denied “a free negro of the African race” citizenship – a milestone its issuer cited as “the most momentous event that has ever occurred on this continent,” excluding the Declaration of Independence. In that moment, those denied citizenship were also excluded from any of the rights associated with it.
After The Civil War: The Postbellum Era, Emancipation, Reconstruction, and the Black Codes
While President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed all slaves, President Andrew Johnson’s failing leadership brought with it all the struggles of the Reconstruction Era. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision still denied people of African descent citizenship.
Former Confederate states enacted Black Codes to define and restrict freedmen’s positions within society. Along with mandating legal responsibilities, land ownership rights, contract labor wages and harsh criminal laws, nearly all the Black Codes effectively and pointedly banned “persons of color” – anyone “with more than one-eighth Negro blood” – from possessing firearms. Mississippi, South Carolina, Louisiana, Florida, Maryland, Alabama, North Carolina, Texas and Tennessee all enacted Black Codes, attempting to maintain the status quo and deny weapons to people of color.
The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments banned slavery, provided all citizens equal protection under the law and ensured voting rights for all citizens. The 14th Amendment was particularly important, as it defined citizenship as “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” overturning the Dred Scott decision, establishing people of color as citizens and overriding state statutes denying them the right to possess firearms based on their heritage.
Jim Crow South: The Supreme Court Cedes Gun Control to the States
In the following decades, a second civil war ensued as freed slaves sought to embrace their citizenship and formed freedmen militias to protect black communities and maintain political footing. The Jim Crow South, however, was equally intent on keeping firearms out of the hands of black Americans. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was founded in 1866 as a “social club,” and the Knights of the White Camelia and the White Brotherhood quickly followed. These white supremacist groups swept the South, their foremost demand that freedmen surrender their firearms.
Despite attempts to pass a federal law making the specific seizure of firearms “without due process of law, by violence, intimidation, or threats” a felony, the language of the resulting Enforcement Acts was instead diluted to encompass obstructing civil rights, and the terror continued.
Tensions came to a head in 1873 in Louisiana, when armed white Democrats overpowered Republican freedmen militia at the Grant County Courthouse in what came to be known as the Colfax Massacre. Three whites died, but estimates indicate as many as 150 freedmen were killed – possibly more – most in the hours after they’d surrendered. Initially, three white men were prosecuted under the Enforcement Acts. But in 1876, the Supreme Court decision on the case – United States v. Kruikshank – dropped all charges, ruling that the power to protect citizens from private actions like those of the KKK resided with the states, not the federal government.
Southern states were quick to pass Saturday night special laws limiting handgun ownership through financial requirements that retained a racial bias. Tennessee had already enacted “An Act To Preserve the Peace and Prevent Homicide” in 1870, but simply reworked it for 1879’s “An Act to Prevent the Sale of Pistols.” It set the precedent by banning all handgun sales except expensive Army and Navy model handguns.
Arkansas followed in 1882 with an identical law, while in 1893, Alabama placed a heavy tax on handgun sales. In 1902, South Carolina limited handguns to law enforcement – often Klan members – while Mississippi followed a subtler path, requiring firearms dealers to maintain records available upon demand for handgun and handgun ammunition sales (with the intent to allow race-based confiscation). In 1907, Texas, like Alabama, decided to adopt a tax aimed at preventing both poor whites and blacks from being able to buy handguns.
Prohibition Era: Immigration, Organized Crime and Concealed Carry Laws
Concealed weapons of any kind have long been a controversial issue. As early as 1813, Kentucky law controlled concealed weapon carry, to include Bowie knives, sword canes and pocket pistols. Laws in Louisiana, Georgia and Tennessee, for example, also retained language to control “how arms may be borne.” In 1897, the Supreme Court case Robertson v. Baldwin determined that laws controlling concealed carry did not violate the Second Amendment, stating “the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court once again confirmed that ruling in Peruta v. County of San Diego.
The New York City of the early 1900s had no such laws, but was marked by European immigration, Tammany Hall, extensive organized crime and gun violence of all kinds. A newspaper article from the time cited the example of a grief-stricken Italian father fatally shooting the truck driver who’d accidentally run over his son. However, January 23, 1911, proved the tipping point when Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough used a concealed .32-caliber automatic pistol to assassinate novelist David Graham Phillips midday in Gramercy Park for an imagined slandering of his sister.
