Who Guards the Guards: Pa. Police Officer Sold Stolen Department Firearms
This week the Associated Press via the Beaver County Times Online showed once again why the world would not be safer if only the police were armed. The reason of course is that it would only take a bad cop to arm to the bad guys. The story noted:
The Delaware County District Attorney’s office says 23-year-old Officer Jonathan Fiscaro swiped two rifles from the Darby Township police department and sold them for a combined $1,100. Authorities put the value of the guns at $2,000 each.
This is a sad tale that happens all too often. But it is one that anti-gun types ignore as if it never happens.
Ex-Cop Goes to Jail for Gun Show Sales
We’ve followed the story of Roy Alloway for a while, and it seems the former police officer from Washington will go to jail for illegally selling guns. This continues to be a story that is disturbing not because Alloway is a former police officer, but because he sold guns at gun shows.
Alloway previously admitted to selling hundreds of guns at Washington gun shows without a license to do so. Through his attorney, he had asked that he be sentenced to one year on home detention and probation.
While he’s admitted to unlawful gun dealing and a tax offense, Alloway through his attorney contends his offense amounted to little more than a paperwork error. He thought, the contention goes, he could buy and sell guns without a Federal Firearms License as a hobbyist.
This is upsetting because it remains vague as to what constitutes “too many guns” that a hobbyist can sell at gun shows. While it is clear Alloway broke other laws we can understand why every other hobbyist might have cause for concern.
Chicago Sun-Times Offers Praise to Gun Fee Regristy
Last Friday The Chicago Sun-Times offered a story titled, “Rahm Emanuel proposes $65 per-gun fee and registry” and essentially cheered for the mayor’s efforts. The story began:
Illinois handgun owners would be required to register their weapons with the state — and pay a $65-per-gun registration fee — under a mayoral plan proposed Thursday to arm police with the information they need to solve crimes and reduce illegal firearm transfers.
Is offering the city’s talking point as fact really reporting? How would this reduce illegal transfers? This is never explained of course. But consider the next passage:
Even as he picked up the gun control mantle from former Mayor Richard M. Daley, Mayor Rahm Emanuel acknowledged that he’s facing an uphill battle.
It comes at a time when the National Rifle Association and its allies among Downstate lawmakers are making a major push for concealed carry legislation. Illinois is the only state in the nation that does not allow its residents to carry concealed weapons.
“Facing an uphill battle” – could this be more biased in its reporting? Maybe, as it noted:
Former Mayor Daley spent 22 years beating his head against the wall on gun control issues, only to be stymied repeatedly in Springfield.
In 2005, Daley scored a rare victory when the General Assembly agreed to close a loophole by requiring anyone who buys a firearm at a gun show to pass a criminal background check.
This story truly borders on editorial, and yet still presents some facts:
His proposal would require all handgun owners to obtain a certificate of registration from the State Police for every handgun they own — at a cost of $65-per-weapon — and to renew that registration every five years.
They would be required to provide: their name, address and telephone number; the manufacturer of the gun, its model type and serial number; and the date and source of the purchase.
Whenever a handgun is sold, the seller would be required to report the sale to the State Police “no less than 48 hours prior to delivery.” Handgun buyers would have 20 days to file for a new certificate of registration. Anyone caught carrying or possessing an unregistered handgun would face a Class 2 felony.
And yet again, it seems as if the writer is actually happy about these hoops that gun owners would have to jump through. Imagine if this sort of requirement was made on birth control, abortion or other hotbed issues. We doubt any reporter could get away with this level of biased opinion in a “news story.”
But let us also consider this – so to own a gun you have to pay $65 every five years (and for each individual firearm), and provide all your personal information. Failure to do would result in a Class 2 felony!
In other words this is a way to scare some people from bothering, and no doubt is meant to catch others who fail to do so to essentially take away their rights. Felons can’t own guns, so why not try to criminalize gun ownership as it offers excellent gun control it seems. And sadly the local media supports this.
But in a town as corrupt politically as Chicago what more can we say?
