Reasonable Gun Control Laws Don’t Work if They Are Not Enforced

 

“This morning our city has a broken heart. This is a senseless and unacceptable tragedy… 

Thoughts and prayers aren’t nearly enough. We must do more as a city, as a state and as a nation. 

This senseless epidemic of gun violence must be addressed.” 

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, on March 4th after the biggest mass shooting in the United States this year

"We know these lives were not the only lives impacted by gun violence last night. And we equally mourn for those victims and families who do not make national headlines… But we must do more than mourn; we must act." 

Joe Biden, April 4th.

There are blue states, like New Mexico, that allow open carry guns. And you will find that liberal states with fewer big cities and larger rural populations, like Vermont, are where gun ownership is still treasured. Some blue states, notably Illinois, throw their hands up because anyone can drive to a neighboring state, like Indiana, where buying a semiautomatic pistol or an assault rifle is exceptionally easy. Chicago is a dangerous town, as we all know. But in lefty California, where gun laws are strict and tight, constantly facing right-wing, Second Amendment diehards challenge every gun law that state might pass. They needn’t bother. 

Writing from Sacramento, Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton tells us (March 7th): “California has the toughest state gun laws in the nation. But that’s irrelevant if they’re not adequately enforced — and they’re not… ‘We need to enforce more of the laws that we have,” state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta acknowledges. ‘The rise in violent crime throughout the country is almost entirely because of guns.’… In particular, he adds, ‘ghost guns are a new challenge we need to rise to.’… They’re unregistered guns that are assembled from purchased parts. It’s practically impossible to trace them to a violent owner so they can be seized…

“[Yet] there are about 24,000 Californians the attorney general’s office knows about who possess guns and legally shouldn’t. But it can’t recruit enough state officers to grab the weapons and make a dent in the list. The job is dangerous, and the pay isn’t competitive… ‘We have the most restrictive gun laws in the country,’ says Sacramento County Dist. Atty. Anne Marie Schubert, who’s running for attorney general as an independent. ‘But you have to have the funding to take the guns off the street. There are ghost guns everywhere right now.’”

Of course, California is about to pass a law with severe penalties for making, dealing in and owning ghost guns. But so what? There isn’t a parallel effort to prioritize taking guns off the streets. So what, you might ask again. Is it ironic that the latest mass shooting took place very earlier on a Sunday morning (April 3rd) in California? How about in Sacramento, not too far from the State Capitol? The deadliest shooting in that city’s history? At least two shooters opened up in an exchange of gunfire outside a section of downtown with lots of nightlife. When the bullets stopped flying, six people lay dead and another dozen were taken to or found their way to the nearest hospital. It was the worse shooting in the United States so far this year. Over a hundred gun casings were found.

Ever since the 2008 Heller vs District of Columbia Supreme Court case, pretty much ignoring the “well regulated militia” wording, finally established that the Second Amendment gave Americans a fundamental right to bear arms, red states have expanded the right to carry guns, often openly and increasingly concealed. Blue states have gone the other way, facing an angry NRA in court. That the Amendment was passed in an era of flintlocks and muskets did not seem to matter. Assault weapons and semiautomatic pistols were acceptable under Heller. That one gun homicide in 35 (used to be 30) is justified is a statistic in search of national policy that reins in the proliferation of guns that is still shocking to the rest of the world. 

Indeed, the mythology of self-defense still creates the number one reason people have guns. But a 12-year study in California debunks one of the biggest “protecting my family” myth of all. As reported by Melissa Healy in the April 5th Los Angeles Times, “Between October 2004 and the end of 2016, adults in the state who didn’t own a gun but took up residence with someone who did were much more likely to die a violent death than people in households without a handgun, researchers from Stanford University found.

“Those who lived with a handgun owner were almost twice as likely to die by homicide as their neighbors without guns, the researchers found. More specifically, adults who lived with a handgun owner were almost three times more likely to be killed with a firearm than Californians in households where no handguns were present… In addition, people who lived with a gun owner and were killed in their homes were especially likely to die at the hands of a spouse or other intimate partner. Among the 866 homicide victims who died in their homes during the period studied, cohabitants of handgun owners were seven times more likely than adults from gun-free homes to have been killed by someone who ostensibly loved them.” Gun deaths just keep rising.

