Mexican Vigilantes, the War on Drugs, and Gun Rights

Armed vigilantes are battling drug cartels in Mexico.  Business Insider has a great set of photos about recent events.

The WSJ also reported on the vigilantes successful take over of Neuva Italia, a small town in Michoacan.

Hundreds of armed vigilantes stormed a town in rural Mexico on Sunday morning, forcing out most of its local government, witnesses said, and declaring they were close to ousting a powerful drug cartel that has menaced the region.
The takeover occurred in the southern Mexican town of Nueva Italia and was led by one of the area's so-called self-defense groups: armed squads of vigilantes that are making fast gains in some areas against organized-crime groups that Mexico's security forces have failed to defeat.

The LA Times is reporting that the vigilantes are holding 11 local police in custody, whom they blame for collusion with the Knights Templar drug cartel.

Vigilantes in Nueva Italia say they are liberating the area from the cartels.

This has implications for U.S. policy.

First, our brain dead drug policies are partly to blame for the situation.  Legalization of marijuana and other drugs would vastly reduce the money available to the cartels to fund weapons buys.  I don't approve of abusing drugs, I just know that preventing drug abuse through police enforcement is a cure worse than the disease.

Second, the government is ineffective in Mexico at maintaining the law.  It must take high levels of fear and frustration to get ordinary people to turn to vigilantism to defeat criminal gangs.  This is one reason why citizens have an inherent right to possess firearms; you ultimately can't fully rely on government to protect you.  Governments the world over have failed to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

Third, the anarchy in Mexico doesn't bode well for our ability to maintain economic ties, which depend on a reasonable ability to cross the border with goods and services.  The worse the anarchy, the tougher we will end up making the border crossing.

What You Should Be Reading

• WC Varones details the disappointment of a few folks who are actually helped by the ACA and details more flaws in the system.
• Ari Fleischer rebuts Obama on the roots of income inequality.
• The latest polling on the San Diego Mayoral race; because electing a junior council member who was Filner's closest ally on the council would be a travesty.

Surveillance State Failure

The shooting at the Washington Navy Yard this week is inevitably calling for more gun controls, such as increased background checks.  But the shooter had already passed the background check to a hold a SECRET level clearance.  Why was he able to kill so many people on a military base?  Unilateral disarmament is one explanation, from CNS News:

"My son was at Marine Barracks -- at the Navy Yard yesterday - and they had weapons with them, but they didn't have ammunition.   And they said, 'We were trained, and if we had the ammunition, we could've cleared that building.' Only three people had been shot at that time, and they could've stopped the rest of it." 

The Navy Yard shooting brings up the legitimate issue of carrying - and using - firearms on military installations. 

Back in 1993, the Clinton administration virtually declared military establishments "gun-free zones." As a result, the policy banned "military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that 'a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel 'may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan," according to economist John Lott.

None of the proposals for gun-control will make us any safer.  They are the typical noise from politicians who demand that Something Be Done!  Whether or not it addresses the problem is irrelevant.

Gun Rights are Human Rights.

Drawing the Wrong Conclusion - As Usual

The tragedy at the Washington Navy Yard turned a bit personal for me when I was unable to contact colleagues due to the shootings.  I was glad to see that none of the victims were colleagues or acquaintances, but of course my heart goes out to the families and friends of those who died.  Inevitably, the tragedy is not going to waste in the leftist war on our civil liberties.  Predictably, Diane Feinstein has called for more gun control legislation.  However, unless she means to ban all guns in the hands of private citizens, which I believe is true, there is little that more laws could have done to prevent this tragedy.  The perpetrator was armed primarily with a shotgun and held a security clearance.  What gun control law could be passed other than outright confiscation of all private firearms to prevent this tragedy?

Richard Viguerie's web site debunks the whole myth that the surveillance state and more control of our rights will make us safer.  The Navy Yard shooters prior misconduct, Nidal Hassan's obvious radicalization at Fort Hood, the Tsaernaev's in Boston, PFC Manning's personal issues with gender identity were all missed due to either political correctness or the overwhelming amount information collected by the surveillance state.

In a free society, there will never be perfect safety.  The statists on the left know this and use every tragedy to argue for more regulation.  Arguing that the regulation will not be effective is necessary, but we should also argue that it is our right to own guns as a matter of the inherent human right of self-defense.  No pile of statistics removes my right to make a judgement about my own personal safety and how to best defend myself.  Every person on the planet has the right of self-defense, which is God given.  Gun rights are human rights.