Today/MSNBC Report Offers Misleading Facts
This week Today/MSNBC offered a story titled “Rossen Reports: Anyone can buy guns, no questions asked,” which attempted to suggest that we need stricter gun laws because of so-called loopholes. The article begins simply enough:
Some say it’s a major loophole in the law. At gun stores, you have to get a background check before you can buy a weapon. But online in most states, anyone from law-abiding citizens to dangerous criminals – even terrorists – can get just about any weapon they want, no questions asked. Our hidden camera investigation shows the deals going down in broad daylight, in suburban mall parking lots.
No, this isn’t true. This isn’t a loophole because any gun sent through the mail needs to be from a Federal Firearms License holder to another when sales occur, and depending on the local laws a permit might be necessary. This point is lacking, so in these cases the law is actually being broken – so it isn’t technically a loophole in the law.
The article adds:
We bought everything from a police-grade pistol to a semiautomatic assault rifle. We did it over and over again, even hinting that our buyer is a criminal.
Within 12 hours, we bought eight dangerous guns – even a 50-caliber weapon so powerful it could take down a helicopter.
We agree that this is a problem, one we’ll address in a minute, but let’s first note that this is typical biased reporting. What exactly is a “police-grade pistol,” as we’re not sure? This is an attempt to make it seem like something that wouldn’t be available to the average consumer. Additionally, the point about the .50-caliber (it should read .50 not 50) being able to take down a helicopter is only partially accurate. The truth is this weapon still needs someone with some level of experience and training to be able to hit a helicopter. So while there is always the chance someone could get very lucky, in most cases without proper training and skill it would just be a heavy gun where the shooter couldn’t hit the side of a barn!
There was more on this weapon:
The online ad was for a 50-caliber sniper rifle, the most powerful gun legally sold in the U.S.: bullet range 5 miles. It can pierce armored vehicles, even bring down a helicopter. But the seller was so laid-back, you’d think he was hocking a used bicycle.
All these points are only semi-true. It really doesn’t have a range of five miles, and it can “bring down a helicopter” but so can a .22 if you shoot at the right place!
The article then adds:
So what’s the government doing about it? It turns out there’s a bill that would close this loophole, and require background checks for all gun sales, even online. But that bill has been tied up in committee for nearly a year. Its sponsor, New York senator Chuck Schumer, told us: “The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, and despite the overwhelming evidence that we should do something … the odds of us being able to do something are not high.”
Again this is a half-truth. Online sales are NOT except from background checks. This isn’t so much a loophole as it is people just disregarding the law. So a law that bans the sales and puts background checks on all gun sales only works if people follow the law – and in most cases the law was already being broken in the examples noted.
Finally the article concludes with this point:
This is legal, and lots of people in this country support private gun sales without background checks. They say it’s not about making money; it’s about individual rights. As for the eight guns we bought, we turned them over the the [sic] Phoenix police department… where they will be destroyed.
This isn’t just about money. There are points missing in this reporting. First, who is going to pay for the background checks on ALL sales? Does this mean ALL guns need to be registered? Because unless EVERY gun is registered the background check system wouldn’t work, and if ALL guns need to be registered there is the issue of who will pay for it? There are reasons for fighting this, as the first step to banning guns is knowing who has them – in other words many citizens might be wary of having to register their guns, and in essence any law would turn them into criminals.
Who Guards the Guards: “Guns missing from Pine County Sheriff’s Office”
So far the year started off without stories like this one, but this week The Duluth News Tribune and other local outlets offered another story we hate to hear about – “Guns missing from the Pine County Sheriff’s Office.” The paper paints an even worse picture:
The ongoing firearms investigation is one of 11 internal investigations involving 15 sheriff’s office employees conducted over the past year. The investigations included complaints of domestic violence, sexual harassment, excessive force, abuse of authority, failure to follow policies and order, and failure to perform assigned duties. The investigations produced disciplinary actions ranging from oral reprimands to termination.
All of this is very upsetting, but the issue of the guns is the one we find very disturbing as it sort of takes aim at the argument that only police should have guns. In this case at least a dozen or so guns would now be in the hands of the bad guys near Duluth if “only the police” had guns.
Pantagraph Reporter Changes Opinion on Guns
This past weekend writer Edith Brady-Lunny offered personal experiences on the issue of firearms for Pantagraph. But consider how this piece starts out:
Personal bias is something journalists are trained avoid [sic] when they cover the news.
