Assault weapons ban advocated by a conservative

[Big Fin]

An interesting article worthy of the time to read. Not because of what the author concludes, but because he is a conservative Federal judge appointed to the bench by Republicans; a gun owner; the type of judge Republicans would look for as a Supreme Court justice.

And, he makes a case for implementing the assault weapons ban with even more restrictions than the past ban that expired.

Is he the only conservative Federal judge who feels this way? I doubt it. If other conservative judges feel as he does, the future of gun ownership is going to be different than it has been in the past.

BY LARRY ALAN BURNS
December 20, 2012
Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.

Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The ban wasn't all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something.

And it says something that half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner's rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier.

I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them.

Bystanders got to Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 31-round magazine and was trying to load another. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, chose as his primary weapon a semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines. And we don't even bother to call the 100-rounder that James Holmes is accused of emptying in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater a magazine — it is a drum. How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?

I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the "mass" out of "mass shooting," or at least make the perpetrator's job a bit harder.

To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left's feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.

And I say it, finally, mindful of the arguments on the other side, at least as I understand them: that a high-capacity magazine is not that different from multiple smaller-capacity magazines; and that if we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines one day, there's a danger we would ban guns altogether the next, and your life might depend on you having one.

But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.

There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.

It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action.

Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Larry Alan Burns is a federal district judge in San Diego.

 

[spook12]

My crystal ball says that the good judge Burn's vision of the future is pretty darn close to what our reality will be.

This unspeakable act that took place is the one that will change forever how we exercise our 2nd amendment rights.

 

[sweetnectar]

When I saw he is a federal district judge in San Diego it answered a lot of my disbelief.

 

[belly-deep]

Where did you find that article?

If it is legitimate, the Judge broke a few rules in writing it.

 

[Oak]

Where did you find that article?

If it is legitimate, the Judge broke a few rules in writing it.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Big Fin]

Where did you find that article? .........

LA Times - http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-73761529/

 

[devon deer]

Rules are meant to be broken, as the old saying goes. He speaks a lot of truth.

For those that are interested (i wont go too far back in history) here is what happened in the UK.
We have the toughest gun control rules in the world, and yet....

1986, 27 year old Michael Ryan, uses semi-auto rifle, kills his mother and 15 others.
Guns legally held.
Outcome....bans on all semi-autos and large capacity shotguns.

1996, 43 year old Thomas Hamilton, uses a handgun, kills 16 children between the age of 5 and 6 and their teacher trying to protect them.
Guns legally held.
Outcome...ban on all handguns.

2010, 52 year old Derrick Bird kills 12 people. using shotgun and bolt action .22
Guns legally held.
Outcome...no action taken, why? Because the guns are needed in the UK to control game and vermin.

The strange thing is the only people having automatic weapons and handguns in the UK at the moment are the criminals, but thankfully no mass killings from them, does get you thinking though.

You won't believe the hoops i have to jump through to get my firearms/shotgun certificate.
Referee's, doctors etc have to be consulted.
If anyone thinks i am depressed, guns would be confiscated.
If i threaten someone, guns would be confiscated.
If i hit someone, guns would be confiscated.
If i get DUI, guns would be confiscated.
The list goes on.

Now if i lived in the USA, i would have a handgun and automatic rifle, i experienced using them when i came over because i couldn't in the UK, it was great fun, but there is the statement, it was 'fun', is the automatic rifle really needed to kill an Elk?
To save the life of just one person perhap's there does need to be some kind of reform, but i do wonder with the amount of gun's already in circulation it will be a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Cheers

Richard

 

[Bob Vetter]

I am a Republican and I agree with this Judge. I have never been a supporter of the "Modern Sporting Rifle". I also never felt under gunned in my home with a 10 round mag for my Beretta 92.

Its just good common sense, IMHO.

Bob

 

[JoseCuervo]

Where did you find that article?

If it is legitimate, the Judge broke a few rules in writing it.

What rules did he break?

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

That might work at the first or second house, but I cannot see that part of dream taking place. I can't see the police, ATF or the Army following orders to do the confiscating of Leagally bought Firearms. John

 

[LuckyMike]

Randy, I think this judge's statement is food for serious thought by all of us. His recommendation is not so much what I would personally desire. I'm more inclined to point out that "guns don't kill - people kill." However, the way our society views gun ownership and use with so little understanding of our point of view, its going to become most important to demonstrate that we too have a social conciousness. It's important for us to realize that no matter the logic we use, so adamantly, the outcome will be tempered towards overal public opinion. As gun owners and advocates of shooting sports we do not have the numbers to assure an acceptable outcome on our own. We will need the support of many of those outside our circle. The NRA helps, buts needs to show that it's membership is comprised of more than irrational fanatics.

As a person who is a political moderate, somewhat right of center, and a life member of NRA, I believe compromise and cooperation will produce the best sort of outcome for all of us!

 

[JoseCuervo]

Lucky Mike,

Good post.

Hopefully more life members in the NRA can expand on the benefits of compromise.

 

[Zach]

(snip) I believe compromise and cooperation will produce the best sort of outcome for some of us!

Fixed that for ya...

 

[The Hedgehog]

I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

As feel-good and logical as it might sound when folks are reminded of some whacked out freak killing gradeschoolers - don't vote for guys like this.

Remember that it's not about taking away your shotguns for hunting elk.

