Guns

Don't Be Surprised if Gun Owners Don't Comply With Gun Control Laws

Getting a law passed is not the same thing as getting people to obey.

|

Media outlets love reporting the results of polling on hot-button policy issues, but they rarely tell you if the people supporting proposed legislation (especially when it's restrictive) are the same people who would be affected by it. That matters in several important ways, not least of which is that getting a law passed is not the same thing as getting people to obey. Nowhere does that matter more than in the heated debate over gun laws.

"Fifty-seven percent of registered voters in the March 24-26 survey said there should be more laws regulating guns in the country," The Hill reported earlier this year of the results of a Hill-HarrisX poll. That the story might be a little more complicated is hinted at later in the article where the numbers are broken down along partisan lines to reveal that 79 percent of Democrats support tighter gun laws, but only 36 percent of Republicans agree.

Why does the partisan divide on gun policy matter so much? Because gun ownership has traditionally been divided just as starkly along partisan lines, "with Republican and Republican-leaning independents more than twice as likely as Democrats and those who lean Democratic to say they own a gun (44% vs. 20%)," according to 2017 polling by Pew Research. That may indicate an ideological difference, or it may be evidence that familiarity with firearms encourages a more relaxed attitude towards their legal status, or both. Whatever the reason for the deep disagreement, enforcing "tighter gun laws" would require the cooperation of the people who actually possess them and oppose such policy changes.

Recently, though, the partisan divide on gun ownership seems to be shifting. More people from the left side of the political spectrum and members of Democrat-leaning constituencies have been acquiring them as a means for self-defense. They've lined up to make purchases at gun stores as faith in police and institutions erodes and society fractures. But even as their partisan identity becomes less predictable, gun owners and non-owners continue to disagree on policy.

"Non-owners are 31 percentage points more likely than gun owners to say they favor creating a federal database to track all gun sales (77% vs. 46%), and there are similar sized gaps in opinion over banning high-capacity magazines and banning assault-style weapons," Pew Research reported earlier this month. "Majorities of gun owners say they favor allowing concealed carry in more places and allowing teachers to carry guns in K-12 schools, but only about a third of non-owners support these policies," Pew added.

Majorities of gun owners and non-owners do agree on two restrictive measures: Preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns and making private gun sales subject to background checks. That's unfortunate on the first count, since threatening the civil liberties of those with mental health issues is likely to deter them from seeking help. On the second point, requiring background checks for transfers of firearms between private parties is unenforceable when the government has no idea as to who owns what, and few states have registration requirements. Researchers investigating the effect of comprehensive background check laws in Colorado, Delaware, and Washington found an increase in such checks only in Delaware, according to a study published in 2018 in Injury Prevention. "One plausible explanation for our findings is low compliance in our study states," the researchers wrote.

But trying to compel compliance by belatedly imposing registration requirements is also a losing bet. Gun policy is a divisive issue and people know that some politicians want to outlaw and even confiscate what is currently legal; they don't seem inclined to make that goal easy to achieve. When Connecticut required owners of so-called "assault weapons" (really, semi-automatic rifles with a military appearance) to register their property with the state, it achieved all of 15 percent compliance; compliance in New York with a similar rule topped out at 5 percent.

That doesn't bode well for proposals to track gun sales, restrict magazine capacity, or ban "assault weapons." The people who would be affected by such laws overwhelmingly oppose them, and they've repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to defy rules that they don't like. Moreover, disagreement over restrictive gun laws appears to be widening.

"Although Democratic opinion is little changed since 2017, GOP support for an assault-style weapons ban has dropped substantially, from 54% in 2017 and 50% in 2019 to 37% today," Pew Research noted in April of this year. "Similarly, Republican support for a federal gun sale database is 13 percentage points lower than it was in 2017. There have been more modest Republican shifts away from support for ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines and background checks for private and gun show sales."

Gallup finds a similar hardening in attitudes, with the gap between Republicans and Democrats over gun policy widening from an average of 22 points to 47 points, mostly as a result of the GOP's growing opposition to gun control measures.

The partisan associations of gun control proposals almost certainly sound the death knell for their prospects. The United States is a politically polarized country, in which relations between factions are defined by animosity. About 55 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of Democrats say the other party is "not just worse for politics—they are downright evil," Louisiana State University political scientist Nathan Kalmoe reported in 2019 of relations between the major political factions. It's unreasonable to expect that anybody would abide by restrictions they deeply oppose and that they associate with their enemies. 

In an additional reality check for advocates of restrictions, the growth in gun ownership among Democrats and some of their traditional constituencies amid loss of faith in government to keep the peace and treat people with respect makes it more likely that support for tighter gun laws will decline in their ranks than that Republicans will change their attitudes.

A majority of Americans may currently favor more restrictive laws regarding firearms, but that majority looks likely to shrink in the years to come, making policy changes less likely as the years go by. That's just as well, since passage of such laws would leave the powers-that-be looking thoroughly ineffective given that the people who would actually be touched by them have demonstrated their unwillingness to submit to such policies.

NEXT: Brickbat: No Surfing!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Chicago is what happens when draconian, progressive gun control laws happen.

    1. And D.C. They have about 10 times the firearms homicide rate of nearby counties in Northern Virginia, which have much less restrictive gun laws.

      1. The states with the three lowest violent crime rates in the nation (Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire) are all constitutional carry. And none have engaged in a firearm demonization campaign.

        1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes HDJk me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

          Try now……………….JOBS APP

          1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid in CSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

            See……………VISIT HERE

          2. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.GJk Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

            You can check it out here…..................VISIT HERE

        2. Vermont has, although the carry laws have not yet changed, there is a perennial attempt to do so. Magazines are limited at 10 rounds for new purchases. This is based in a panic-stricken reaction to a non-student expressing a thought, not actual homicidal ideation, not a plan, just a comment about having thought about, shooting people at a school. He had no access to a firearm. He had no 'high capacity' magazines. And again, he had no plan. But, the beast option /sarc, as always, was to restrict the rights of all citizens based on fear.