Supported by the Tammany Hall apparatus and effective August 31, 1911, the resulting Sullivan Act of 1911 mandated discretionary police-issued licenses to possess a handgun and made carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon a felony. While gun violence in fact escalated right into Prohibition, these two criteria formed the basis for many other states’ “may issue” gun laws requiring discretionary police-issued licenses to restrict gun ownership.
By 1987, only one state had unrestricted concealed carry – while eight were “shall issue,” 25 “may issue” and 16 “no issue.” In 2016, 10 states have unrestricted concealed carry, while 32 are “shall issue” and eight “may issue.” New York remains one of the few “may issue” states, and the Sullivan Act remains on the books as New York Penal Code Section 400.00 after more than a century.
Civil Rights Movement: The Black Panthers and Loaded Carry Laws
Ironically, the event that is ultimately credited as the cause of banned loaded carry took place in California without a single shot being fired. In 1960s America, civil rights issues were escalating. The assassinations of both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X in 1965 left black communities fearful, and torn between peaceful resistance and self-defense “by whatever means necessary.” Abusive, racially motivated policing practices in Oakland, California, gave rise to the Black Panther Police Patrols and their mission to monitor and challenge that brutality. Since citizens were by law permitted open loaded carry of registered guns, the Black Panthers patrolled armed.
When a predominantly white jury ruled the police killing of Denzel Dowell a justifiable homicide, it was perhaps the last straw. The first issue of The Black Panther Black Community News Service on April 25, 1967, focused not only on the killing of Denzel Dowell, but also other police atrocities. It questioned how a previously injured Denzel could have fled a police officer who knew him well enough to call him by name, why he was shot 10 times, and why the newspaper announced the verdict two hours before the jury did. It also listed three other police murders of black men and two police-administered beatings of a black woman and a 14-year-old black girl.
Meanwhile, dubbed the Black Panther Bill, the Mulford Act sought to ban loaded carry specifically to end Black Panther armed patrols. However, on May 2, 1967, 30 Black Panthers – 24 men and six women armed with a written manifesto and loaded weapons – gathered on the California State Capitol steps and entered the building, their destination the General Assembly to protest the impending legislation. They were admitted only to the legislature’s official viewing area and then were asked to leave, but they left with their guns still loaded.
While the event remained nonviolent, cities across the nation were experiencing intense race riots. The California legislature fast-tracked the Mulford Act, and then-Governor Ronald Reagan signed it into law on July 28, 1967, as California Penal Codes 25850 and 142-181. It prohibited individuals from publicly carrying a loaded firearm on their person or in a vehicle in an incorporated city or other prohibited areas. The act authorized peace officers to examine any firearm to determine whether it was loaded and deemed any refusal to comply as probable cause for arrest. It also prohibited anyone but law enforcement from possessing loaded firearms or deadly weapons within the Capitol.
The Cold War and the Advent of “Assault Weapons”
The latter half of the 20th century brought with it global conflicts – Vietnam, Korea and Iraq – and assault rifles. The easily recognizable AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis became the weapons of choice for military forces around the globe, their characteristics highly desirable to firearms enthusiasts.
While the guns take a lighter caliber bullet and typically fire with less range and power than a rifle, they offer valued traits like folding stocks, pistol and forward grips, large-capacity removable magazines and the capability of switching firing modes. With time, semi-automatic rifles have appeared as many different makes and models, often surprisingly affordable. Most notable is that with each ban and limitation, semi-automatic rifles become more popular.
The 1989 Stockton Massacre and California’s AWCA Response
Out of all the states, California is recognized as having the most restrictive gun laws. One of the primary catalysts was the Cleveland Elementary School shooting on January 17, 1989, during which Patrick Purdy used an AK-47 semi-automatic rifle to spray a playground full of children, killing five and wounding 32 before killing himself. Despite former weapons and robbery offenses, Purdy had easily bought the assault weapon in Sandy, Oregon, and brought it across state lines to the Stockton, California, schoolyard.
