Patrician Law, Plebeian Law

Most “gun control” laws have nothing to do with controlling crime; they are about making gun ownership not merely onerous, but legally perilous.

And they work – where “work” means “scare law-abiding people out of their sacred duty and privilege to defend themselves, their families and their society from the scum around us“:

Prior to yesterday, I never would have thought that possession of an empty magazine, kept separate from ammunition or a weapon, would violate the law, so I sympathize with Gregory on that point.

But I’m less sympathetic than you might expect because fear of unintentionally violating gun laws is one of the things that has kept me from purchasing a handgun. As you know, I took the NRA safety course over a year ago. But I’m a legal resident of Rhode Island who lives much of the year in New York, so there’s an issue of whether I could obtain a NY permit, which is needed even to keep a gun in the home. And then there’s the issue of transportation back and forth, and complying with the requirements to avoid prosecution as I pass through Massachusetts.

It all became such a bureaucratic jungle that I just deferred for the time being.

That’s attorney William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection in a piece on the importance of prosecuting NBC News’ David Gregory – who is a rabid anti-gunner and makes no “journalistic” bones about it, and whose kids attend a school protected by the same armed guards that he and his industry decry for the proles – produced a 30-round NATO STANAG magazine (which fits the AR15 and most other NATO rifles of the same caliber) during a segment haranguing for gun control on one of the Sunday Morning shows last week.

Jacobson, by the way, cuts Gregory some slack in assuming the “infraction” was inadvertent.  NBC apparently asked DC police for permission to possess the magazine for use in the “story” (heh), and were denied.   Gregory – or at least several people in his editorial chain of command – knew that they were breaking a law

…that was designed, like all of DC’s gun laws, to ensnare and make criminals out of as many law-abiding gun owners as possible.

Against that?  Howard Kurtz – a center-left journalist – responds (with emphasis added by me):

Was it a stunt? Yep, and an eye-catching one. Was Gregory being aggressive with the NRA chief, or seeming to push gun control in a confrontational interview? All that is up for debate.

But a police probe over what I assume was an empty ammo clip is a total waste of time. What it demonstrates above all is that journalists are getting ensnared in the political war over gun control.

No, Howard.  “Journalists” who are actively working to destroy a constitutional liberty they don’t believe to be in fashion broke a law.  If it had been any other citizen – Wayne LaPierre, or (occasional NRA spokesbabe) Sarah Michelle Gellar, or you or I – the DC police would be going over them right now with all the grace the NYPD used in going over Abner Louima.  Rhetorically speaking.  Probably.

If it’s a “waste of time” for Gregory, then what is it for every other otherwise honest citizen in DC and the area that’s gotten snagged up in DC gun laws’ byzantine picayunities over the past 40 years?

Like these guys, Mickey Kaus:  the DC Police didn’t consider it a “waste of time” with two of the people who were wounded defending our worthless federal government overseas:

After being injured on foreign soil while defending his nation’s freedom, Lt. Kim returned home to find that, in DC at least, there is very little of it left to defend. Lt. Kim was transporting his legally owned firearms from his parent’s home in New Jersey to South Carolina when he stopped at Walter Reed Army Hospital in DC for an appointment. Bad move!

After getting lost and pulled over by police, he was arrested, thrown in jail, and had over $10,000 in guns seized by the District. Despite the fact that he had no evil intent, Lt. Kim didn’t get a pass … but I bet Gregory will.

Or how about the case of Army Specialist Adam Meckler? Meckler, who had recently ended his active duty tour, was dropping off records at the VFW in DC when they discovered a few rounds of ammunition in his bag left over from recreational shooting. Let me repeat that … a few rounds of ammo … not a gun … not a knife … not an RPG … a few rounds of 9mm ammo.

For that ‘crime’ Specialist Meckler was handcuffed, treated like a terrorist, arrested, and forced to accept a plea deal that will mark the honored veteran for the rest of his life. But will the same happen to Gregory? I don’t think so.

So let’s recap. Two soldiers, absent any evil intent, violate the strict letter of DC’s draconian gun control laws and end up getting no leniency from a justice system that serves anything but true justice.