          1. Four of the worst "mass shooting" events in recent years had the perpetrators (five in total for four events) using TEN ROUND ("low capacity" magazines for their "modern sporting rifles", also deceitfully referred to as "assault weapons".
            The Parkland School event, the Sandy Hook Elementary School event, the Aurora Colorado theatre event, and the double-perp San Bernardino Christmas Party event. I cannot remember for certain but I think the Sutherland Springs Texas church event was also carried out with ten round mags.

            So much for their meme that ten round limits "save lives".

            No, what made ALL FOUR of those events so deadly was that THERE WAS NO ONE WHO COULD SHOOT BACK. The one case where someone COULD and DID shoot back was the Sutherland Springs church event... a neighbour heard the reports of gunfire, knew there should not be any then and there, went to his own residence and took up his OWN "modern sporting rifle" nearly identical to the one used by the perpatrator. Can't rember for sure, but I believe he used a ten round magazine as well. No matte. he fired ONE ROUND and that ended the massacre with a direct hit on the killer. ALL of those events took place in government mdandated "certified defenselss victim zones" (aka "gun free".
            One perp avoided the backgorund check by simply jurdering his Mum and stealing HER guns. Two had perps who had disabling criminal history that simply was not reported to the backgound check system.
            two byassed the backgound check system my obtaining through private means, at least one of those was a prohibited person for firearms possession. The Aruora perpetrator I cannot recall the pathway through which he obtained his murder weapon, or whter he managed to pass his backgound check.Thus five out of the six obtainte their weapons IN SPITE Of the system claimed to prevent such people getting their hands on weapons for evil... failed to work one way or another. As said, I cannot recall the detaiols of the Aurpra killer.

            They have this sort of a track record, but in my state my twenty two caliber semiautomatic rifle that just looks like any wooden stocked smallbore rifle is now an "assault weapon" and must be registered, ten day waiting period, etc. There are above FORTY MILLION of these ordinarly looking rifles out there currently. Are they NUTS?

            And if I have a friend some visit, bring HIS rifle, (it is legal and safe to shoot in my backyard, I'm on rural acreage) and it is not shooting accuratlely, if HE hands it to ME to adjust the sights, before I can touch it we both have to hop in the car, drive to an FFL dealer, he carries the rifle in, we fill out the pwperwork as if I am BUYING it, (I''m not, I have my own) the dealer takes his and our time, makes the call for the backgournd check, he cannot tough it now because it is "mone" even though HE still owns it, t oh but wait, since it is the same kind as mine, it is consideredan assault weapon" in our state, thus we have to leave it at the dealer for ten days, then come back pay HIS transfer pwperwork fee, NOW eleven days later we can go back to my house, I can sight it inf or him, but HE cannot take it back until we trudge off to the FFL again, (must be business hours) reverse the process, it sits there for another ten days, we've driven a totlal of florty miles, spent six hours (lines at the dealer) and paid upwards of a hundred dollars in fees and storage charges. THEN he can come back too my place along with me and try his newly sighted in old rifle that he has continuously owned for the past five years.

            and they wonder why there is such an "I ILLL NOT COMPLY sentiment?

            Grow up, government. Yo are NOT doing your job, nor are you upholding your oath of office. Yet you put ME into the categroy of "rebel"? Get real.

            these are the laws Bloomburg and Soros are buying forus all accross this land, and they feed lies and disinformation to the public which then ends up returning polling results as listed above. NOT realty there. Anyone can build a poll to prove/disprove whatever you want to prove or disprove. The more they lie and cheat and steal the more we distruct them. Soon all teir chickens will come home to roost.

            1. Don't forget the Virginia tech shooter, who used, among other things, a .22 handgun for some of his victims. The lowest power cartridge in common use, but it can certainly be fatal when unopposed.

            2. And if I have a friend some visit, bring HIS rifle, (it is legal and safe to shoot in my backyard, I’m on rural acreage) and it is not shooting accuratlely, if HE hands it to ME to adjust the sights, before I can touch it we both have to hop in the car, drive to an FFL dealer, he carries the rifle in, we fill out the pwperwork as if I am BUYING it,

              Um, what? Where does it require an FFL transfer to hold a gun?

              1. BUBBA commiefornia and new york and delaware and maryland for four.

        3. I'm sure the fact those states are 98% white has nothing to do with it.

      2. And DC bounces between 0-2 FFLs. There is pretty much no legal ownership there. I would say that Brazil is the most accurate representation of where the steppers are trying to go. All the talking points are in practice there. Not working out too great.

        1. Australia, General; don't forget Australia.

          1. Or New Zealand. Both Australia and New Zealand saw a bump in crime after "buybacks." NZ is still experiencing their lift in crime.

        2. I travel to DC regularly. Always packing. Better safe than sorry.

      3. But the governments of those NoVa counties would love to impose gun restrictions just like those in D.C. With the General Assembly and the governor's mansion both in Democratic hands, it probably won't be long before they get their way.

        1. They already have. As soon as Blackface Ralphie and company got control of the legislature and tossed out the preemptive statutes forbidding localities to have more restrictive laws than the state had, Fairfax forbade possession of firearms on all county property. That includes all parks and stream valley trails. Perhaps Northam and the Democrats want to make Fairfax safer for the MS-13 gangs that have a habit of coming from Maryland and dumping bodies in Fairfax parks.

        2. "Democratic hands"
          "democrat hands"
          there seamus I fixed it for you.

      4. D.C. says its because f the lax laws outside the district that all the guns come to DC and kill people.

        1. Of course they would say that. Wouldn't you try to pass the blame if possible?

    2. Chicago is what happens when draconian drug prohibition laws happen.

      FIFY

    3. Most of Chicago's gun laws have been rescinded. You need to update your meme. Chicago isn't even in the top ten most dangerous cities in the country anymore. Look up St. Louis.