But the biggest mass US shooting of 2022… so far… in the Capitol of Gun Control… is even more shocking. Heck, we don’t react much at all to school mass shootings anymore, and certainly not much to criminals having a bullet-laden field day that just happens to generate lots of collateral damage. Usually, the only real public reaction is a surge in gun sales, fearing that perhaps gun control “crazies” just might pass some limiting statutes to stem the flow of guns, track gun homicides officially or take steps to protect the general public.

Back to Sacramento. News reports tell us that at “least one handgun — later discovered to be stolen — was recovered. The rapid gunfire heard on videos suggested that a semiautomatic weapon may have been used… At least one handgun — later discovered to be stolen — was recovered. The rapid gunfire heard on videos suggested that a semiautomatic weapon may have been used.” LA Times, April 4th. 

“The Sacramento Police Department said it arrested 26-year-old Dandre Martin and charged him with assault and illegal firearm possession following an overnight investigation. He was taken into custody late Monday [4/4] and faces a charge of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, Sacramento Police said. Police described him as a ‘related suspect,’ but did not offer any additional detail about his alleged involvement.” MSM New, April 4th. Two days later, Daviyonne Dawson, 31, caught on camera wielding a firearm (probably not the fatal weapon) after the shooting, and Smiley Martin, 27, who faces charges of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and possession of a machine gun, were also arrested. Police believe that this gang rivalry involved at least 5 shooters.

If this happens in the state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, what exactly does “reasonable gun control” really mean? Gun control? Seriously? Good luck with that. So what, you might ask again.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I beginning to think we are not going to get much more than Buddhist prayer wheels – spinning with “Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families” – as our best effort to control the gun pandemic that has infected the United States.

The Ugliness behind the Ugliness

“And even before seeing the images from Bucha, President Zelenskyy, along with others in the region, were reporting that children were being abducted – and we heard him that today. Also abducted are mayors, and doctors, religious leaders, journalists, and all who dare defy Russia’s aggression. Some of them, according to credible reports – including by the Mariupol City Council – have been taken to so-called ‘filtration camps,’ where Russian forces are reportedly making tens of thousands of Ukrainian citizens relocate to Russia… Reports indicate that Russian Federal Security agents are confiscating passports and IDs, taking away cellphones, and separating families from one another. I do not need to spell out what these so-called ‘filtration camps’ are reminiscent of. It’s chilling and we cannot look away.” 

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, speaking to the Security Council on April 5th.

 

We’re watching sanctions rising, the UN has suspended Russia from its Human Rights Council, German intercepts have conclusively proven that Russian soldiers knowingly interrogated, tortured and then executed civilians, we’ve watched that Bucha footage of civilian bodies strewn everywhere (including raped women and young children), we have oceans of photos and videos showing massive, targeted destruction of garden variety apartment buildings, we’ve witnessed a huge death toll after a single bombing of a railroad station filled with civilians trying to leave Ukraine for safety (lots of dead children too) and we have clear evidence that these horrific actions are pervasive and continuing. 

Indeed, Russian soldiers have rounded up civilians captured in eastern Ukraine, most notably the port city of Mariupol, which refused to surrender, sending them to those “filtration camps” inside Russia “for their own protection.” The truth lies elsewhere as our UN Ambassador spoke in the above quote. It seems obvious that Russia has no intention of letting these people return to their homeland. In what appears to be a conscious effort to depopulate Ukraine of Ukrainians, particularly in the eastern most provinces, one has to view this atrocity as Putin’s manipulative effort “just in case” there is a peace settlement that might require a referendum. 