The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA), effective January 1, 1990, was California’s response and the first assault weapons act. It ultimately defined assault weapons within three categories, banned any transfer of the listed prohibited assault weapons, and required registration of any already in possession by the end of 1992. Any weapons not registered by that date were to be surrendered to law enforcement.
The 1993 101 Massacre and California’s Firearms Safety Act
Despite the legislation, on July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri entered the law firm of Pettit & Martin on 101 California Street in San Francisco to avenge his alleged loss of $300,000 in a land deal. Armed with two 9mm semi-automatic machine pistols, a .45-caliber semi-automatic handgun and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, Ferri killed eight and injured six in a 16-minute rampage before killing himself.
While the event was the impetus for the 10-year Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 to 2004, in California, the effects have lasted much longer. Seeking to end gun manufacturer workarounds like changing model numbers, the state amended the Roberti-Roos Act’s assault weapons categories in 1999 by banning the manufacture, import or sale of semi-automatic rifles or pistols with certain characteristics as well as the transfer of magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, effective January 1, 2000.
That same year, California limited handgun purchases to one during any 30-day period; Maryland, New Jersey and the District of Columbia have similar laws. It also passed the Aroner-Scott-Hayden Firearms Safety Act of 1999 to require child-safety locks on all guns, set handgun safety standards that dealers must meet, and repealed the immunity previously protecting gun manufacturers from victim lawsuits.
The 2012 Sandy Hook Massacre and New York’s SAFE Act
Reminiscent of the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, appalled the nation as an armed gunman once again took out his rage on school children. Adam Lanza killed his mother at home and then fatally shot 20 children and six staff members at the school before killing himself. He was armed with his mother’s AR-15 Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle and two of her handguns – a Glock and a Sig Sauer.
On January 16, 2013, New York became the first U.S. state to act after the shooting when its legislature passed the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act. It required universal background checks for all firearms purchases, expanded its definitions of assault weapons, created a state database for handguns, and banned the sale or purchase of magazines that could hold more than seven rounds of ammunition.
On April 4, 2013, Connecticut and Maryland both enacted new restrictions to their existing gun laws: An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety and the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, respectively. Connecticut, too, required universal background checks for firearms purchases and banned magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Maryland banned assault weapons and magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The 2012 Aurora Massacre and Colorado’s Response
On July 20, 2012, James Eagan Holmes fired into an Aurora, Colorado movie theater showing of The Dark Knight Rises premier, killing 12 and injuring 70 amid tear gas from grenades he’d launched. He was armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, a Smith & Wesson M&P15-22 semi-automatic rifle fitted with a 100-round magazine, and a .40-caliber Glock. Holmes had bought all three guns legally between May 22 and July 6, from three different firearms stores – two Gander Mountains and One Bass Pro Shop.
Following other states’ earlier actions, on March 20, 2013, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper also signed into law three bills to prevent another mass shooting event. HB 13-1224 banned large-capacity magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition. HB 13-1229 required universal background checks for all firearms sales, and HB 13-1228 directed that applicants pay for the cost of the checks.
2013: 10 New California Gun Control Laws
Also in 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed 10 more different firearms-related bills:
AB-500 Firearms: DOJ checks.
AB-48 Firearms: Large-capacity magazines.
SB-683 Firearms: Firearm safety certificate.
SB-140 Firearms: Prohibited persons.
AB-1131 Firearms: Mental conditions.
SB-127 Firearms: Mentally disordered persons.
AB-231 Firearms: Criminal storage.
SB-363 Firearms: Criminal storage: Unsafe handguns: Fees.
AB-170 Assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles.
AB-539 Firearm possession: Prohibitions: Transfer to licensed dealer.
These bills extended weapon transfer waiting periods, added storage safety conditions and strengthened storage negligence laws, banned conversion kits for large-capacity magazines, required safety certificates for long guns, extended mental health-related prohibitions for firearms from six months to five years, made assault weapon permits individual-issue only, and prohibited individuals denied firearms from storing them with dealers.