  2. 44 percent of Democrats say the other party is "not just worse for politics—they are downright evil,"

    B.S. I want to see the question and how it was presented to get that number. I get that Twitter, Facebook, Google and the National News are all anti-Gop and anti-Conservative. And even with that, 56% of the people on the same team don't agree? That sounds more like wish-casting to make themselves look like, 'Hey, see the other guy is the worst at thinking the worst of others.'

    1. Every GOP is worse than Hitler, starting with Truman/Dewey? Right, and yet the GOP has a worse view of the other side? Not buying what they are selling.

      I don't think they are evil, just selfish and ill-informed.

      1. Larry Elder is the black face of white supremacy.

        1. The L.A. Times is going to pay dearly for that.

          1. How? They don't have any money because nobody buys their papers anymore. Though I do recall it being sold a few years ago because the guy who bought it thought hipsters would want papers again soon.

        2. That was one of Dave Chappel's best bits.

      2. I used to think that - but after the last five years and the most recent election, I'm now in the democrats are evil camp... at least those pulling the levers of power in politics and media. Russia Gate, the BLM riots, to open borders (during a pandemic no less), to the unilateral election law changes that weren't properly sent through state legislatures as required by the constitution - I'm solidly in the democrats are evil camp. Google "Darryl Cooper Glenn Greenwald" for an article that describes me to a "T". Something has dramatically changed - and it wasn't this conservative...

    2. You are right to want to see that study and to dig into their methodology. But I do have to wonder where you've been hiding the last for years. The original study has been vetted and independently duplicated a number of times already. The conclusion that our collective views on our political opponents (on both sides) has shifted from mere policy disagreement to evaluations of intrinsic moral values is strongly supported by the evidence.

      1. I'm more surprised that the numbers aren't greater on the Democratic side.

        I presume the GOP numbers are primarily due to abortion. After all, baby-murder isn't something you compromise on, and it's more virulent a feeling than "my body my choice". Also, as the pro-choice side can generally at least understand the pro-life perspective, even if they don't agree with it, I think they don't have as bad an opinion as the media often portrays them as.

        1. " GOP numbers are primarily due to abortion." I think all the GOP/Conservatives need to do is drop the anti abortion farce and they would easily be winning elections.

    3. The late Charles Krauthammer said it best - Republicans think Democrats are stupid and need to be educated and Democrats think Republicans are evil need to be destroyed. Or another way of looking at it is Republicans want to be right and Democrats want to win. That's why deception, hypocrisy, ignoring facts, dismissing logic, lying, harassment, propaganda, censorship, cancel culture and, if they could get away with it, more fatal measures are all normal, commonplace occurrences and in the Democrat playbook as sanctioned tactics. For the last hundred years, since the Wilson administration, this country has slowly "progressively" moved to the left and the feckless Republicans have quietly allowed it to happen until Trump came along and showed them how to fight. Unfortunately Republicans don't like to fight. They seem to have other priorities in life and choose to try to live with government while Democrats live to shape government. If Republicans don't realize what the game really is and also become more engaged, obedient and united and start pushing back, their only option is going to be unconditional surrender.

      1. Republicans are Christians which is all about self sacrifice.

      2. Pretty sure the GOP is the Stupid Party per Krauthammer. Can't really disagree, all things considered.

    4. I did a quick look at a poll Kalmoe conducted, and the questions seemed fairly generic. The outcome, however, doesn't fit with what other studies/polls have shown. It does fit with what he and his cohort are trying to sell, however. Which is not to say that the data is incorrect, but that it's strange that these two are coming up with data that seems to support their analysis.

  3. When I took Statistics in college, I learned that I can make the results of a poll be anything that I want them to be just by how the questions are phrased or where and when I ask them.

    It should be pretty simple. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand.

    1. I'm in favor of more gun control laws. As long as the DOD and DOJ own guns, the IRS, DHHS, SBA, and VA shouldn't need guns in any professional capacity.

      1. Is the post office still allowed guns?

        1. Just the disgruntled employees…

        2. Yes, mostly the Inspection Service. Aside from regular facility security, I'm not sure why they should be participating in any policing or raids but they do. It seems like they should be merely investigating mail crimes, then forwarding those over to the FBI.

        3. And the dept of education?

      2. NIH too

      3. BUT what about the Department of Education?

      4. and still the gubbmint controls the guns.

    2. I recall it came out after the Clinton impeachment trial, that one of the polls that had been published showing the public opposed to conviction had actually been run with about a dozen different wordings. Then they'd simply released the results for the version most favorable to Clinton. Who had paid for the poll to be run in the first place!

      If you're hearing the results of a poll without having to pay for it, you're probably looking at a pr campaign, not a genuine effort to measure public opinion.

    3. I learned that I can make the results of a poll be anything that I want them to be just by how the questions are phrased or where and when I ask them.

      Two minutes that well illustrate your point.

    4. Yeah, they generally run gun control polling right after a mass shooting and the media running hyperbolic stories about assault weapons even if such weapon weren't involved.

      1. And the questions are certainly not leading:
        "Do you prefer murderous people being able to buy guns from a vending machine, or are you human?"

  4. And here we are; yet another article about "gun control" with not a single mention of the US Constitution.
    Blind use of the fascist propaganda term "assault rifle" when there is no such thing.
    Free Minds, Free Markets, fact free articles.
    If these guys ever get bullied into dropping comments like the Federalist, no one will read it, not even the "editors".

    1. Eh, this one wasn't too bad. The author does indicate some concern over the loaded language. I agree in general though - one of Reason's major failings is almost never tying any of their stories back to any kind of principle. Their positions always have a foundation of sand.

      1. I think that, unlike early, more principled libertarians, they're afraid of getting forced into agreeing with policies they don't like, just because their principles dictate it. So they avoid discussing principles in the first place.