Photo below from The Mad American Club Blog which has a pretty amusing article on self defense.

μολὼν λαβέ

Politics Tonight - Some Good News

Tonight's political news seems pretty good for the country.

Obama's Syria Speech Has Little Effect 

The President was wrong-footed by both his own Secretary of State and by Putin in the run up to his speech tonight.  Even after the speech, preliminary polls continue to show that the public is opposed to military intervention.  This is good news, because American vital interests are not served by military intervention at this time.

Weiner, Spitzer Suffer Humiliation - Again

These two jackasses have no place in public office and not just because of their sexual scandals.  Weiner didn't break 5% of the popular vote and Spitzer couldn't win the Democrat nomination in the usually bland race for City Comptroller.  I would hope that Spitzer couldn't be elected dog catcher.  The WSJ has documented Spitzer's record of abuse of power.  Weiner was just one long embarrassment.

Colorado Gun Control Lawmaker Loses Office

From Reuters:

Colorado Senate President John Morse, one of two state lawmakers fighting historic recall elections because of his support of tougher gun control laws, conceded defeat on Tuesday as preliminary results showed him trailing in the vote count, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported.

Nice going.  I read in another report that the gun control forces outspent recall supporters.

Reported contributions to Morse and Giron totaled about $3 million, dwarfing the amount raised by gun activists who petitioned for the recall, though some independent groups didn't have to report spending.

Yes we can defeat those who would trample our rights.

Australia Elects Conservative Government

This isn't news, but feels like it anyway.  Tony Abbott and his conservative Liberal Party (that's not a typo) soundly defeated the Labor party in elections in Australia over the weekend.  It was a good weekend for Aussies, even if Collingwood exited the first round of the finals at the hands of Port Adelaide.  Guy Benson of HotAir's Green Room explains why Yanks should care.

(1) The defeat of Statists anywhere on the planet merits attention and applause.  (2) Two of the main issues used by the opposition to successfully bludgeon the ruling party were lax immigration enforcement and public anger over a proposed carbon tax.  . . .  (3) Labor went full-bore “war on women” against the Abbott & Co, and failed miserably.

We close with a picture of Tony Abbott and his family celebrating his victory.  Doesn't look like a guy about to launch a war on women to me.

Colorado House Restricts Gun Rights

The Colorado House of Representatives passed four bills placing restrictions on gun possession today.

Among the proposals are bills that would require background checks for all gun purchases - paid for by applicants - a ban on ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds and a measure to allow colleges in the state to ban concealed weapons on campus. 

The left and the President, but I repeat myself, keep arguing that background checks are just so reasonable that only child-haters would object.  What does a background check really mean?  The FBI says this about background checks and its database.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase.

It all seems so quick and reasonable. Who else is ineligible, besides criminals?  It turns out that you don't have to be convicted of anything to be ineligible.  From the U.S. Code:

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing orhaving reasonable cause to believe that such person -         (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;        (2) is a fugitive from justice;        (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));        (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;        (5) who, being an alien -           (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or          (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

The paragraph regarding "adjudicated as a mental defective" made me wonder as well.  It turns out that your Second Amendment rights can be violated without the need for a court hearing.  Adjudicated turns out to mean that a government agency has decided that you're crazy.  Maybe because you want to keep your guns. According to ABC News:

The definition of a "mental defective" includes anyone whom "a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" has determined to be "a danger to himself or other" because of "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease."

I can't find the primary source for that definition, but its pretty scary.  It means that any American could be targeted and once committed, can never really get their gun rights restored.  In the comments section of the lead news article, a gun control advocate remarked that gun-rights supporters were complaining over being inconvenienced.  I think not.  Restrictions on our rights that lack the due process is hardly an inconvenience; it attacks the bulwark of our liberty, the Bill of Rights.

None of this would have prevented the tragedy at Newtown, CT.  Given that some of the most tragic gun violence has occurred at schools, allowing schools to ban concealed weapons will lead to more, not less gun violence.  I think these killers are perfectly aware that there is a near zero probability that they will face armed resistance when they launch their murderous sprees on campus.  Only arming a sufficient number of personnel on campus will change that calculus.

Finally, it is predictable that these laws will be shown to have zero statistical correlation to any reduction in firearm violence.

