Give It Your Best Shot

With all the news around the world, from repression in Nicaragua, military-controlled elections in Pakistan, horrific fires in the West, erratic trade war moves and the question of a possible Russian-controlled “deep state” functioning with links to the Trump administration, it’s pretty easy to miss the seeming little stories that just might kill you.  And it does get me back to the litany of problems caused by a massive failure to apply the Second Amendment as our forefathers intended. After all, when did you last hear a federal court decision on gun issues discuss the importance of the Amendment’s reference to a “well regulated militia,” the entire focus of that provision?

But there have been some recent court cases, federal administrative actions, and some interesting side protests, relating to gun usage in the United States and attempts to subvert some pretty obvious and necessary restrictions.

As we keep shoving immigrants back across our southern border, castigating Latin American governments for failing to do enough to stem the illegal crossings into the U.S., we are cutting back on American funding of local cartel-fighting efforts, doing virtually nothing to stem the demand for illegal narcotics here in the U.S. that is causing all this criminality (and treat drug addiction with the seriousness it deserves) and certainly keeping ready access to assault weapons sold with little or no oversight at so many U.S. gun shows… knowing tens of thousands of such weapons are smuggled south across our border to ensure that the cartels “down there” are almost always better armed than the underpaid police who need cartel bribes just to pay their bills. Gun laissez faire is growing, not shrinking.

Even a three-judge panel from liberal federal 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the recent Young vs. Hawaii ruling (which could be reheard by a full nine judge panel of the 9^th Circuit), suggested that  there were clear Second Amendment rights to getting approved for an “open-carry” gun permit. The July 27^th Journal of the American Bar Association explains: “A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a 2-1 decision that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry a gun for self-defense outside of the home.

“The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of a Hawaii man, George Young, who was twice denied a license to carry a handgun, report Reuters and a series of tweets by South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman… In an opinion by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, the 9th Circuit majority said the Second Amendment’s right to bear as well as keep arms ‘implies some level of public carry in case of confrontation… In sum, we reject a cramped reading of the Second Amendment that renders to ‘keep’ and to ‘bear’ unequal guarantees.’ O’Scannlain said.” Wow, that’s a stretch. But wait there’s more!

What seems to be a terrible federal governmental move, when we are completely concerned with guns falling into the wrong hands, particularly violent criminals, mentally unstable individuals, and terrorists, is a recent federal administrative ruling that seems shocking at every level. “After spending years fighting the federal government for the right to do so, a Texas company was given the green light to post blueprints online showing people how to make 3-D printed guns from the comfort of their home.

“Gun safety advocates and some law enforcement officials are appalled, worried that this is exactly what criminals and terrorists want: guns that can’t be flagged by metal detectors, don’t have serial numbers to trace, and don’t require the usual background checks.

“A coalition of gun control groups filed an appeal Thursday in federal court seeking to block a recent Trump administration ruling allowing Cody Wilson and his company, Defense Distributed, to post blueprints online to create a 3-D printed firearm.

“‘There is a market for these guns and it’s not just among enthusiasts and hobbyists,’ said Nick Suplina, managing director for law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, one of the three groups that have gone to court. ‘There’s a real desire … in the criminal underworld as well.’

“Wilson, the founder of Defense Distributed, first published downloadable designs for a 3-D printed firearm in 2013. It was downloaded about 100,000 times until the State Department ordered him to cease, contending it violated federal export laws since some of the blueprints were downloaded by people outside the United States.

“But in a reversal that stunned gun control advocates, the State Department in late June settled its case against Wilson and agreed to allow him to resume posting the blueprints at the end of July. Wilson took to Twitter, declaring victory and proclaiming he would start back up on Aug. 1.” Los Angeles Times, July 27^th.

Experts testified that these 3-D guns were not, as a practical basis, much of a threat for quality reasons, noting that “the guns are simply a modern-day equivalent of what already is legal and readily available: the ability to assemble your own firearm using traditional materials and methods at home without serial numbers… They argue that 3-D printed firearms won’t be a draw for criminals since the printers needed to make them are wildly expensive and the firearms themselves aren’t very durable.

“‘It costs thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars to acquire a printer and the files and the know-how to do this. They don’t work worth a damn. Criminals can obviously go out and steal guns or even manufacture quote-unquote real guns, not 3-D printed,’ said Larry Keane, executive director of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents gun manufacturers… ‘If you’re a gang banger in L.A., are you going to go out and spend tens of thousands of dollars to buy a printer to print a gun that doesn’t work very well or are you just going to steal one?’

“Unlike traditional firearms that can fire thousands of rounds in their lifetime, experts say the 3-D printed guns normally only last a few rounds before they fall apart. They don’t have magazines that allow the usual nine or 15 rounds to be carried; instead, they usually hold a bullet or two and then must be manually loaded afterward. And they’re not usually very accurate either.

“A video posted of a test by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in 2013 showed one of the guns produced from Wilson’s design — the Liberator — disintegrating into pieces after a single round was fired. Wilson’s website will also offer blueprints for AR-style long guns besides its first product, the Liberator pistol.” LA Times.

Yeah, well, that kind of assumes that 3-D printing will remain a stagnant technology that does not improve to embrace cheaper printers that can work in metal. We know that cannot be. We also know that terrorists don’t need to have a long-term functioning weapon if they merely wish to carry weapons onto airplanes; they just need to get past the scanners. Waiting for a mass shooting using such weapons or a terrorist take-over of a commercial flight. OMG!

I’m Peter Dekom, and given the number of mass shootings, it is indeed maddening that instead of clamping down on such weapons, our governmental agencies are making this lethal access easier and more ubiquitous.