SB-140 also appropriated $24 million to the Department of Justice to address the backlog in the Prohibited Armed Persons File database tracking more than 20,000 individuals prohibited from owning firearms.
2016: California’s “Gunpocalypse”
As 2015 drew to a close and the holidays approached, the tragic San Bernardino shooting stunned California residents and the nation. Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people and injured 22 more at a Christmas party thrown by Farook’s employer at the Inland Regional Center on December 2.
Farook and Malik were armed with two .223-caliber semi-automatic rifles – a DPMS A-15 and a Smith & Wesson M&P15 – two 9mm semi-automatic pistols, at least four high-capacity magazines, well over a thousand rounds of ammunition and a pipe bomb. The incident ended with the homegrown terrorists’ sworn loyalty to ISIS’ leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a police vehicle chase, and a final shootout that left both perpetrators dead.
While Farook had legally purchased his handguns, another individual, Enrique Marquez, had purchased the rifles legally in 2011 and 2012, as Farook had reportedly feared he wouldn’t pass the background check needed for them.
The two rifles, however, were altered after the purchase in flat violation of California law: the Smith & Wesson for automatic fire and the DPMS to accept large-capacity magazines. Investigation of the couple’s home yielded a stockpile of another 4,500 rounds of ammunition, a dozen pipe bombs, and tools for making them.
Almost immediately, California assemblymen and senators introduced a packet of legislation. On July 1, 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed six new gun control bills into state law, each seeking to close a firearms loophole: Assembly Bills 1695, 1511 and 1135 as well as Senate Bills 880, 1446 and 1235.
AB 1695
AB 1695, also known as “The Stop Illegal Gun Sales Act,” was an effort to stop the practices of “straw purchasers” – individuals able to pass background checks who procure guns for ineligible individuals, then report the firearms as lost or stolen to avoid accountability.
California’s penal code already listed falsely reporting to a member of law enforcement as a misdemeanor or felony. However, the bill specifically makes falsely reporting a firearm as lost or stolen a misdemeanor and imposes a 10-year ban on firearm ownership for those convicted of the offense. Violation of the 10-year period carries up to $1,000 in fines and up to a year in prison.
AB 1511
While the vast majority of firearms loaned from one person to another must go through a licensed dealer under AB 1511, prior to this bill Californians could lend a firearm to individuals they knew personally for infrequent periods of less than 30 days. The new bill has the same loan period limitations, but it restricts the lending of firearms to “a spouse or registered domestic partner, or to a parent, child, sibling, grandparent, or grandchild” related by “consanguinity, adoption, or steprelation.”
SB 880 & AB 1135
California passed two bills, SB 880 and AB 1135, that are substantively the same with minor wording differences like “specified attributes” as opposed to “several specified attributes.” Essentially, the new law closes the bullet button loophole. First, it redefines a “fixed magazine” as “an ammunition feeding device” that “cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.” Then, it extends the definition of assault weapons banned to any “semiautomatic centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine,” and has at least one of the previously established assault weapon attributes – such as a thumbhole stock for rifles or a second handgrip for handguns.
Much like previous legislation, the law prohibits the sale or transfer of assault weapons lacking a fixed magazine and mandates that all weapons already in possession up to and including December 31, 2016, must be registered with DOJ by January 1, 2018, for up to a $20 fee. Violation of the law is a felony punishable by up to one year in jail.
SB 1446
While the previous law prohibited the sale, gift or loan of large-capacity magazines, SB 1446 bans them altogether. Any manufacture, sale, transfer, gift or loan of a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is punishable by up to a year in jail. Possession of a large-capacity magazine entails a $100 fine for the first offense, $250 for the second and $500 for the third.
In addition, regardless of when the magazine was purchased, the owner cannot keep it in California. The magazine must be moved out of state, sold to a licensed dealer, destroyed or surrendered to law enforcement.
SB 1235
An interim and supersession measure prior to voter adoption of the Safety for All Act of 2016, SB 1235 is legislation to control all ammunition through an Automated Firearms System. Starting July 1, 2019, all sales and transfers of ammunition will be subject to checks of the purchaser’s presented identification against the Prohibited Armed Persons File as well as the Automated Firearms System, and must be reported to the Attorney General.