 

[bmack]

Here is an interesting take from an article out of the Oregonian from yesterday. I think he's right on the money. Out of the 3 major elements of a mass shooting....the weapon is the easy one to pick on.

By Charles Krauthammer

Every mass shooting has three elements: the killer, the weapon and the cultural climate. As soon as the shooting stops, partisans immediately pick their preferred root cause with corresponding pet panacea. Names are hurled, scapegoats paraded, prejudices vented. The argument goes nowhere.


Let's be serious:
1. The Weapon

Within hours of last week's Newtown, Conn., massacre, the focus was the weapon and the demand was for new gun laws. Several prominent pro-gun Democrats remorsefully professed new openness to gun control. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is introducing a new assault weapons ban. And the president emphasized guns and ammo above all else in announcing the creation of a new task force.

I have no problem in principle with gun control. Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault weapons ban in 1994. The problem: It didn't work. (So concluded a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department.) The reason is simple. Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry and repeal the Second Amendment, it's almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.

Feinstein's law, for example, would exempt 900 weapons. And that's the least of the loopholes. Even the guns that are banned can be made legal with simple, minor modifications.

Most fatal, however, is the grandfathering of existing weapons and magazines. That's one of the reasons the'94 law failed. At the time, there were 1.5 million assault weapons in circulation and 25 million large-capacity (i.e., more than 10 bullets) magazines. A reservoir that immense can take 100 years to draw down.

2. The Killer

Monsters shall always be with us, but in earlier days they did not roam free. As a psychiatrist in Massachusetts in the 1970s, I committed people -- often right out of the emergency room -- as a danger to themselves or to others. I never did so lightly, but I labored under none of the crushing bureaucratic and legal constraints that make involuntary commitment infinitely more difficult today.

Why do you think we have so many homeless? Destitution? Poverty has declined since the 1950s. The majority of those sleeping on grates are mentally ill. In the name of civil liberties, we let them die with their rights on.

A tiny percentage of the mentally ill become mass killers. Just about everyone around Tucson, Ariz., shooter Jared Loughner sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous. But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away -- and (forcibly) treated.

Random mass killings were three times more common in the 2000s than in the 1980s, when gun laws were actually weaker. Yet a 2011 University of California at Berkeley study found that states with strong civil commitment laws have about a one-third lower homicide rate.

3. The Culture

We live in an entertainment culture soaked in graphic, often sadistic, violence. Older folks find themselves stunned by what a desensitized youth finds routine, often amusing. It's not just movies. Young men sit for hours pulling video-game triggers, mowing down human beings en masse without pain or consequence. And we profess shock when a small cadre of unstable, deeply deranged, dangerously isolated young men go out and enact the overlearned narrative.

If we're serious about curtailing future Columbines and Newtowns, everything -- guns, commitment, culture -- must be on the table. It's not hard for President Obama to call out the NRA. But will he call out the ACLU? And will he call out his Hollywood friends?

The irony is that over the past 30 years, the U.S. homicide rate has declined by 50 percent. Gun murders as well. We're living not through an epidemic of gun violence, but through a historic decline.

Except for these unfathomable mass murders. But these are infinitely more difficult to prevent. While law deters the rational, it has far less effect on the psychotic. The best we can do is to try to detain them, disarm them and discourage "entertainment" that can intensify already murderous impulses.

But there's a cost. Gun control impinges upon the Second Amendment; involuntary commitment impinges upon the liberty clause of the Fifth Amendment; curbing "entertainment" violence impinges upon First Amendment free speech.

That's a lot of impingement, a lot of amendments. But there's no free lunch. Increasing public safety almost always means restricting liberties.

We made that trade after 9/11. We make it every time the TSA invades your body at an airport. How much are we prepared to trade away after Newtown?

Charles Krauthammer writes for The Washington Post Writers Group

 

[emrah1028]

Excellent article.

Emrah

 

[belly-deep]

What rules did he break?

There are several rules of judicial conduct judges have to follow, many of which severely restrict their 1st amendment rights to free speech.

As a general rule, judges are not supposed to publically endorse views on anything relating to cases they may decide.

 

[Southwind]

What we are talking about is total confiscation of which will only effect those who own them legally. After the confiscation and the problem compounds itself they when then take your hunting rigs. It's all there right in front of you in history.

It has worked so well in Russia they have a murder rate 5X's that of the usa.

 

[JoseCuervo]

There are several rules of judicial conduct judges have to follow, many of which severely restrict their 1st amendment rights to free speech.

As a general rule, judges are not supposed to publically endorse views on anything relating to cases they may decide.

Do you have numbers and citations to those rules you are accusing him of breaking?

What pending cases does he have that he commented on matters that may come before him?

You made the bullshit claim he broke a "few rules" but you can't name them? Lmao.

 

[Devil Diver Down]

Here is an interesting take from an article out of the Oregonian from yesterday. I think he's right on the money. Out of the 3 major elements of a mass shooting....the weapon is the easy one to pick on.

Great article - thanks for sharing that - IMHO, he is completely on target. The most salient point to me: "That's a lot of impingement, a lot of amendments. But there's no free lunch. Increasing public safety almost always means restricting liberties."

There are no simple answers. It is easy for one group to 'give up' something that is not important to them, i.e. the anti-gun folks to sacrifice the 2nd. In the real world the lines are blurry and become easily tangled.