Apparently, to regular plebeians, the letter of DC’s stupid law isn’t a “waste of time”.

 And if the media is in fact above the law, perhaps they should just say so, and make sure it’s clearly understood.

20 thoughts on “Patrician Law, Plebeian Law

  1. If we had liability insurance on guns, as we do for cars, we will see which insurance company would insure at which price folks with arsenals

    At Forbes they lay out the logic behind treating firearm deaths as a market externality to be compensated via insurance, as we do with cars: …”Those most at risk to commit a gun crime would be known to the actuaries doing the research for insurers… An 80-year-old married woman in Fort Lauderdale would get a great rate. A 20-year-old in inner-city Chicago wouldn’t be able to afford it. A 32-year-old man with a record of drunk driving and domestic violence would have a similar problem.”

    The NRA already offers “excess personal liability and self-defense” coverage to its members, and according to their website it seems $100,000 worth of insurance costs just $165 per year; $250,000 worth is $254.

  2. If, in fact, they did contact the coppers, were denied and there after decided to go ahead and import that death dealing piece of hardware into the leafy, peaceful confines of NYC I don’t see how the DA could fail to prosecute now that the blatent flouting of the law is national news.

    Children are dying because leftist mouthpieces have no respect for the law!!

  3. Emery,

    I’m sorry, it’s not remotely relevant to a story about the media’s double standards.

    I don’t really sanction against thread-jacking. I merely remind people how appreciated it is.

    As in “not very”.

  4. Emery, once again pushing DG’s agenda would also like to make free speech and freedom of religion and peaceable assembly rights for which the government could mandate liability insurance. Then if you say something that offends DG she could file a claim with your insurance carrier demanding compensation, or if your faith doesn’t conform with DGs “facts” she could make a claim for injury and be reimbursed, or if your peaceable assembly were to block Emery/DGs view she could be compensated for “her loss”.
    oh and Emery/DGs next great idea is mandatory “warrant liability insurance” that every citizen would be required to purchase so that in case the state needed to issue a warrant to search you, your property and effects the state could if the find nothing incriminating, make a claim to be reimbursed for their trouble

    the left just gets more moronic.

  5. Washington Times says an un-named person at ATF claims Meet The Press called ATF to ask the same question, who then called DC police and got a different answer, which ATF relayed back to Meet The Press. So NBC is claiming it got different answers from different cops and therefore can’t be expected to know the law or to abide by it.

    Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for ordinary schmucks trying to stay alive in one of the most dangerous cities in the nation, but apparently it IS an excuse for a Journalist on a Holy Crusade. So that’s okay, then.

  6. Since it’s already been responded to, liability insurance for guns sounds great. But wait . . . poor people have a Constitutional right to own a firearm for self defense in the home, they just can’t afford the insurance. What about them?

    We have a precedent in poor women who want abortions. The government will have to subsidize poor people’s gun insurnace the same as poor women’s abortions, isn’t that right Mr. Social Liberal?

    What we subsidize, we get more of, meaning more people will be able to afford to own guns with taxpayer paid insurance. And that will help stop mass shootings, how, exactly?

  7. This is going viral…{%2210200205779169899%22%3A211093489028296}&action_type_map={%2210200205779169899%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]

    Nothing like being Caucasian and on the “proper” side of a political issue to beat the rap on a crime clearly committed with malice aforethought and witnessed as well as DVR’s by 1000’s or 100’s anyway. You’d think the DC chapter of the ACLU and NAACP or the new head of their Legal Defense Fund would be in court tomorrow seeking the release of all people jailed for violating DC gun laws as it pertains to magazine size.

  8. “And if the media is in fact above the law, perhaps they should just say so, and make sure it’s clearly understood.”
    I have often wondered if the media industry – at least the part that employs narrative coordinators who call themselves ‘journalists’ – is required to follow OSHA and other workplace laws. Recently, NBC’s Richard Engle was kidnapped and held while reporting in Syria. Thank goodness he was released or at least let go in the face of higher firepower and is safe. Does the news business get a waiver from the workplace laws or do reporters have to sign off on a liability waiver if they get killed working in a dangerous area? Often when you watch the news, you see reporters and their ‘photojournalists’ doing risky things like driving in blizzards or hurricanes that employers would be fined for doing if it were any other industry. Based on their reporting, I doubt many have training in how to drive in hazardous driving conditions beyond what I have – the school of experience.