The legislation also requires, with some sporting club exceptions, a vendor license for all ammunition sales. Prior to this, controls – including mandatory face-to-face transactions – had been limited to handgun ammunition. However, handgun ammunition was changed to ammunition, and ammunition was redefined to be all-inclusive with “one or more loaded cartridges consisting of a primer case, propellant, and with one or more projectiles.” Any person or business who transfers ammunition to someone ineligible to receive it is subject to $1,000 in fines and up to a year in prison.
Vetoed Bills
Governor Brown did, however, veto four submitted bills:
AB 2607 would have expanded the pool of individuals able to petition for a gun violence restraining order.
AB 1674 would have applied the 30-day handgun delivery limit to all firearms.
AB 1673 would have redefined firearm as any “frame or receiver blank, casting, or machined body” clearly part of a functional weapon.
SB 894 would have tightened reporting regulations for lost or stolen firearms.
The Second Amendment Stands Strong
Since 2013, successful federal gun legislation has been limited to the renewal of the Undetectable Firearms Act, and states have taken note. While more restrictive states have continued to identify and attempt to close every loophole, many others have instead passed laws to strengthen the Second Amendment.
In 2015, the Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence tracked “1,323 bills related to firearms in the states.” Many of these laws related to hotbed social issues of today: domestic violence, background checks, guns in schools and on campuses, and concealed carry.
Domestic terrorism is another serious concern driving the debate about gun control. If history is any guide, attacks by “homegrown” terrorists will lead to stricter gun control measures as legislators try to calm the nation’s outrage and sense of vulnerability with more laws – despite terrorists already breaking existing laws.
The challenge for lawmakers at all levels is to ensure that rational wisdom prevails over emotion. We can close every loophole. We can regulate and litigate. But ultimately, unbalanced malcontents or violent terrorists may still win simply because they don’t play by any rules. And even the most well-intentioned laws may have unintended consequences.
Meanwhile, the Second Amendment, crafted by America’s Founding Fathers, stands quiet and powerful, with 27 simple words worthy of defining billions of others in our nation’s Supreme Court:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
August 28, 2018
Should The ACLU Defend The NRA?
The decision by the ACLU to defend the NRA against an attack by Andy Cuomo raises a significant issue that needs to be considered and understood by everyone involved in the debate about guns. What I am referring to is the brief filed by the ACLU supporting the NRA’s lawsuit against Andy who sent a notice to banks and other financial institutions telling them to avoid doing business with the NRA, a strategy which the NRA claims is not only a financial disaster for America’s ‘first civil rights organization,’ but is also a violation of the 1st Amendment right to free speech.
[image error] One quick word about the relationship between Andrew Cuomo and the gun industry which I have yet to see mentioned in any media coverage of this case. In fact, it was Cuomo who, as Secretary of HEW under Clinton, cobbled together the infamous deal that would have allowed Smith & Wesson to avoid any and all tort claims, in return for adopting a code covering the behavior of its dealers which would have basically ended the company’s ability to make and sell guns. So, Cuomo is not only a real bête noir for Gun-nut Nation, he’s basically at the top of the list. Is there any chance that Andy may have been motivated to pursue this gambit because he was feeling some electoral pressure from Cynthia Nixon, an actress and activist who was putting together a primary challenge from the Left?
Evidently there has been a significant amount of turmoil within the ACLU of its decision to give the NRA a helping hand. Which is hardly a new situation within the ACLU, given its long history of defending the free speech of various right-wing groups, including the American Nazi movement which had ACLU representation when it went to court in 1977 to secure a permit to march through Skokie, a Chicago suburb whose residents included a substantial number of Jews.
In the current confrontation between Cuomo and the NRA, the organization and its ACLU defenders are basically saying that if a public official can use his authority to intimidate and/or punish the gun-rights group for their offensive speech, then what would stop another public official from using the same bully pulpit to go after a group like Black Lives Matter, or any group with which the official disagreed? The argument is a little specious, if only because BLM isn’t out there selling insurance and other financial products to its members, nor does it rake in two hundred million bucks every year from membership dues. But the 1st Amendment protection does not and cannot be applied only to groups who are vulnerable because of their small checkbook balances; the ‘rights’ stand by themselves regardless of whose ox gets gored.