        Emotive libertarianism gives you more freedom to pick and chose policies than principled libertarianism.

        1. Oof. Yeah that's probably right

    2. The author did write this: 'When Connecticut required owners of so-called "assault weapons" (really, semi-automatic rifles with a military appearance)'

      The quotes around 'assault weapons' seems to imply that it is a marketing term, not an actual technical term.

      This is a step in the right direction.

    3. Blind use of the fascist propaganda term “assault rifle” when there is no such thing.

      There most certainly is such a thing...and has been for nearly 70 years. It's just that the term is being erroneously (and often dishonestly) misapplied to firearms that do not possess all of the characteristics that define an assault rifle.

      1. An assault rifle only has one characteristic; it is being used by someone assaulting something. Any attempt to define any rifle as an assault rifle by "characteristics" fails.
        When invented, the rifle was considered a dishonorable weapon, and soldiers carrying one were executed by bowmen. cartridge using rifles, lever action rifles, revolving rifles, semi-automatic rifles, fully automatic rifles, all were quickly adopted by the militaries for use in assaults, but also used for hunting and defense by citizens. (OK, crooks used fully automatics more than 'regular' citizens, but that was cost more than anything). When the next big thing is invented, rifles now called assault rifles will magically become as benign as a bolt action. And, oh by the way, those bolt action rifles were assault rifles.
        (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute)
        The rifle described by General Patton as "the finest battle implement ever devised", the M1 Garand, does not qualify as an assault rifle by most definitions because it lacks a detachable magazine and does not have a pistol grip or have a thumbhole stock.

        1. An assault rifle only has one characteristic; it is being used by someone assaulting something. Any attempt to define any rifle as an assault rifle by “characteristics” fails.

          *Laughs in Sturmgewehr 44.*

          The characteristics of the class of rifle that the StG 44 brought into existence are rather well-defined. You have no idea what you're talking about. And, no...bolt-action long guns were not "assault rifles".

          When invented, the rifle was considered a dishonorable weapon

          Oh, horseshit.

          the M1 Garand, does not qualify as an assault rifle by most definitions because it lacks a detachable magazine and does not have a pistol grip or have a thumbhole stock.

          Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Pistol grips/thumbhole stocks are not defining characteristics of assault rifles. However, being chambered in an intermediate cartridge (which the .30-06 is not) is...along with having select-fire capability , which the Garand also lacked.

          1. Let's try that one again, properly formatted this time...

            An assault rifle only has one characteristic; it is being used by someone assaulting something. Any attempt to define any rifle as an assault rifle by “characteristics” fails.

            *Laughs in Sturmgewehr 44.*

            The characteristics of the class of rifle that the StG 44 brought into existence are rather well-defined. You have no idea what you’re talking about. And, no…bolt-action long guns were not “assault rifles”.

            When invented, the rifle was considered a dishonorable weapon

            Oh, horseshit.

            the M1 Garand, does not qualify as an assault rifle by most definitions because it lacks a detachable magazine and does not have a pistol grip or have a thumbhole stock.

            Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Pistol grips/thumbhole stocks are not defining characteristics of assault rifles. However, being chambered in an intermediate cartridge (which the .30-06 is not) is…along with having select-fire capability, which the Garand also lacked.

        2. Nope. The legal (by treaty) definition of an “assault rifle” is a select fire rifle or carbine shooting an intermediate cartridge. Thus, a Glock 18 isn’t an “assault rifle” because it isn’t a rifle or carbine, and doesn’t shoot an intermediate cartridge. Almost all AR-15s aren’t “assault rifles” because they aren’t select fire. Also, some aren’t such because they don’t shoot intermediate sized cartridges (I have one that shoots 9 mm, and calibers up to .50 BMG have been built on that platform). On the flip side, WW II era M1 Garlands and M1 Carbines, still in heavy use today, are not “assault rifles” because they aren’t select fire, but their successor, the M14, looks like an M1 Garland with the M1 Carbine’s box magazine, is (mostly) an “assault rifle” because it is (mostly) select fire.

          The key in most cases is the requirement for select fire, in order for a firearm to legally be an “assault rifle”. That means that it is a “machine gun” under the definition in the National Firearms Act (NFA). In order to legally own a machine gun in this country (which includes all “assault rifles”), you need a special license, requiring a background check, pay a federal tax (for a stamp), and the firearm had to have been manufactured before 1986.

          1. the M14, looks like an M1 Garland with the M1 Carbine’s box magazine, is (mostly) an “assault rifle” because it is (mostly) select fire.

            Two out of three ain't bad, but it lacks the intermediate cartridge chambering required to make it an assault rifle.

            The key in most cases is the requirement for select fire

            That feature is one of the three defining features of an assault rifle, but it is not THE key one. IOW, it is necessary, but not sufficient.

  5. It's not about actually rounding up all the righties and putting them in a cage. It's about creating a web of felonies where it is impossible to exist without committing any number of crimes and then selectively throwing the book at people you don't like.

    1. Yes! That is the point in most federal laws.

      1. That is the point in most laws.

        FTFY.

        Your state law works the same way.

    2. The book, Three Felonies A Day by Harvey Silverglate, clearly spells out what happens with thousands of federal laws that are felonies when not obeyed.
      He pointed out that from the time you get out of bed in the morning to the time you retire back to bed, every American will have committed three felonies without ever realizing it.

    3. Yep. My old philosophy professor, Jorge Soler, used to say that laws were for more for availability, not enforcement. He fled Cuba in 1960.

  6. It's unreasonable to expect that anybody would abide by restrictions they deeply oppose and that they associate with their enemies.

    If you believe in the people’s RTKBA, it’s actually very reasonable to deeply oppose the Democrats and consider them your enemy. Their assault on the 2A is a defining characteristic of their fucking party, proven year after year, election after election.

