California Man's Gun Seized, Apparently Because He Was a Racist Group Leader

Could such "gun violence restraining orders" likewise be used against people who talk about violence and a "pig problem" or "fascist problem" as opposed to "n■■■, k■■■, and h■■■ problem" (expurgation in news video)?

CBS13 (Sacramento) reports:

It's a new-aged hate group preaching violence online. The "Bowl Patrol" has less than 100 followers but the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office says that's enough for them to take action…. The Southern Poverty Law Center told CBS13 the name "Bowl Patrol" was inspired by [South Carolina racist multiple murderer] Dylann Roof's distinctive "bowl-cut" hairstyle….

[T]he self-proclaimed leader … host[ed] the Bowl Cast, a podcast spewing hateful rhetoric and language … [and has been] identified … as … Andrew Casarez….

"For a little over three weeks our detectives, along with multiple federal agencies, have been looking into Andrew Casarez," sheriff's office spokesperson Lacey Nelson said….

"We're able to obtain a gun violence restraining order against him and a search warrant, and a firearm was seized," Nelson said.

"This search warrant it's the first of its kind at least in the country. As far as how we obtained it and were able to serve it," Nelson said. "He was posting enough racist rhetoric and propaganda on Facebook that it was concerning that his behaviors could become violent in retaliation." …

As for the FBI, they don't police ideology. They will only take action if a person threatens violence or actually commits a crime. But the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office wasn't willing to wait.

"Instead of waiting for him to go out and commit acts of violence, per se, they were able to ideally stop it before it started. But he did have a firearm in his possession," Nelson said….

If Casarez was actually involved in specific acts of violence, or conspired to commit violence, or solicited specific acts of violence against particular people, he could certainly be arrested for those crimes (again, whether the completed crimes, or conspiracy or solicitation, which are themselves crimes). His gun could then potentially be seized, either if they were evidence or perhaps as a condition of pretrial release; and some courts have upheld restrictions on gun possession by people who are under indictment, especially if there is some specific reason to be concerned that the person will use the guns illegally. And the TV segment in the story above suggests that Casarez had mentioned that some particular (bleeped-out) person "still deserves to be raped and murdered," which might in context justify at least a search and perhaps a charge for solicitation of crime (though it all depends on exactly what Casarez was said, which isn't clear).

But nothing in the quoted statements from Sheriff's Office officials suggests that the "gun violence restraining order" and gun seizure stemmed from any crime he had committed (including conspiracy or solicitation); it sounds like the basis for the "gun violence restraining order" is his political rhetoric. I found online what is claimed to be an excerpt from the application for the order, though I can't vouch for its authenticity (I'm trying to get the court file myself):

And while it does lay out a specific theory as to why he is likely to commit violence, I don't think this can be enough. A person's hateful and pro-violence rhetoric—whether it's hatred for blacks and Jews, as Casarez seems to espouse, or for police officers or capitalists or government officials—is by itself the exercise of First Amendment rights, and the government can't retaliate against such speech by using it as a basis to deny Second Amendment rights. While the government can use speech as evidence of what one has done or why one has done it (a common use in criminal procedures), I don't think it can use it as evidence of future dangerousness sufficient to deny someone a constitutional right.

In any case, I look forward to blogging about the gun violence restraining order file when I get it, and updating my analysis as necessary; please keep me in mind that what I've written above is based on the limited information I now have.

UPDATE: A commenter pointed to what purports to be the gun prohibition order; the law enforcement declaration says,

I continue to be skeptical that this speculation based on Casarez's speech is sufficient to justify the restraint on his constitutional rights. (If he actually had attempted or conspired to violate California gun laws related to the AR-15, then they can prosecute him for that, but I note they don't seem to have done that.)

Comments

[rsteinmetz]

Interesting that he is apparently Hispanic.

[Dr. Ed]

Hispanics and Blacks do *not* like each other. The most jaw-dropping racist things I have ever heard have been said by a Black or Hispanic person about the other group.

I don't know why, but there are levels of visceral racism that I haven't seen elsewhere.

[Dr. Ed]

I emphasize that SOME Hispanics and SOME Blacks do not like each other --- the above should not be read as universal.

[KevinP]

The dark cloud of Fascism is forever descending upon Trump and Republicans but always manages to land on Progressives and Democrats.