On the other hand, our friends down in Fairfax at NRA headquarters have a rather interesting approach to the question of how they promote and affirm their support of free speech. Because they aren’t just defending someone’s right to get up and shoot his or her mouth off about the ‘right’ to own and use a gun. The NRA also defends and strives to promote the idea that gun owners can also show up at public events openly carrying their guns. After all, isn’t this the essence of the NRA’s demand to abolish gun-free zones?
Don’t give me any nonsense about how the idiots who stood in front of the 2016 Republican convention with their ARs at the ready were exercising the ‘right’ to free speech. They were reminding the media that a Presidential candidate was about to be nominated whose campaign would receive an unprecedented load of cash from the NRA.
I have no problem with the boys in Fairfax supporting Sleazy Don. I do have a problem with anyone who walks around toting an AR in a public space. That’s not free speech. That’s childish and stupid behavior, neither of which has ever been protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
August 27, 2018
New Jersey Makes It Easier To Trace Crime Guns But The ATF Could Make It Easier Still.
A serious and long-overdue step has finally been taken in New Jersey with a decision by the State Attorney General to require that every law enforcement agency participate in the ATF’s data-sharing program on gun traces known as eTrace. What this means is that when any agency in Jersey asks ATF to run a trace on a gun, unless otherwise directed for reasons of confidentiality, the information will be shared by every police department throughout the state. The purpose of this new procedure, according to the directive sent out by the AG, is to enhance law enforcement’s ability to combat gun violence and trafficking by “identifying statewide patterns in sources and types of guns, as well as unlawful purchasers and firearm traffickers.”
[image error] The good news about this directive is that it serves notice on every agency in New Jersey that conducting a trace request is now a mandatory activity, not just something that a police department may or may not choose to do. The biggest problem with enforcement of gun laws is that the ATF, which has total regulatory authority over the gun business at the federal level, has no authority to tell a local law-enforcement agency what it can and cannot do with guns picked up at a crime scene – some agencies run traces, others don’t, it’s a typical hodge-podge which reflects the federal-state division of authority that has been the hallmark of our legal system since a bunch of guys sweated through a hot Philadelphia summer in 1787 and produced the Constitution of the United States.
That was then, and this is now. The 2nd Amendment notwithstanding, you couldn’t just walk into a gun shop in the olden days and buy a gun. There weren’t any guns and there weren’t any gun shops. Most Americans owned some kind of gun back then, but for the most part these guns were old-style muskets manufactured one at a time and useful for protecting livestock from Mister Wolf or Mister Fox, but not much more.
In 2016 there were 375 homicides in New Jersey, most of them because of illegal guns. And don’t for one minute think that this violence was only a function of the inner-city ghettos like Newark and Camden; the Jersey shore county, Ocean, was right up there too. New Jersey has one of the strictest permit laws for buying a handgun, but the state suffers from an unusually-high number of crime guns which were first sold in other states. In 2012, four out of five guns traced in New Jersey came from some other state.
The problem with this eTrace program, however, is that even when the Jersey cops learn that a crime gun was first sold in Pennsylvania or Virginia or wherever, they still have no idea how the gun got from there to here. So, the idea that giving all police departments access to the same trace information about a particular gun doesn’t really solve the problem of determining the extent and flow of crime guns.
If the ATF is really serious about helping local law enforcement agencies combat gun crimes, I have a simple suggestion that could be implemented without requiring the cooperation of a single police department at all. Let’s not forget that the ATF has total regulatory authority over the behavior of every, single gun dealer whose shops are the initial source of every, single gun that is ever traced. And many guns that are stolen and trafficked from one state to another, often wind up back in a gun shop because gun dealers are always willing to fork over some cash and buy a used gun.
What the ATF should do is require that any dealer who wants to take in a used gun must first make sure that the weapon hasn’t been previously reported as a stolen gun. It’s not a foolproof system, obviously, but at least it would reduce the extent to which gun dealers play a role, unwittingly or not, in the movement of crime guns. Giving licensed dealers access to eTrace is long overdue.