    1. My own reasoning in the late 90's, when I finally gave up on the Libertarian party. That's why I decided that if I had to be a member of a major party, it would be the Republican, because at least they weren't determined to disarm me.

      You know that they've got some pretty horrible things planned, if they're that afraid of average people being armed.

      1. I'm not sure that federal republicans don't want to disarm you...but at least at the state level there are some allies to be found

        1. Oh, I've seen evidence that some federal Republicans would be happy to. But they're not as obsessive about it as the Democrats.

          1. No argument here

  7. The failure of gun owners to obey gun control laws is actually a feature of the laws, not a bug.

    “There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” Ayn Rand.

    Democrats are delighted to have a large fraction of their political opposition violating laws, because that means that, with a bit of effort, they can penalize members of the political opposition.

    1. Damn well said Brett. Much better than I could express.

      Thank you.

    2. + sums it up very well BB; while compliance will be negligible, they would have achieved their goal of rendering them illegal; this provides a moral victory [which has no relation to any actual outcome, or lack thereof] and more importantly the ability to shut down the manufacture and sale of such items and any and all parts necessary to maintain them [stock up by the way] and related ammunition. It also provides and ability to threaten us with the power of law and police and prosecution should we ever get caught.
      Doesn't matter if there are 20 million AR variants in private ownership; it will give them power over us, which is the whole point.

  8. Don't forget, enforcing your progressive laws rely, ultimately, on police and military institutions. Back the Blue has a solid Red representation.

    Also, 2A is so the citizens can point their guns at a tyrannical and unjust government. Yes, I DO need those high-cap, full-auto, armor piercing incendiary shenanigans to ensure we're on remotely equal footing. A tank also would be nice, but no way with these gas prices.

    1. Some of the local Sheriffs seem to refuse to enforce. Makes sense, given that they will generally have ties to the community. County state and federal? I haven't seen a law yet that they won't enforce. Non-enforcement from my local PD is not something I am banking on.

      1. Immigration law

      2. Sherriffs are also an elected post. Nobody is going to run for Sherriff in most red counties on a gun control platform.

    2. City police and military will comply. Cops will kill you over the suspicion of selling un-taxed cigarettes. National Guardsmen murdered unarmed people in Newark and Kent State.

    3. Worse yet, the tanks run on more expensive diesel.

      1. Of course, the military doesn't pay all the state and federal fuel taxes - - - - - -

        1. Hell, even the offroad farm diesel is expensive...

    4. A 30-round magazine in a carbine is standard capacity.

      1. Standard for my Calico is 50, but I popped for the 100 round, instead.

  9. Where are these polls conducted? Let me guess...

  10. Have the gun-grabbers stopped to think that, if they ever tried to seriously enforce the gun restrictions they want to enact, there would inevitably be a disproportionate and adverse impact on minorities? (Of course, it's always possible that they have thought about it, and just plan on enforcing the law selectively.)

    1. Indeed, I've long wondered what they'd say if they saw a bunch of ATF guys rolling in armored vehicles through minority neighborhoods in NYC.

      1. Progressives: Damned Republicans!
        Progressive Libertarians: Yeah, but both sides!

        1. No, progressive libertarians only trot out the "both sides" argument when there is a clear violation of libertarian principle by Democrats. They'll be happy to use this particular instance to damn Republicans.

      2. Would the ATF APCs be required to pay the traffic congestion fee?

    2. Which is why Lori Lightfoot does not want to prosecute her constituency; much better to blame white guys who own guns somewhere else for all of their crime.

    3. No. Progressives do not actually think about anything. Thinking is patriarchal.

  11. Roberts Rules of Order / Sturgis Standard Guide need an additional rule: "Don't make laws you can't enforce. (It makes you look weak, foolish or both.)"

  12. Since we no longer have a moral, Constitutional government, I no longer feel obligated to obey any of its dictats.
    And that includes allowing my body to be injured or even destroyed by a toxic, deadly, worthless injection.

    1. I will not comply!

    2. ^PERFECTLY SAID....

    3. I agree with you about our lack of a Constitutional gov't but I got vaccinated a couple months ago. Apart from a week of brain fog & soreness at the injection site there have been no ill effects, yet.

      It doesn't bother me if you don't want to be vaccinated, unless of course I need an emergency room for something & the hospital is already full of folks who refused vaccination...

  13. Odd that, in an article headlined about gun control non-compliance, most of the article consisted of discussions about partisan divides on gun control.

    A number of commenters actually bothered to do the work the headline promised. The interesting thing about compliance and non-compliance is that it's inversely correlated to the ostensible aims of the gun control laws. If the aim of the gun control law is to reduce the initiation of gun violence, you'd want to reduce gun ownership by the people most likely to initiate it. Of course, the problem is that the people most likely to initiate gun violence are criminals. By tautology, criminals are the people least likely to comply with the law.

    1. The other thing is that if you were serious about gun violence, you would be going after handguns, not semiautomatic rifles and carbines, with which only a tiny fraction of the offensive gun deaths in this country are utilized. And one big reason is that they are very hard to conceal, which makes them a good home defense weapon, but a lousy one for offensive use.

  14. If I have an M249 light machine gun and Biden finds out, he sends his ATF to apprehend me. Once convicted, I’ll spend a decade in federal prison. Yet Biden just transferred hundreds of these to an organization identified as a sponsor of terrorism.

    1. Biden set an example by allowing thousands of military-style assault weapons to be confiscated in Afghanistan.

      1. Congressman Jim Banks tweeted "the Taliban now has more Blackhawk helicopters than 85% of the countries in the world" lol

      2. All without a single background check.

    2. and tanks and armored pesonnel carriers and cherohkee helicopters and sta missles and tons of ammunitions and rations to sustain troops invading nearby countries. Bidet is a traitor.He should be severly chastized for leaving millions of our tax dollars behind.

  15. The article missed an important point: I don't view gun grabbers as an enemy because of politics, I don't think they're evil because of politics. I don't care about the (D) or (R) after your preferred candidate's name.