[Aktenberg78]

They truly are evil people.

[Sarcastr0]

Your confirmation bias is quite tiresome.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Have you ever looked in the mirror? That has got to get tiresome too.

[VinniUSMC]

But yours is just peachy.

[Sarcastr0]

Where is my confirmation bias occurring?

[FiftycalTX2]

He was just relieved of his rights for "badthink". Next he will be put in Biden's gulag for not worshiping Dear Leader Biden. Rights are foreign to fascists like the democrap party and it's rulers. As long as the peons are armed, they can't institute their socialist utopia, a la Venezuela.

[QuantumBoxCat]

Scientifically, there is no such thing as race. Therefore, there is no such thing as racists. As such, the guns must be returned.

Check and mate.

[Krychek_2]

There's no such thing as ghosts either; that doesn't mean there aren't people who believe in them.

[Doug Huffman]

Racist, culturist. Potato, potahto.

Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future by John Kenneth Press.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Instead of waiting for him to go out and commit acts of violence, per se, they were able to ideally stop it before it started."

Pre-crime isn't for the movies any more.

Guns removal first, then preventive detention soon.

[Dr. Ed]

Preventative detention already exists, it is done under the auspices of the mental health laws.

What we are seeing here is the Behavioral Intervention Team approach common in higher ed leaching out into the larger world.

[Krychek_2]

I agree that this particular seizure was premature, but I'm not sure there aren't circumstances in which a preventative seizure would be appropriate. If someone can be involuntarily committed because they pose a risk to themselves or others, it's not actually that much of a reach to say that someone who poses a risk to himself or others can have his guns removed, so long as there is adequate judicial review and an opportunity to have them returned once circumstances have changed.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I’m not sure there aren’t circumstances in which a preventative seizure would be appropriate"

Agreed but it has to be very, very narrow. Never for words alone without an actual "true" threat.

[Rossami]

I disagree. If someone is so much a threat that you can legitimately remove their guns without a trial, then they will remain a threat via other means. Guns are not the only way to hurt yourself or others. Guns are not even the most common way. The only way to make them safe is involuntary commitment.

In other words, if they are a sufficient danger to themselves or others to justify involuntary commitment, do that. Possession of a particular type of doing harm is irrelevant. But if their behavior does not justify involuntary commitment, then neither can it justify removing someone's guns.

[Krychek_2]

Rossami, if your argument is that a solution must fix every possible problem, then we just disagree. If someone is enough of a threat that there's a legitimate reason to prevent them from having access to firearms, then preventing them from access to firearms means that they are now less of a problem than they were before, and sometimes that's the best that can be done. That it doesn't fix every other possible problem is beside the point.

I agree with Bob (who ever thought I would type those words?) that there's a narrow set of circumstances under which gun seizure is appropriate. But it's not a non-existent set of circumstances.

[Rossami]

No, my argument is that you are irrationally targeting guns. Your proposed solution is under-inclusive in that it restricts guns but not all the other ways of committing harm. My argument is that it is not merely narrow but that there is no scenario where restricting access to firearms alone solves the problem.

[Krychek_2]

Perhaps that's because guns are in a class by themselves, totally unlike any other method of inflicting harm, which is precisely why conservatives single them out for special protection. The fact that a lot of the same people who oppose any kind of gun regulation are just fine with regulating automobiles, dynamite, homemade bombs and most other ways that a psychopath might choose to inflict harm proves that point. And that's even acknowledging that cars, dynamite (and under unusual circumstances even a homemade bomb) have legitimate uses.

So suppose I'm a psychopath who wants to inflict harm. A gun is preferable to a knife because I don't need to be standing right next to the person I'm trying to kill, and I can also kill more people in a shorter time. A gun is preferable to poison because it takes special skills and knowledge to poison someone, poisons aren't as fast as guns, and a lot of poisons are heavily regulated. A gun is preferable to a bomb because that, too, takes special knowledge and training. Furthermore, if I'm acting in the heat of the moment, by the time I assemble a bomb or obtain a poison, the moment may have passed.

So yes, guns are specially targeted, but not irrationally.