“The filtration camps, described as large plots of military tents with rows of men in uniforms, are where deported Ukrainians are photographed, fingerprinted, forced to turn over their cellphones, passwords and identity documents, and then questioned by officers for hours before being sent to Russia. A satellite image captured by the U.S.-based Maxar Technologies last week offered the first glimpse of one camp in the Russian-controlled village of Bezimenne, giving a peek into how Russians are processing Ukrainians and attempting to strip them of their identities. Ukrainian officials say more than 40,000 people have been forced into Russia against their will since last month.” Marquise Francis writing for the April 7th Yahoo News. The above satellite image shows that “filtration” complex of 30 large, fenced in tents in Bezimenne, a reality replicated in other border areas as well.

The Guardian UK (April 4th) spoke to women able to message the outside world before their communication was cut off: “‘On 15 March, Russian troops stormed into our bomb shelter and ordered all the women and children to get out. It was not a choice,’ said one woman who had been hiding with her family in a suburb of Mariupol since early March. ‘People need to know the truth, that Ukrainians are being moved to Russia, the country that is occupying us.’…

“The Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, has denied these accusations, claiming ‘such reports are lies’. Russian officials have previously said 420,000 people have been voluntarily evacuated to Russia ‘from dangerous regions of Ukraine and the Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics’.

“The women requested anonymity because they were concerned about the safety of their relatives who are still in the heavily shelled city. Their accounts, along with similar stories published by the Washington Post and the BBC and reports from human rights groups, contradict Russian claims that Ukrainians are not being forcibly moved to Russia.”

No one has any real doubt that war crimes have been committed at level we have not witnessed since the Nazi death camps of World War II. We know investigators have already begun gathering the requisite evidence. But Oliver Knox, in the April 8th Washington Post (The Daily 202), asks a most obvious question: Why is it so hard to prosecute war crimes? His answer (in part): “Laptops and phones, eyewitness accounts, Russian soldiers’ confessions and their “pocket trash”: These are some of the things investigators hunting in Ukraine for evidence of war crimes by Moscow’s forces are looking for to prove cases that may take years to try.

“‘There’s things they need to do: To take the pictures, collect articles, including the so-called ‘pocket trash,’ any phones that have been left behind,’ interrogate prisoners, and talk to eyewitnesses, Stephen Rapp, a former State Department ambassador at large for war crimes, told The Daily 202… Laptops and phones are treasure troves of data: Metadata helping to pinpoint their owners’ movements, as well as messages home or official directives, photos, videos, personal notes. But pocket trash? What’s pocket trash?

“As Russian soldiers pressed toward Kyiv, they may have picked up Ukrainian supplies, or mementos, or kept notes of their movements or written orders from commanders, that could help place them at the site of atrocities, Rapp explained. (I get it. I just found a restaurant matchbook in a blazer. An investigator could use it to show I was there.)…

“The question at the center of the investigation is whether prosecutors can prove who did it, and how high up the chain of command they can go. Intent and authorship matter more than tragic tales of those who have suffered and died at the hands of invading Russian forces.” You have to get credible evidence, one military level clearly linked to the one above it with tangible and substantial proof, and so on, until you reach the top… unless those at the top admit their complicity. Don’t hold your breath. For more clarity on what constitutes a war crime under international law, please visit my March 10th International Law and Putin’s War blog. But neither Russia nor the United States has formally accepted the jurisdiction of the UN’s International Court of Justice, which prosecutes war crimes. 

Writing for the George Washington School of Law (The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies in THE UNITED STATES AND INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (Cesare Romano, ed., 2008), Sean Murphy tells us: “Since 1946, the United States has had an uneasy relationship with the International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court or Court). On the one hand, the United States embraces the rule of law within its own society and, in principle, within the international system of states. The United States has been and remains an active participant in cases before the Court, appearing before it several times, more than any other state, even in recent years. On the other hand, the United States has never been willing to submit itself to the plenary authority of the Court, and has typically reacted negatively to decisions by the Court that are adverse to U.S. interests.” Thus, to so prosecute Vladimir Putin, this cannot be done in absentia; he must be physically arrested and brought before the court.

That those committing major crimes may escape without prosecution cannot be anything new to most Americans, watching two parallel and unequal systems of justice work in our own country: one for the rich and politically connected and the other for the rest of us. That Putin’s crimes are heinous does not change the basic unfairness of our legal system or that of the International Court of Justice.

