More on Gun Control

VPC Director takes on Jan Libourel

Josh Sugarmann is the director of the Violence Policy Center, an organizational spin-off of the old Handgun Control, Inc. He is also the "promoter," if you will, of the phrase assault weapon precisely because it is misleading.

On July 9th, he wrote a column in the Huffington Post (apparently one of the few regular outlets for his propaganda) quoting Gun World editor Jan Libourel. He tried to portray Libourel as a "Quisling" or another Jim Zumbo. And why, you may ask, did Sugarmann make this comparison? Because Libourel wrote an editorial piece in which he said "Nobody but a madman would oppose some sort of gun control laws."

Sugarmann tries to latch on to this as somehow supporting the anti-gun lobby's notion that all guns must be heavily restricted. This is, of course, so much bull manure. He points out that Libourel goes on to question the whole concept of heavily armed people fleeing to the hills, living off the land and defending themselves in a sort of Mad Max post-apocalyptic world.

Now, as much as I dislike government interference in our lives, I'll say this. Jan Libourel is absolutely right. There really are certain "gun control laws" that we should have. There are some laws that should exist, and would be constitutional, however they would be to control misuse of firearms. Not the mere possession of them, not outlawing them by "evil features" or even prohibiting them to an entire simple class of individuals.

Under such "gun control" laws, it would be unlawful to misuse your firearm in certain ways. Firing live ammo into the air, for example. Or using a firearm to willfully commit a crime of violence against another person (Assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc.) would all be just as illegal as they are today. The fact is, most states already have statutes that make misuse of a firearm a crime.

Most of the so-called "gun control" laws deal with the delivery, sale and record keeping of firearms. In more restrictive states there are limitations on what guns the State considers "safe enough" to own. And some states claim that certain combination of features makes a gun "banned", while removing just one feature might make it "suitable" for civilians to own. Most of these laws are nothing more than either incremental steps towards ensuring a government monopoly on effective weaponry or politically motivated self-promoting legislation.

Note that we are talking conventional arms here. Not nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. If you want to own a 105mm howitzer and have the cash, go right ahead. But I would suggest that laws restricting the storage of explosive munitions, like artillery shells, would pass muster for public safety and fire-prevention reasons - much like storing kegs of black powder away from densely populated areas. You might have to rent space in a "public munitions storage" area for your shells.

I'd agree with Libourel that you'd have to be a madman yourself to oppose a "gun control" law that prohibited possession of firearms by those adjudicated in court as insane or mentally incompetent. I might even support the concept that convicted felons, after serving their sentences and any parole, could earn back their right to have a firearm by not getting into further trouble with the law for some period - five or six years for example. And that may be limited to only your first offense. Or only to non-violent offenders.

As to the notion that in a disaster or collapse of "civilized" society we will head to the hills and live off the land -- that's twaddle. The only people who will do that are the ones who already have their homes situated in the mountains or rural areas. The rest of us will be stuck in traffic when the other 1.2 million city dwellers decide to relocate. And if tens of thousands of people "head for the hills", you can bet that game animals will become scarce in short order.

Much more likely, I think, would be civil disorder in the larger cities. For two reasons. Larger cities have close-packed people which assists in anger, outrage or protests reaching "critical mass" and also because larger cities usually have TV news stations that will be useful idiots in spreading their message.

In the case of the Los Angeles "Rodney King" riots, some Korean business owners defended their stores (a.k.a. their livelihood) using guns that California now heavily restricts. In New Orleans, several residents guarded their own homes and abandoned neighbor's homes while the authorities floundered with the refugees and arrested old women in their homes to confiscate a revolver.

In the aftermath of a major disaster, when the power has failed and maybe also the water supply, the main interest of people will be in protecting their families and what little supplies they have. Most folks, I think, will be willing to barter and share with their neighbors for the short seven to ten days it might take for things to settle down. In the meantime, good citizens banding together to protect their neighborhood from predators will likely be a fairly common sight.

While I'm on the subject, police officers should take notice that they can be their own worst enemies in the aftermath of a disaster. If you find armed residents guarding their own apartment buildings or condo complexes, trying to charge them for violating local or state laws will certainly get negative reactions from those you're supposed to be helping. Even (or especially) if your mayor is an idiot who demands arresting anyone "displaying" a firearm, holstered or not. Use your legal discretion to determine whether the person is protecting or engaging in predatory activities.

Comments? Questions: editor@handgunclub.com