[Dr. Ed]

A trip to the local farm supply store and a gas station that sells Diesel is all you need to make ANFO which was what took down the Murrah Building, and I don't want to mention what other kinds of bombs and poisons you could make from what you can legally buy at your local Home Depot and/or Walmart.

[Dr. Ed]

Walmart sells Arsenic, or at least used to.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Firearms are being specifically targeted, despite being specifically protected by the Constitution. That should raise serious concerns, and not be swept under the rug because you think they're efficient at causing the imagined harm.

[FiftycalTX2]

Or he might take that 5 thousand pound vehicle and run up on a sidewalk and take out a bunch of "protesters". So why don't the behavior police seize his automotive weapon?

[Krychek_2]

Actually, there are plenty of circumstances under which people lose their driver's licenses because they pose a danger to themselves or others: If you can no longer pass an eye test, or if you've been caught driving under the influence, or if you've demonstrated that you can't or won't safely operate a motor vehicle. And in the context of the conversation we're having, it's the same with guns: If there is good cause to believe a particular individual can't or won't operate a firearm safely, how is pulling his guns different from pulling the driver's license from someone as to whom there's good cause to believe his car stands a good chance of killing someone? Don't treat guns worse than other dangerous things, but don't give them special privileges either.

And all these "whataboutism" arguments about all the other ways he can kill someone are beside the point for the same reason whataboutism is generally beside the point. If someone who is dangerous loses the ability to be dangerous with a gun, is that a perfect fix to all his problems? No. But it leaves us better off than we were before.

[Harvey Mosley]

It seems like your missing the point. For the sake of civility I assume it is not intentional. You are talking about taking someone's driver license away because of some crime or failure to pass a test. In this instance those things haven't happened. The point is if he's too dangerous to have a gun he's too dangerous to have (legal) access to a car. Remember the protester in Charlotte killed with a car? Remember terrorists in Europe running over people with a truck? Remember the woman in Vegas killing people with a car?

If this individual is dangerous that he cannot be allowed to own a gun why isn't he too dangerous to drive a car? Other than "Guns bad!"?

[Krychek_2]

In the case of both cars and guns, there needs to be an objective standard for who is too dangerous to be able to have one. Because guns and cars are different, that objective standard may not be the same for both, but the similarity is that Person X has, based on objective criteria and with judicial review available, been deemed too dangerous to have a gun or a car. For example, not being able to pass an eye test may allow me to keep my gun but not my car, and conviction for a violent felony may be enough to allow me to keep my car but not my gun.

And yes, it's sometimes not apparent in advance who is too dangerous. That's life. You're asking for perfection and it doesn't exist, and that's not the standard anyway. The standard is whether it leaves us better off than we were before.

[Absaroka]

"... conviction for a violent felony may be enough to allow me to keep my car but not my gun."

If I'm correctly guessing your underlying philosophy, wouldn't that depend on what the felony was? For example, suppose you have completed your sentence for vehicular assault after hurting someone while driving drunk, and consider the set (allowed to drive|allowed to drink|allowed to have a gun). Our drunk driver/killer is prohibited from doing only one of those things - the one that had no connection to his crime.

And it seems like we don't even try. Consider all the harm caused by alcohol - specifically the harm to others, excluding cirrhosis and so on. IIRC a substantial fraction of murderers were drunk at the time (???40%???), Certainly a lot of domestic abuse happens when the perp is drunk. We fall over ourselves to do background checks for guns, ammo, etc, Once you are 30ish though, we stop carding you for booze. It would be trivial to put an A for Alcohol endorsement on driver's licenses and card everyone. Sure, drunks would be able to get 'friends' to buy booze for them or steal it, which are also the dominant way crooks get guns, or ferment raisins in the bathtub, just like people can do DIY guns. But we only go down one of those rabbitholes - the teetotalers don't have quite the fervor of the anti-gun folks.

Another facet is that we don't consider need. One of the common arguments for allowing drunks to drive is that they need to do so to shop, work, etc - fair enough. But I've heard of a case where someone (a felon, like many of the class) showed up armed for his induction into the Witness Protection Program. TBH, he probably had pretty good reason to be armed (and ironically, his felony was ... drunk driving).

Our overall approach to this is not particularly well thought out.