    I view them as an enemy because the only possible reason someone would want to disarm me is if they intend to do me harm. If they intend to interact peacefully with me my level of armament doesn't matter to them; I'm a peaceful person and have never given anyone a reason to doubt that. The only people with a vested interested in my disarmament are those that intend to get violent with me and don't want me to be able to fight back.

    I don't dislike these people because they're Democrats, I dislike them because they threaten me with violence.

    1. Ultimately, all laws are enforced at the point of a gun. It may take many steps to get there, but in the end, that's what it comes down to.

      1. I understand that, and I've made peace with it in some respects. We have to have laws, the alternative is anarchy which results in violent outcomes. Since we have to have laws, we also have to have people to enforce those laws and they have to be paid for.

        Taxation is still theft because it occurs at gunpoint, however there's a way to do it such that it's the least amount of theft and violence you could experience. No government I've seen actually threads that needle, but it's at least possible and would make their decision to use violence to achieve that goal reasonable. Humans are violent by nature and we'll never be rid of it entirely, but trying to limit it to the greatest extent possible is a valid role of government.

        Gun control laws do not serve that purpose, in fact they serve the opposite. Gun control laws use violence to make me more susceptible to violence, not to protect me from violence. All laws are enforced at gunpoint, not all of them are equal in their justification for it.

        1. All laws are enforced at gunpoint, not all of them are equal in their justification for it.

          Perfectly phrased!

          And the rest of your post is a good summary of the libertarian case for a limited, minimal government dedicated to the protection of life, liberty and property.

    2. This is why the Taliban immediately started disarming the populace.

      https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taliban-afghan-capital-kabul-start-collecting-weapons-civilians-2021-08-16/

      KABUL, Aug 16 (Reuters) - Taliban fighters in the Afghan capital, Kabul, started collecting weapons from civilians on Monday because people no longer need them for personal protection, a Taliban official said.

      "We understand people kept weapons for personal safety. They can now feel safe. We are not here to harm innocent civilians," the official told Reuters.

      1. "We are not here to harm innocent civilians."

        However, if we decide you're not innocent, you're pretty well fucked.

  16. >>Why does the partisan divide on gun policy matter so much?

    so (R) and (D) can both take your money about it.

  17. "Majorities of gun owners and non-owners do agree on two restrictive measures: Preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns and making private gun sales subject to background checks."

    Interesting that there is no cite for this claim; calling bullshit on it, especially in re to "universal background checks" which would be totally unenforceable and, like all such laws, impact only the law abiding [which is exactly what it is intended to do].

    1. Interesting that there is no cite for this claim; calling bullshit on it, especially in re to “universal background checks” which would be totally unenforceable and, like all such laws, impact only the law abiding [which is exactly what it is intended to do].

      This is true, but it allows the stacking of charges after-the-fact for people who violate it. So they can go into prison longe... wait, the Democrats are trying to reverse that trend.

      Never mind, I have no idea what the point of those laws are.

      1. The cite is actually in the Pew Research link. It has gun owners at 72% and non-owners at 87%.

        One problem is the question is piss poor since it says "sales" not "transfers" so when the author writes "requiring background checks for transfers of firearms between private parties is unenforceable when the government has no idea as to who owns what" while true is misleading since there is no indication that owners would support checks on all "transfers".

        If it was clear it included things like lending your shotgun to a hunting buddy who may just want to get the feel of it for a week to decide if he wants to buy one, giving a gift to a family member, or the passing down of grandpa's Winchester '94 or AK-47 if he was into that.

        My guess is if the question was worded properly the support by owners would come down like a cow pissing on a flat rock and may even come down with non-owners.

        1. Stupid edit button.

        2. I think that you hit the weakness. The survey talks about ‘sales”. We all know what a sale is. But if I hand one of my guns to my wife, is that a “transfer”? Legally, probably yes. So what they did was ask a very specific question, then greatly generalized the response. The distinction between “sell” and “transfer” probably means little to the average non gun owner, but means a lot to many, if not most gun owners.

  18. Re: "Preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns"

    There are 2 problems with this. First, mental health issues aren’t necessarily present at the time of an evaluation and lots of mentally ill people “present well” - i.e. they are good at hiding their true personality unless it is inadvertently revealed in a psychotic break or crisis situation. The second problem is there are no objective criteria for a mental health evaluation. As is evidenced in court trials, you often have “experts” who disagree and reach completely different conclusions. When this ambiguity is married to regulations written by unaccountable bureaucrats and used by people who are trying to ban all guns from private citizens it would make it extremely difficult if not impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm.

    1. The Left has also demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to produce 'expert' psychologists who are willing to say that disobeying the Left means you're crazy.

    2. If you want to own a gun you're obviously mentally ill...

  19. Welcome to Texas. We are happy to see you, and yes, that is a gun in my pocket.

  20. Re: "making private gun sales subject to background checks"

    If the totality of what is really desired is universal background checks on all gun transfers, the answer is simple and easy - give anyone free, anonymous, public access to the federal NICS background check database of persons prohibited from owning firearms and then tell private sellers if you sell or give a firearm to someone and don’t retain something that documents you did a favorable NICS check on the buyer, you could be held liable if they commit a gun-related crime. There is no reason to get the government involved any further in the process unless you have other goals in mind like a federal registry of all firearms and keep in mind in every instance I can find where governments have confiscated firearms, it has been preceded by registration.

  21. Don't be surprised if government doesn't comply with the second amendment!

    So called gun control laws deserve the same respect bureaucrats show that Supreme law that only applies to them, the U.S. Constitution.

  22. Recently, though, the partisan divide on gun ownership seems to be shifting. More people from the left side of the political spectrum and members of Democrat-leaning constituencies have been acquiring them as a means for self-defense.

    That's because they're winning elections and consequently getting their policies put into place.

    1. misspelled rigging.