I’m Peter Dekom, and either we, as residents of an eroding democratic society, fight for a system of equal justice for all… or simply learn to live in a rising autocracy and keep our mouths shut.

Fiery Speeches, Polls and Restraint

Russia's permanent representative to the 

United Nations Security Council responding 

to Zelensky’s speech; footage from Bucha

were “crude fakes.”

A major cyber attack on the United States is both possible and increasingly likely. With inaccurate information from his own generals, Putin is now imitating Trump’s proclivity to double down after an obvious mistake and claim victory when the opposite is true. But unlike Donald Trump, Putin does not have an opposing party or close and necessary powerful engaged military allies to shut him down. He still has options. A cyberattack directly against the United States puts both Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin in a serious quandary. Putin will deny that Russia fomented such an attack – he usually uses private dark operatives to create plausible deniability – and Biden is loath to follow up on his belief that this is a sufficient justification for all out war. 

Putin is at his weakest point since his reign began two decades ago. Whether he triumphs against Ukraine by unleashing overwhelming force and weapons of international opprobrium or simply creates a small buffer state in eastern Ukraine, it’s clear that his military’s most basic functionality is total bust. Corruption – it is estimated that at least 20%, if not up to 40%, of Russia’s military budget has been siphoned off to oligarchs, high ranking officers and Putin himself – combined with undertrained, and clearly unmotivated conscripts as well as undermaintained equipment have increased the relative value of Russian tactical, chemical and biological weapons.

But Putin still has two valuable cards in his deck from Western needs and beliefs that provide him some comfort. First, and most obviously, it is the continued dependence of European nations, mostly NATO allies and particularly Germany, on Russian oil and more importantly, natural gas. But second, and perhaps more importantly, it is Biden’s internal red lines that he has self-imposed “to prevent World War III.” Policies like holding back on providing Ukraine with longer range missiles and drones, not providing better missile defense systems for fear they may fall into Russian hands, and not allowing a small fleet of Russian-built MIG 29s to be picked up and used by the Ukraine military. 

Despite Zelensky’s articulate pleas, which have captured the hearts of most of those who have heard them, and notwithstanding the unexpected success of Ukrainian ground forces against an unprepared Russian attack, we have failed to help Ukraine “close the skies.” The Ukrainian President has railed against the impotence of the United Nations Security Council with a Russian veto, one where Russia maintains that the visual evidence of war crimes and genocide are “crude fakes.” Pressed with severe inflationary pressures, exactly how squarely are Americans behind Joe Biden’s effort to support Ukraine? Adam Taylor with Sammy Westfall, in the Washington Post’s Today’s World View, April 7th, present the facts… and the numbers:

“For years, Russian President Vladimir Putin looked to divide Americans. There was election interference, disinformation projects and, of course, that ever-present dodgy Russian money sloshing around Washington and other Western capitals. All served to weaken U.S. resolve. But in the space of just a few months, Putin has done something far harder than dividing Americans: He’s united them… Well, up to a point.