(and to be clear, Krychek, you may well agree with some or all of this. I just thought the topic deserved a more thorough discussion)

[Krychek_2]

Absaroka, I actually do agree with quite a bit of what you said, and thank you for thoughtfully fleshing things out. And just to be clear, despite Harvey's characterization, my position is not "guns bad"; I grew up around guns, am not afraid of them, and have owned a number of them over the years. I do think the knee-jerk reaction of "gun regulation bad" is no better than the knee jerk reaction of "guns bad". One needs to look at each regulation on its own merits to decide whether a particular regulation makes us better off or not.

And I don't necessarily think that all felony convictions should disqualify someone from being able to take his son hunting. If someone used a gun to rob a bank, I'm fine with that person being barred for life from owning a gun. On the other hand, you're right that there is no connection (or at best a tenuous connection) between vehicular homicide under the influence and gun ownership, particularly if the person has since gotten his substance abuse issues under control.

I had never thought about the possibility of an alcohol endorsement on a driver's license for those who have a demonstrated history of alcohol related harmful behavior, such as domestic abuse or violent crime. I'd like to think about it before I commit myself; my initial visceral reaction without having thought it through is that it might not be a bad idea so long as there are due process protections in place and the ability to lose the endorsement if one demonstrates that one has overcome the issues that made it necessary in the first place. And I'll say what I said before, that guns are sui generis and regulations relating to them need to be evaluated on their own merits, apart from whatever regulation is appropriate for anything else.

But the practical problem, for both gun regulation and alcohol regulation is that same as for trying to require people to wear masks: This is America and nobody tells me what to do. We have a huge national aversion to regulation that's accepted as par for the course just about everywhere else. Plus we have a political system that favors rural libertarians over urban regulators. So I'm not sure we'll ever see really effective gun regulation, or for that matter alcohol regulation.

[Absaroka]

"On the other hand, you’re right that there is no connection (or at best a tenuous connection) between vehicular homicide under the influence and gun ownership, ..."

I'm actually kind of conflicted on that. People who are reckless with a car may well be reckless with a gun, and vice versa. Not all, perhaps - I've known people who were into street racing, for example, who I'd trust in other contexts. And there is the reductio ad absurdum argument that 'Hey, he mugged people with a knife, prohibit him from owning a knife, not a gun' argument. As a society, we're not good at nuance.

"I had never thought about the possibility of an alcohol endorsement..."

I'm not sure it's good policy either - it's just too easy to avoid. But that's also true of e.g. California's ammo background checks - how many rounds a year does your average mugger use? One can reasonably favor being strict or loose, but there is a lot of asymmetry in how we treat booze/cars/gun/knives. Stab someone to death and ... no more guns for you, but have all the knives you want. That's worth at least a little head-scratching.

[Krychek_2]

And mad kalak, if I were advocating for total prohibition of either alcohol or guns, your comment would be germane.

[Krychek_2]

And mad kalak, respectfully, I think your comment sums up one of the big differences between you and me. You don't seem able to see nuance, shades of gray, and moderate positions. For you, it's all or nothing. Either there's zero gun regulation, or we're a complete fascist state with no rights.

Well, the world is not black and white. Sometimes there is something to be said on both sides of an issue. Sometimes the more nuanced position is more helpful than the extremist position, and sometimes the guy you disagree with really does have a point.

[BillyG]

Actually, there are plenty of circumstances under which people lose their driver’s licenses....

When you lose your license, you don't lose your car or have it seized.

[David Nieporent]

Wait — the gun was a racist group leader?

[Queen Amalthea]

Megatron.

[Eugene Volokh]

D'oh! Fixed, thanks.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The liberals told us that this wouldn't happen though. Only bad people would get their evil killing machines taken away. Not people who did nothing or might just have an unsavory opinion. What happened? I thought liberals were truthful and honest?

[Sarcastr0]

You live in a cartoon.

[VinniUSMC]

Lefties are comically cartoonish.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Sometimes it feels like libs are literally cartoon characters.

[Allutz]

3 Comments by you in a post documenting one of the worst civil rights abuses of the year, and none defend the individual.

[Harvey Mosley]

The same can be said about anyone who believes anything said by a hoplophobe.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not for gun confiscation; I believe the 2A is an individual right. I think reasonable people can differ on those issues, and I think gun registration would be useful, but that's as far as I go.