      1. Well, I wasn't even really talking about Biden. I was talking about all the cities with explosions in violent crime. Around 100% of them are one-party shitholes.

        1. veritas.

  23. The Democrats don't even believe in "My Body My Choice" anymore. Knuckle up, people.

    1. That has now shifted to "Your body my choice" which is way more useful than the old motto.

  24. "making private gun sales subject to background checks"
    It's already a felony for me to provide/sell to someone I know or ave reason to believe is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

    But I shouldn't need to do a background check on my brother-in-law if I sell him a shotgun if I upgraded and now have a spare gun that I could part with. Especially if I know he already has a concealed carry permit.

    Previous incarnations of this "background check" law applied to all "transfers" no matter how short-lived they were. So if I went hunting with said brother-in-law and asked him to hold my gun while I climbed over a fence, I'd have committed a felony. If I was at a range with him and liked his new gun he was showing off and asked if I could fire a few rounds, boom, felony. If grandpa died and his family (all non-prohibitted persons) divied up his gun collection, felonies all around.

  25. For my entire life gun control has been nothing but hollow, meaningless theater.

    1. Gun control comes up when the Dems want to divert attention from a scandal…

    2. If only. But actually, it's been somewhat harmful to the legitimate citizen with no criminal history or intent.

  26. Funny thing about all these wonderful statistics; they only include people willing to admit owning a gun.
    Not at all the same as all gun owners.
    I know "lots" of people wit large gun collections, and a registered .22 bolt action to "give up" when the grabbers come around.

  27. "They've lined up to make purchases at gun stores as faith in police and institutions erodes and society fractures."

    It's a lot of myth that democrats didn't buy firearms in the past. People lie in surveys. I love how you spun this as if the faith in policing is the problem, when in fact it was a series of blmantifa riots all last year that drove numbers up. koch reason was not known for its reporting on the subject.

    1. I think the riots last summer demonstrated to a lot of people that faith in the police to protect them from rioters was misplaced. Losing faith in police protection and concern over violent rioters are not mutually exclusive.

  28. The gun in the picture is an Accuracy International bolt action rifle which looks like it has a 10 round magazine. Depending on the caliber, it cost between $4500 and $19000. At that price you probably won’t be seeing that gun used by your average street criminal. I don’t see a bolt action making to ban list anytime soon. It does have all the bells and whistles that make it look menacing to the average gun grabber, so you never know. In the future all legal guns might look like an1960s ad in the Sears catalog.

  29. There is something that those want stricter or strict gun control laws are not thinking about. When a group, just about any group gets total control what they control will change and in most cases not in the direction you want it to. When a political group gets control then they will start working it to stay in control. This will mean that someone(s) will be losing rights. When that political group gets into power and there is no way for any opposition to take that power and control away from them it will become that only those who are in power and those who support them will have rights. How if those who have supported them in the past no longer support that group will now find themselves without any rights also.
    When a political group takes control of the government either by convincing the majority to vote for the or by some other method it will come down to the use of force to get those in power out. If the group who is in power has all the guns, a means of force, then those on the outside will be enslaved without the means to overthrow the slave masters. The US is all to close to that place now for my comfortute.

  30. I left the Republican Party over DJT banning all my bump stocks.

    Now Biden has banned the import of ammo from Russia.

    Which is what my AK’s eat.

    Democrats are evil and there will be a second American Civil War.

    And RINO’s will get their just deserts as well

    1. You mean the bump stocks that were lost in a boating accident…right?

    2. Ukraine exports 7.62 x 39 as well.

  31. Ignoring 2A is proof enough Tuccille ignored libertarian sources for "balanced" reading of looter factions. The dramatic change in GOP polling shows only that fear of losing because of 4 million LP spoiler votes changed Republican answers after Their Boy barely squeaked past the Electoral College. That's CLOUT. The Dilbert cartoonist argues that no law is legitimate if unsupported by those it coerces at gunpoint, and offered 1930s abortion bans as examples. But EVERY law is a promise to kill as many and needed terrorize submission, which is the main reason 2A exists: to set an upper bound on that power to kill.

  32. I don't have a problem with background checks by authorized dealers that compare the purchaser to a list of prohibited persons. It goes against the presumption of innocence, but serves a legitimate public interest. I will argue that there are very few valid reasons to be placed on that list.

    Requiring private purchaser background checks is ridiculous. I understand the intent is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but the police need to do their own damned job instead of authorizing the use of force against innocent citizens who might not otherwise feel compelled to do it for them.

    Similarly, I have a big problem with government keeping a public record of purchases because of the obvious potential for abuse, even while I remain unconvinced that registration qualifies under the 2A as an infringement. While it may discourage a purchaser to know that in any interaction with police or government, the agent will have knowledge of his gun ownership, it does not preclude him from still carrying. I would rather argue on the grounds that the obvious ability to correlate information in gun registries is a preemptive unwarranted search in violation of the 4A. Imagine if every time police pulled over a vehicle or made a call at an address they could pull up a list of any firearms registered to the owner. Any gun owner would effectively be SWATting themselves simply by interacting with police.

    Making the failure to register a firearm a felony would be a 2A infringement. The irony of people losing the right to keep arms, the foremost deterrent to tyranny, for the act of keeping arms that the government doesn't know about would be too much to bear.

    1. Re: "pull up a list of any firearms registered to the owner"

      Guns don't shoot anyone by themselves. It makes more sense to register the owners and along those lines all concealed carry permit holders are already registered. The only rational reason to register guns is to enable future confiscation. It also is noted that criminals would be exempt from any form of registration because of the Haynes vs US SCOTUS decision in 1968 so it would only apply to law-abiding citizens.

    2. All gun laws are infringements.

      1. The 2A is not ambiguous. Where the 1A limits Congress, the 2A limits any infringement. Any law, executive order, or court order that denies ownership of firearms to any person, requires confiscation of a firearm from the rightful owner or places conditions on carrying a firearm are infringements.