When I started working on a story about the controversial issue of concealed carry of weapons in Illinois, I was forced to face my own bias. I have never lived in a home with guns and considered myself the quintessential anti-gun nut.
First, we congratulate Brady-Lunny, not for the article that follows – where she describes her experience at the gun range – but rather that she admits she has her own bias. Too many journalists, for reasons that we don’t truly understand, have a natural bias against guns. At least Brady-Lunny admitted of such.
But let’s look at one other statement she makes:
My aversion to guns and my long-held belief that less is better when it comes to firearms in the hands of anyone other than peace officers or soldiers is rooted in my experience as a journalist. I have witnessed firsthand the harm and carnage that comes from people wielding guns. The images of a heart or a head riddled with bullets and stories of the aftermath of gun violence have always stayed with me.
And here is the root of the bias, which we don’t understand. Brady-Lunny is clearly an idealist, someone who believes cops are always the good guys, soldiers only protect the innocent and only bad people would want a gun otherwise. Clearly this journalist hasn’t watched the world news – where it took guns from Libyan rebels (and help from NATO in the way of air support) to take down a dictator, or where the military in Syria retains control despite attempts to start a revolution. Clearly this journalist doesn’t follow the news that SWAT team guns were stolen in Los Angeles, or read that a police chief in New Mexico helped arm criminals. And there was the soldier smuggling guns into the U.K.
Clearly those examples that we show that this idealistic view can be far from ideal in the real, cold, hard world. But she also notes the “images of a heart or a head riddled with bullets,” and yet does she not think of the 18-year old mother who defended her home and infant son on New Year’s Eve? Just something to think about.
But again, at least this journalist admitted to her bias. And as with addiction, the first step is admitting there is a problem.
Gun Saves Childs’ Lives but Media Barely Picks Up Story
Over the weekend former police officer and current body guard Chris Willden used his gun to save the lives of two children, who were trapped in a car after their father lost control and ended up driving into a river. Mr. Willden ran to the rescue, and shot out the windows to free the children.
Imagine how this story might have played out if Willden didn’t have gun? We don’t hear any comments from anti-gun types on this story now do we?
WSJ: Ending the Flood of Illegal Guns
Writing for The Wall Street Journal, attorney Robert M. Morgenthau offers this thought on the “flood of illegal guns:”
Our dysfunctional Congress has repeatedly failed to perform its duties under the Constitution to pass a budget, to advise and consent on presidential nominations, and, perhaps most tragically, to curb illegal handgun violence.
The argument here in this op-ed piece is that illegal handguns are responsible for crime, notably the death of a New York City police officer.
But isn’t the Second Amendment clear on the right to keep and bear arms? Congress passes laws, it doesn’t enforce them, and this is never their job. So the point of Congress curbing illegal handgun violence is again to calling on Congress to stop crime in general. They can make the laws, but it is someone else’s job to see that those laws are enforced.
So is this a call for gun control? Essentially this is what Morgenthau is suggesting. He points to the fact that guns used in crimes in New York City come from other states. And while he says this isn’t an attack on law-abiding gun owners, it isn’t clear what his point is exactly. He calls for fully manning the ATF, but with Fast and Furious still in so many minds, we must ask ourselves: do we want more or need ATF debacles?
Who Guards the Guards: Guns Stolen from Trooper’s Home
WTHI is reporting that “police are looking for 2 people they suspect of stealing guns from an Indiana State Police Detective’s home.”
While we don’t fault the officer in this case, it does show that criminals will find guns, even if “only the police” have guns as many anti-gun zealots say should be the case. So if only the police had guns, now the criminals would as well.
Who Guards the Guards: One Law For Them…
Today seems to be a big day for “Who Guards the Guards” stories, and this one is something to think about very hard. California has extremely strict gun laws regarding what private citizens can and cannot own, and yet the Associated Press noted, via the San Jose Mercury News:
Peace officers throughout California have bought more than 7,600 assault weapons that are outlawed for civilians in the decade since state lawmakers allowed the practice, according to data obtained by The Associated Press after it was revealed that federal authorities are investigating illegal gun sales by law enforcement.
Investigators have not said what kinds of weapons were involved, but did say they were ones that officers can buy but civilians cannot. That category also can include certain types of handguns and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
We would ask, if private citizens can’t own these guns, why do the police need them?