  9. Ooh, emery used the word “arsenal”

    Gosh, that’s powerful, really makes a point I just can’t hardly refute, so I will just give up now.

    Arsenal, wow.

  10. I pointed this out before, but it is relevant to this post. The weaselly jack ass head of Soros, I mean Media Matters David Brock, employed an aide that carried a gun illegally in D.C. to protect him from imaginary right wing boogeymen that were out to get him. The occurred earlier this year, yet conveniently wasn’t reported by his fellow propagandists and was never held accountable for it. On another note, Brock has been treated for mental illness and publicly admitted using illegal drugs, including cocaine, yet no charges were ever filed against him. Yup! Double standards indeed!

  11. Oh I see, it’s about media bias and media personalities inserting themselves into the fray. Is this an entirely new phenomena in the media? This appears to fall into the category of ‘who’s ox is being gored’ at the moment. You simply don’t approve of the manner in which it’s currently being applied.

    As far as the noun “arsenal” goes, I believe the military uses the word on a daily basis. I refer to my firearms safe with it’s multiple firearms as an arsenal.

  12. Oh I see, it’s about media bias and media personalities inserting themselves into the fray.


    While I’ve written about that many, many times over the years, this is more about the uselessness of most liberals’ gun laws, and the hypocrisy of our nation’s would-be ruling class, whom gun laws are beneath.

  13. Statistically, gun restrictions/laws have been moving towards a ‘pro-gun’ direction. Conceal and carry, Castle doctrine, etc… I don’t see how you can say that.

    There will always be an opposing view, but the laws are moving in a more “liberal” direction.

  14. Emery, I’m not sure I understand your 9:14 comment. Are you arguing that over the last year or two, state and federal gun laws became more restrictive or less? That doesn’t seem to square with the results of the last election.

    More restrictive = harder for ordinary law-abiding citizens to own, possess and carry firearms = the policies advocated by Democrats like Bloomberg, Rahm and Barak = Liberals.

    The only proposal moving in that direction is Diane Feinstein’s attempt to treat every semi-auto rifle and pistol in the country as a machine gun, which is unlikely to pass Congress.

    Can you explain you comment more fully?

  15. Emery, the word “arsenal” actually means “a collection of weapons” but there is no specific number of weapons to define it. The matched pair of Wogdon flintlock dueling pistols used by Aaron Burr to kill Alexander Hamilton, counts as an arsenal.

    The word “arsenal” is used by gun control advocates instead of the word “collection” because “arsenal” sounds scarier, as does “assault rifle.” Your use of the emotion-laden inflammatory word “arsenal” instead of the emotion-neutral word “collection” in your thread-jack is a fit example.

  16. nate,
    I apologize for not being clear.

    Statistically the momentum have been moving in the other direction. The law at the national level has been drifting away from stricter gun laws, I’d say, since the early 1990s. The high water point for gun control supporters was certainly the Brady Law in 1993 and the assault weapons ban in 1994. Since that time, federal law has both Congress enacted law and court decisions have shifted in the other direction of fewer restrictions. That process has been more dramatic at the state level, where we’ve seen the rapid spread of for example liberalized concealed carry laws.

    In the late 80′s, there were about 18 states that had state laws that made it pretty easy for civilians to carry concealed hand guns around in society. By now, that number is up to 39 or 40 states having liberalized laws, depending on how you count it, and the NRA has worked very diligently and other gun rights groups, at the state level, to win political victories there. And they’ve really been quite successful.

  17. The word “arsenal” is used by gun control advocates instead of the word “collection”

    I would suggest that you’re being overly sensitive. As a gun enthusiast, you might perceive that words are being used in a pejorative manner. My perception is the general tone of these comments, appear to be rather defensive in nature.

    As an aside, how is the Newtown incident any different than other similar incidents? Is there any reason to think that this particular incident will demand some new level of gun control, where as other incidents have not?

Leave a Reply