        The problem is that exceptions were carved out the first time a person who committed a felony was dispossessed of a firearm other than while serving his sentence or prevented from owning a firearm after his sentence was complete. Scalia didn't do any favors for people who served their time or people who have ever recovered from a mental health issue.

        Creating rules pertaining to record keeping, and the regulation of the sale and purchase of firearms is not an infringement except when it effectively presents a barrier to any person from taking possession of a firearm. Waiting periods, for example are most definitely an infringement where background checks and registries don't interfere with possession except for the previously mentioned carveouts. The best argument against background checks is that they should be completely unnecessary if the language of the 2A were being followed. The argument against registries, I presented in my last post.

        Regulation of the manufacture of firearms is not a direct infringement, but since since arguments for those regulations are based on fear more than safety, I find the need for them spurious. The intent when a using a firearm for defense is to make multiple bullets go quickly and accurately towards the threat with the intention of making the threat stop. Regulations that interfere with the efficiency of that process conflict with the unambiguous right of any person to engage in it.

        It is clear from any honest assessment of the founding documents that the 2A was intended as a bulwark against tyranny. To that effect, having military grade weapons in the possession of civilians is a necessity. Why are they trying to change the rules that have worked to good effect for 250 years? Do the lawmakers fear the citizens? We should be far more worried that they don't.

    3. I remain unconvinced that registration qualifies under the 2A as an infringement

      *cough* poll tax *cough*

  33. When Hillary is brought into a courtroom for mishandling classified information, we can start a discussion about following laws..

  34. I remember during his campaign, Biden pledged to do something unconstitutional about "assault weapons", but I really didn't think he was going to give thousands of them to terrorists, at our expense.

    1. TALIBAN does have 2 A in it.

  35. Fortunately Arizona has a Second Amendment Sanctuary law, so feds can pound sand over any new federal legislation

  36. A majority of Americans may currently favor more restrictive laws regarding firearms, but..."
    a very, very small number of Americans have even the tiniest grasp of how many restrictive laws regarding firearms are currently on the books now. Perhaps it's because the major media players and politicians do their very best to obfuscate and minimize current laws and even outright lie about existing laws.

    FTFY.

    1. All of this also brings up an interesting question, what is the common conception of current gun control laws? Are people aware that use of a suppressor in commission of a crime carries a 30 year penalty? What about the other myriad laws and penalties? My guess is that most folks have no concept of what the current laws are or the penalties associated with them.

      1. most folks have no concept of what the current laws are or the penalties associated with them

        The fearful are willfully ignorant. For example, the media agonized at Ruby Ridge over Randy Weaver being a white separatist and believing that menstruating women should be put away and most people supported the governments case. He was ultimately found innocent in the defense of his property against the covert intrusion of the US Marshals. He also won his case against the FBI for breaking the rules of engagement in the execution of his wife, who was unarmed and holding her baby at the time. It happened 29 years ago, and most people either don't know or don't remember the outcome.

        Politicians and government agents imply they have the authority to do all kinds of shit that falls outside their enumerated powers. When knowledgable citizens hold them to task, the truth emerges. And by knowedgable, I mean the lawyers for Weaver. Weaver is an idiot.

  37. Suppose the police enforce gun bans, which are almost certain to be felony-level laws.

    What happens to the US when the middle class decides that antifa is correct about police?

    What happens when the middle class decides that police are not public servants employed to protect them, but armed, violent oppressors? The middle class, which apparently owns 300,000,000 firearms.

    What happens then, Democrats?

  38. So if I declare myself a member of the taliban do I get a brand new M-4 from uncle Joe for free?

  39. Out of the 57 percent who support "more restrictive laws", what percent have anything like an accurate idea of what the current laws are?

    How many of them know that most of the "common sense" agenda they claim to support is already in place in the existing laws? How many think that almost anyone can walk around most of the country carrying a fully-automatic weapon (obtained for $100 with no oversight at a gun show, of course) without being questioned, detained, or even scrutinized by law enforcement?

    Not to mention, how big is the overlap of people who want to "defund" (or even abolish) the police who would be the only ones charged with enforcing the tighter restrictions they think will somehow inhibit criminals?

    1. They are miserable idiots and are more miserable because some choose to live differently than them.

  40. There are 400 million guns in America. Rounded off to at least 4 significant figures, 400 million of those 400 million have never been used to violate others' rights (aka crime). So, why go after guns?

    We all know why. A combination of control and pandering. Nothing to do with crime prevention.

  41. About 55 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of Democrats say the other party is "not just worse for politics—they are downright evil," Louisiana State University political scientist Nathan Kalmoe reported in 2019 of relations between the major political factions.

    What exactly does "worse for politics" mean? It means worse for me and my family. It means the government will take money out of my pocket to give it to someone (it thinks is) more deserving. It means the government will prevent me from having a gun to shoot the criminal who wants to harm me or my family. You bet I think the other party -- the people who want to do all that -- are downright evil!

  42. They are welcome to collect them one shell at a time.

  43. They won't have to do any collecting. The government has records of who had background checks, who bought guns or ammunition with credit cards, who belongs to gun clubs, the NRA membership list...you name it.

    When the time comes and people don't turn in their weapons, the miscreants will be cut off from the banking and credit system and put on no-fly lists (seen that already with badthinkers on the internet) and added to the Deplorable Database along with the non-covid-vaccinated. Woke telecoms can terminate their access to communications.

    The levers to force compliance are already in place.

    Good luck.

    1. Mine were all lost at sea. The ammo was a gift for a deceased relative. The measures you prescribe are guaranteed to start an electric boogaloo. I hope it does not come to that, and I don't think it will because the 2a is already doing its job.

  44. Don't tell me what I can't do! I got an AR-15 in the closet, just sayin'.

  45. If you use a gun, you must obey the law. In Vietnam, if you have a gun you risk going to jail.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.