So maybe your one issue lens doesn't work great.

[Harvey Mosley]

I didn't say anything about reasonable people.

[Krychek_2]

Well, racists *are* bad people, though that doesn't mean they should lose their guns.

[Aktenberg78]

Actual racists? Yes. "Racists" as defined by liberals? No.

[Krychek_2]

I see you forgot to take your meds again.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Oh man that is a real zinger.....

[Larvell Blanks]

Good thing J.K. Rowling doesn't live there and own a gun, because I hear she has some anti-trans views. And I can't think of anyone more qualified than the guy who wrote this affidavit to determine what kind of views are beyond the pale.

[Xanthro]

An 80% lower receiver is not illegal in California, it's a piece of aluminum, like soda cans.
Milling it into a prohibited firearm would violate California law, but now California is arguing for pre-crime pre-crime.
All the while, people can drive up and buy gasoline which is far more dangerous.

[perlchpr]

An 80% lower receiver is not illegal in California

Are you sure? I wouldn't be surprised if they outlawed just about everything north of the "0% receiver" which is just a piece of raw aluminum extrusion of a size from which one could cut something that might some day become an AR-15...

80% is a fairly arbitrary place for the ATF to place the cut-off. CA might very well say 50% is theirs.

[BillyG]

CA requires you to serialize and register anything once it's made into a 100%. And pay taxes and some other stuff with that. But purchasing and building an 80% is not inherently illegal in CA....despite what Sacramento would like to implement.

[perlchpr]

Fair enough. Mostly what I know about the minutiae of CA gun law these days is "It's bad", and "I don't want it where I live".

I would not have been surprised to find out that CA had, in fact, made ownership of 80% receivers illegal. But I also certainly wasn't sure that it was illegal, either. 😉

[BillyG]

I agree with you for CA. I think they would outlaw 80% if they could, but at some point it'd be them trying to outlaw a 1.5" aluminum plate. I'm surprised they haven't tried to outlaw completing lower receivers yet.

[FiftycalTX2]

How about a picture of an AR? Is that illegal in the land of fruits and nuts yet? How about a video? Is it badspeak to mention an AR? Can you be arrested yet for that?

[jdgalt1]

I can't see any possible way that this is not a due process violation.

But I predict the 9th Circus will rubber-stamp it and SCOTUS will deny review once again, leaving both Heller and MacDonald with no teeth in the western states.

I can't wait until RBG and/or Roberts has to resign and Trump can replace them with pro-gunners. Then maybe something will get done.

The present situation is a great example of why local police cannot be trusted with the power to decide which civilians get to have guns. Anyone whose political bias agrees with the chief's gets to keep his guns. Anyone on the other side gets them taken away, just in time for the bad guys to dox him and get him attacked.

[Aktenberg78]

"I can’t wait until RBG and/or Roberts die of COVID"

FTFY

[BillyG]

The present situation is a great example of why local police cannot be trusted with the power to decide which civilians get to have guns. Anyone whose political bias agrees with the chief’s gets to keep his guns. Anyone on the other side gets them taken away, just in time for the bad guys to dox him and get him attacked.

A better example would be how gun control in Jim Crowe Old South was used by the Democrats to keep blacks disarmed and easily terrorized. Point out to Democrat supporters and watch their head explode.

[Dr. Ed]

Condi Rice does a very good job of this -- something to the effect that the Sheriff was kept in line somewhat by knowing that her daddy had a shotgun.

NOT the real quote -- but from memory. Go search LEXIS if you wish.

[BillyG]

Thank you, I found some info on it. I'm adding that one to my archives.

Strange how gun control laws always exempt police.

[jubulent]

Unfortunately for him, the 2nd and 9th Circuits write gun laws. Even if he challenges this plainly unconstitutional (under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments)

[VinniUSMC]

I wouldn't have expected this from the 4 years that I lived in Sacramento. Man, I'm glad I left Kommifornia.

[BillyG]

"Base on my training and experience..."

Translation: I am blowing smoke up your ass.

If they can't cite actual evidence they're making shit up.

[Miss Greenparker]

No way to disprove the efficacy of pre-crime penalties:

"He didn't commit the crime/s you thought he would."

"That's because we took his guns away."