News Round Up

Republicans appear to be bowing to the inevitable and are moving towards a debt limit increase.  But at least it appears they will be requiring that the Senate pass a budget as part of the deal.  This is as much as could be hoped for, I guess.  I have posted about this twice and am feeling a little prescient.

The Algerian hostage deaths, horrific as they seem, could have been much worse; and the jihadists did little to advance their cause and are dead.  Almost 800 hostages were freed prior to the final bloodbath.

Relatedly, the WSJ has a great article by Max Boot on myths we believe about guerillas and terrorists.  A few tidbits:
1. Most guerilla movements end in failure.
2. Few movements are successful by using terrorism abroad.
The whole thing is worth a read as all the world's armed conflict has entered an era of guerilla warfare.

I missed "Gun Appreciation Day" today.  Of course, the media focused on the five injuries that occurred at gun shows today, even though none were life threatening. Relatedly, former NY Police Chief, Willie Bratton, no friend of gun rights, is quoted in the WSJ about preventing gun violence:

But the gun reform that truly gets Mr. Bratton fired up is one you don't hear much about these days. It is what he calls "certainty of punishment," or stricter gun-crime sentences. 

"People are out on the streets who should be in jail. Jail is appropriate for anyone who uses a gun in the commission of an act of violence. Some cities have a deplorable lack of attention to this issue," he says, citing Philadelphia.

Indeed, I don't have the statistics, but am willing to bet that most gun violence is committed by persons with a prior criminal record.  However, it turns out that 60% of criminals were legally permitted to own a gun at the time they committed their crime (see page 4 of the link).  This is because many felonies get plea-bargained to misdemeanors, allowing violent criminals to retain their rights.  We need a policy on such plea deals and certain jail time for crimes committed with guns.  Meanwhile, the NRA's membership is soaring.

Time to Buy Guns

. . . and lots of them.  The Washington Post is reporting that the administration wants to make it hard for you to get guns and will include requirements for a mental health check to purchase a gun.  In Joseph Heller's novel, Catch-22, a bombardier thinks to avoid further combat duty by claiming insanity due to combat stress.  But the fact that he fears the real dangers of combat proves his rationality, and he is therefor clearly not insane, according to "Catch-22."  Similarly, the mental health check provision of any proposed legislation will be the mirror image.

Gov't agent: Why do you want a gun?
Me: To defend myself and to maintain my rights.
Gov't agent: The government will do that for you, therefore you clearly aren't in good mental health,  you fail the mental health check and therefore you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.

I have never owned a gun in my life.  I never really felt the need. But if Obama wants to take away my right to buy guns, then clearly I need one.  How's that for Catch-22?

Many rural state Democrats aren't going to be down with such a broad assault on gun rights.  Our coalition can definitely defeat Obama on this.  It will feel good, because when he wins, his gloating is distasteful.

Open Carry Ban Fails

As much as I loathe criminals and applaud police efforts to keep crime under control, the police can be tools of the ruling class. From today's U-T:

California had long allowed the open display of handguns as long as they were unloaded.

But police chiefs this year had mounted a drive to outlaw the practice, saying it risked officers’ lives because when they responded they didn’t know whether the guns were loaded.

My answer, tough. The right to bear arms is as protected as free speech. Imagine the police chiefs arguing that protests should only be allowed behind specially designated areas behind chain link fences, because potential confrontations risk officers' lives?

Lori Saldaña, my Assembly critter, is the sponsor of this bit of odiousness. Since Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1 in my district, but don't have a majority, small chance she will be turfed out in November. Fortunately, Republicans in the Assembly were able to run out the clock on this bill as Democrats apparently had other fish to fry. Saldaña let loose some frustration that her bill didn't get the love from Democrat leadership she wanted:

Saldana had pleaded for almost an hour with Democratic leaders to bring the bill up for a vote. But with midnight fast approaching and Republicans stalling, the top Democrat managing floor action in the closing-day chaos decided to sacrifice the gun bill so that other priorities could move ahead.

The Senate had earlier approved the bill by just one vote.

Later, a frustrated and angry Saldana lashed out, calling her own party’s leaders “disorganized” and described as “embarrassing” their refusal to employ parliamentary procedure tactics to choke off GOP debate so the measure could be heard.

What a bunch of tools. The state has no budget, but they have time to piss on the Bill of Rights while the state slips closer towards more financial chaos.

Apologies to KT for image at upper right.