“A new poll of U.S. adults conducted by Pew Research Center found the number of Americans who said Russia was an enemy had surged from 41 percent in January to 70 percent in late March, when the poll was conducted. Twenty-four percent described Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 3 percent said it was a partner. “Crucially, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to revulsion along both sides of the political spectrum in the United States. Democrats and Republicans largely agree on the subject, with 72 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans describing Russia as an enemy. And Pew notes that the change in attitudes is asymmetrical. “‘While negative sentiment toward Russia has increased substantially among both Democrats and Republicans since 2020, Republicans’ views have changed more drastically,’ Pew notes, pointing to separate results that show negative views among Democrats increased by 23 percent in two years — and 35 percent for Republicans. “But this being America, dysfunction and division are never far from the surface. For the Biden administration, this relative unity against Russia is not a relief. Most signs suggest that any support for action against Ukraine will not help his underwater approval ratings. Indeed, polls suggest that voters support President Biden’s actions against Ukraine — they just want far more of it. “A survey conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and released late last month found that while the United States had imposed jaw-dropping sanctions and supplied more military aid to Ukraine than ever, 56 percent of the country thought Biden had not been tough enough on Russia. Even Democrats weren’t sure, with 43 percent favoring a tougher approach.” Not many Americans understand the existential battle for democracy should Putin prevail. Putin’s failures are democracy’s life blood successes. Yet we have rising antidemocratic forces here in the United States pressing to squelch minority rights, crush civil rights cases that have stood for half a century, impose their “cultural” views on all Americans and reinforce the center of power back to white traditional Christians. They rail against science, individual rights to differ from the mainstream and full voting rights. If Trump were back in office, given autocratic reign, exactly how far from the Russian model would we really be? Is there American hypocrisy rising with such very necessary support for Ukraine, a struggle for true democracy?             I’m Peter Dekom, and democracy requires crystal clear mirrors for continuous self-inspection, but it appears that too many Americans hate mirrors.

It’s My Money, and Your Problems are Your Problems

 

“You all just got a lot richer.” 

Donald Trump to a gathering of his rich friends at Mar-a-Lago on 12/22/17 after his 40% corporate tax cut passed

It’s an attitude, a lack of empathy, even from those who genuinely rose from true rags to true riches. As Elon Musk approaches becoming the planet’s first trillionaire – $1,000,000,000,000, more than the gross domestic product of 198 countries – the absurdity of mega-wealth becomes patently obvious. Monarchs and dictators are wildly rich, assets and cash hidden (or at least attempted to be hidden) as best they can. The ostentation of mega-mansions – usually a multiple per billionaire – yachts, lavish jets, a horde of servicing minions, artistic treasures, jewelry, customized designer everything are everywhere they go. There’s nothing wrong with being rich and living well, particularly if an individual earned and built it themselves. But there is a limit where rich turns into waste, a burden on the rest of us, and the sign of an uncaring elite, often buying and selling politicians, living even better with political favors.

They live in a parallel universe, have a different legal system, and can even relocate to a non-extradition-treaty country where even their wealth does not buy the necessary local political result. That they make generous charitable contributions may be laudable, in part, but remember, they are picking the causes they support, with a particular proclivity to make sure the best hospitals are on that list. That ensures that the recipient medical facility will do far more than any mere mortal would expect to treat any infirmity, ailment or disease the relevant wealthy ones may suffer. Such contributions are not determined by us but by them. Their pet projects and priorities, however generous and beneficial these “gifts” might be.

That the world’s first trillionaire is likely coming from the United States should be a red flag to all of us. That “Let them eat cake” came from Marie Antoinette, and resulted in her literally losing her head, should be an admonition to rich and poor alike. As I watched the confirmation hearings from nasty Senators pounding Ketanji Brown Jackson as an elitist Harvard Law School graduate, the level of hypocrisy was alarming. Those with the most anti-elite passion were all graduates of Ivy or Ivy equivalent law schools, including Harvard, Yale and Georgetown. 

The big trade-off that has allowed the Republican Party to rise has been: “give us low taxes and limited regulation and we’ll impose your evangelical values on the whole damned country!” See also my February 5th Money Talks, Wealth Screams, Special Interests Rule blog. It not a free market, no matter what anyone may tell us. It is a highly tilted playing field via laws passed specifically to favor the rich campaign contributors. Capitalism designed for the richest few.

While real estate property taxes and estate taxes are a mild exception, for most of the mega-wealthy individuals in this country – which has the widest income/wealth inequality gap in the developed world by far – pay no taxes on their accumulated assets. “Revenues” are the primary tax base. Since they buy less (as a percentage of net worth) at traditional retail than the rest of us, they pay proportionately less in sales tax too. Certainly, they pay far, far less than the rest of us based on their sizeable net worth. They can borrow against these assets, get tons of cold hard cash, but the only real tax consequence to them is an additional benefit: they can deduct the interest. Their asset appreciates, they borrow more and roll over old debts and get more tax deductions on interest paid. For a far more detailed examination of this anomaly, see my March 25th Citizens United, Loopholes and Mythology blog.