Conclusion: We're scr3wed.

[Lou Dax]

The idea that having his identity outed would cause him to violently prove himself is a real stretch.
Does anyone know of this ever actually happening in past, similar situation?

[Dr. Ed]

I can't prove it because I'm not even supposed to know about it, but I have heard of university Behavioral Intervention Teams pushing borderline students completely over the edge.

That was alleged in the Gabby Gifford shooting, and I strongly suspected it in the Batman shooting -- in both cases a BIT had been involved, the student ousted from a community college or university (respectively) and dumped, with the carpet pulled out from under him, on society.

I and the Voodoo Scientists disagree on how one would get there, but it is not unreasonable to expect that one who believes that one no longer has anything left to lose could become quite lethal. And as it was pointed out above, a homicidal/suicidal person need not have a firearm to cause much carnage.

This is just logical conjecture here, but I believe that Virginia Tech was exactly what you suggest. Both I and the last sane person in the UMass Dean of Students' Office independently came to the conclusion that they were *not* random killings, that he was targeting the members of the Campus Appeals Board.

Think about it: The squeaky-clean honors student, the Holocaust survivor -- those are the people that get put onto such boards, and witnesses reported that the perp "appeared to be looking for someone." And his "you had to make me do it, you couldn't just let me go" clearly meant something, and VT won't say what.

[BillyG]

This is just logical conjecture here, but I believe that Virginia Tech was exactly what you suggest.

F'ing Cho (I was in Randolph at the time of the Norris shootings), from everything I know didn't have any behavioral intervention. The girl he initially targeted was a romantic interest who rejected him. I think Norris was chosen because it only had two entrances/exits, once of which he chained shut. I don't know of any other building on the VT campus which had the same setup.

[Ben_]

This only lasts 2 weeks and expires tomorrow. Then his firearms are returned. Is that correct?

[Dr. Ed]

How much are they charging for storage fees, and can he pay it?

[Ben_]

There's no need to make up a story about storage fees.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're ok with someone else's Constitutional rights being violated? I bet you'd sing a different tune if it was your own.

[Ben_]

No, I think he should sue everyone involved for violating his civil rights. I’m not 100% sure he should win though.

And the local US Attorney might weigh in on how conspiracy against civil rights is a federal crime. All the people involved should be put on notice that civil rights are sacrosanct and will be protected.

But I guess I don't know enough facts to reach a fully informed conclusion right now.

[Eugene Volokh]

Ben_: It's a temporary order, pending a hearing tomorrow on a long-term order. "The court will hold a hearing at [8:30 am July 31] to determine if a longer term Gun Violence Restraining Order should be issued."

[Ben_]

Thanks. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

[FiftycalTX2]

Does the court get him a lawyer for free? Or does he have to pay for one on his own? How is the process NOT the punishment?

[Harvey Mosley]

California law will require him to fill out a form and send it to the CA DOJ and pay a fee for a background check. He will then have to wait at least 30 (probably many more) days for an approval letter before the gun will be given back to him. Assuming that it doesn't get "accidentally" destroyed because the state took too long to give him a permission slip to possess his previously legally acquired property.

I had to go through the same process to reacquire possession of one of my guns that was stolen. Thankfully I live in what was at the time one of the few red areas of California and the police weren't looking for an opportunity to destroy the gun.

[BillyG]

California law will require him to fill out a form and send it to the CA DOJ and pay a fee for a background check.

Wut......

[Krychek_2]

Actually, if you look at the time, our comments both posted at 11:16. I was adding to my own previous comment and hadn't seen your historical parallels comment yet. So my nuance comments were directed toward your historical parallels comment.

Yes, historical parallels exist, but they are hugely subject to confirmation bias and being in the eye of the beholder. Most of the time, they're false pattern recognition. You can see a parallel pretty much anywhere you want to look.

But that's not even my biggest disagreement with you. You are absolutely right that regulating guns has the potential for abuse; someone else down lower on this very thread pointed out that in the Jim Crow South, gun control was used mainly to disarm blacks. But so does every other law. I can't think of a single law that someone can't find a way to abuse or that doesn't have the potential to ultimately lead to totalitarianism. We can't, i.e., have laws against running red lights or speeding because the police will take advantage of them to search cars without a warrant. We can't have laws against adulterated food because the police will selectively prosecute businesses they don't like. We can't even have laws against pedophilia because they may lead to false allegations during custody disputes. I literally cannot think of a single law about anything that can't be abused.