For those nations that tax wealth, indeed it has been an uphill battle. The problem often stems from setting the bar where wealth tax kicks in way too low. What is the level of net worth where taxation is justified? Would be the “deductible”? Not our farms, cry some. Why not? It’s wealth. $10 million? $50 million? $100 million? $1 billion? Bidens’s focused on the $100 million mark in a new proposal. Expect GOP squawking. Whenever you hear the words “creeping socialism,” a complete misuse of that term, picture a rich person sitting on a sky-high pile of gold ingots laughing. Writing for Capital & Main, reprinted in the March 26th FastCompany.com, Kristin Toussaint addresses this anomaly, looking first at Trump’s statement above:

“His glee was unsurprising, once again confirming who the former president thought were his most important constituents. It was also the latest example of the GOP’s insatiable desire to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, a movement forged in the 1970s and 1980s by California anti-tax activist Howard Jarvis and President Ronald Reagan… At the same time, a huge disparity between rich and poor continues to accelerate in California and across the country. The blatant unfairness of the federal tax code hasn’t escaped the notice of voters, who are increasingly open to the rising call for national and state wealth taxes.

“A 2020 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 64% of Americans favor some kind of wealth tax for the super-rich, agreeing they should ‘contribute an extra share of their total wealth’ each year. That support crosses party lines, with 77% of Democrats backing the idea and 53% of Republicans… During the 2020 presidential primary season, proposals for a wealth tax from progressive senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were widely popular, though Joe Biden never explicitly endorsed the idea. Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer proposed a tax whereby ‘anyone worth $32 million or more’ would pay an additional 1 cent on the dollar. For those with more than $500 million, it would go to 1.5 cents; and for billionaires, an additional 2 cents for every dollar. The result would be an extra $1.7 trillion in tax revenue over a decade.

“A current proposal by Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon called the Billionaires Income Tax, would target about 700 extremely wealthy taxpayers—the top 0.0005% of Americans. It could be a crucial ingredient in funding whatever form President Biden’s Build Back Better plan takes when it reemerges this year… The federal proposals are gaining more attention as an alternative to traditional tax increases that don’t enjoy the support of Democratic moderates in the Senate, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Biden is naturally more inclined toward simply raising corporate tax rates and taxes on wealthy individuals but now sees a wealth tax as a potential, and maybe necessary, substitute.”

Populist vitriol, brimming with anger at rich elites (why did they back Trump? A most interesting question beyond the scope of this blog), actually share this animosity with the left. For most of us in the middle, it is a problem that is beginning to demand action. Income/wealth inequality have accelerated into “way too extreme” even for most of us. The ultimate instability, the stuff of civil wars, is beginning to stir even the richest to correct an anomaly that just might cost them their heads. The explosion of gated communities over the last quarter century should tell you that this fear is pervasive among the rich. Some of these mega-wealthy are waking up.

“One especially engaged activist group is the Patriotic Millionaires, founded in 2010. With more than 200 millionaire (and billionaire) members in 31 states, their efforts began with a letter sent to then-President Obama asking that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans be allowed to expire… ‘There are a lot of people who feel that rich real estate developers are the most important people in the universe and just should not pay any taxes and that only working people should pay taxes,’ says Morris Pearl, chair of the Patriotic Millionaires and author of last year’s Tax the Rich! How Lies, Loopholes, and Lobbyists Make the Rich Even Richer.

“A former managing director at the investment firm BlackRock, Pearl says the goals of the Patriotic Millionaires are not just idealistic but practical, and he suggests that it’s increasingly common for high earners and business owners to share this view. ‘Their investments, their businesses, depend on the fact that the United States is a country with hundreds of millions of people who can pay their bills every month,’ Pearl explains. ‘Companies make money from people paying their bills. It’s not money trickling down from the top to the less wealthy people. It’s money trickling up.’” Exactly.

I’m Peter Dekom, and how much additional danger are the mega-wealthy willing to accept to preserve their unconscionable levels of wealth?