So do you throw out the entire legal system and just have anarchy? No. You take such steps as you can to keep abuses in check, watch the executive branch like a hawk, and aggressively put boundaries on enforcement. Oh, and require, at each step, that any regulatory increase be justified on a cost benefit analysis, the cost to liberty being one of the things that's taken into account.

I'm not coming for your guns. Neither are most people who support reasonable regulation. But there is such a thing as reasonable regulation, that allows legitimate gun owners to own guns while making it harder for criminals and psychopaths.

[Krychek_2]

were *not* directed toward your historical parallels comment.

[Krychek_2]

And no, I've never been to burning man, though I've been curious. I'm at an age where nobody wants to see me running around naked for a week. Maybe when I was 20.

[Krychek_2]

*Everything* isn't a false dichotomy, but what you're positing is. Is there any gun regulation at all that you consider reasonable? And in a democratic system, it's not what's reasonable to you or me, but whether there's a consensus that something is reasonable (subject to constitutional constraints). I suspect most Americans would find a lot more regulation reasonable than you do.

"The leaders of the gun control movement most certainly do, as do many leading democrat politicians. They have said as much. Repeatedly." You can find a Democrat (or a Republican) to say pretty much anything, but I'm active in Democratic politics at the national level, I know most of the Democratic leading lights, and they are not, for the most part, gun grabbers. I know the NRA says that a lot because keeping people scared to death is a great way to raise money, but it's just dishonest scaremongering. Chuck Schumer has said several times that whatever his personal views on guns may be, he recognizes that much of the country is pro gun and so would not support anything even remotely approaching a ban. You don't have to take my word for it; google Schumer and guns and see what pops up.

But then again, the NRA is mostly people for whom no gun regulation is reasonable.

[Absaroka]

"We can’t have laws against adulterated food because the police will selectively prosecute businesses they don’t like."

(I picked one point from several as illustrative)

One of the differences, I think, is that probably 95% of the population drives. I just looked it up - 86% of adults have imbibed alcohol at least once (70% in the last year). Those numbers put a ceiling on how silly car and booze regulations can be[1]. Depending on who you want to believe, though, only 30 to 50% of the population are gun owners.

Those numbers mean that if you try to, say, ban 'assault vehicles' (e.g. Corvettes) or 'vehicles of war' (Hummers) or require whisky to be under 20 proof you don't get very far; those regulations are just fairly obviously silly to enough people that they just don't get off the ground. That's not so for many gun regulations, e.g. WA's recent 'assault weapon' initiative includes 10/22 rifles in the definition. That's like wanting to crack down on Corvettes and including Toyota Corollas in your definition of 'assault vehicle'.

[1]Another effect is that people generally have first hand experience, or at least close second hand experience with cars and booze, so they both understand the regulatory issues, and personally know drivers and people who drink, so they can't really demonize them. In our bubbled society, that frequently isn't true for gun opponents. Not all, to be sure, but many of them know pretty much nada about the practicalities, and don't personally know any gun owners, so their view of them is formed by the very few who do something evil enough to make the papers. And consequently, laws get passed that are pretty obviously silly to gun owners (bayonet lugs!), making gun owners think that something ain't quite right with anti-gun types, and the two sides just spin hating each other more and more.

[Krychek_2]

Absaroka, I agree there's a lot of badly drafted regulation out there, but that's an argument for better drafting, not for no regulation.

[Absaroka]

Sure, I'm not arguing for no regulation - very few gun owners do.

But the factors I talked about above tend to some gun regulations being profoundly silly, in ways that other regulations generally aren't. That's why the pushback.

When other regulations are bad enough, people push back as well. The gas can regulations from a couple of years ago are an example; you go to the hardware stores and right next to the new gas cans there is a stack of 'repair kits' that you totally are forbidden to use with your new gas can. And so people generally push back against that by just buying the 'repair kit', because doing so isn't a 5 year mandatory minimum.

Having an illicit bayonet lug, or violating many other arcane rules, does get you a 5 year minimum. So people squawk about that.