RVer Safety: Guns and nuts, Part 2 cont’d.

37

By Mike Sherman
My post last week generated more than 90 responses. The topic can no doubt get emotional, and one thing I noticed is everyone seems to want to seek solutions. There was no anger or bitterness, just folks stating their opinion, which is always insightful and constructive.

I offered up the idea of including a local law enforcement database check in addition to the standard DOJ/FBI checks when someone seeks to purchase a gun through a dealer. If the local check shows lots of red flags on someone that did not result in a conviction, it might be wise for the sheriff to perhaps pay them a home visit. My opinion prompted Ed D. (among many others) to write, and I responded to his comments. I wanted to share the exchange with you.

Comment from Ed D.:

“However, if the inquiry also included a local check they would get information that can be useful. Granted, no cause for denial of the purchase but certainly worthy of a visit from the local sheriff and perhaps a mental health worker to do an assessment.”

So let me get this straight. Because someone (as a child) did something that wasn’t acceptable, they should get a knock on their door as an adult and have a Sheriff, along with a shrink, want to talk with him to determine if he is mentally fit to own a gun? I do not buy that logic (or illogic) for a second. All “red flag laws” will do is undermine our rights under the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Can you guarantee me that a neighbor that doesn’t like someone’s kid won’t call the cops and say the father is unstable and should not own a gun? Of course, you can’t. Also, what if an ex-girlfriend, or ex-spouse, calls and reports you as being abusive, as a way to get even for a bad breakup? Red Flag Laws are not the way to go and seriously violate our rights under the Constitution.

You gave your “opinion”, now I will offer mine: How about when it is reported to the Authorities (and backed by the individual’s Social Media) that an individual is boasting about shooting up a school, that the Authorities actually do something about this! There has been more than one occurrence that a particular individual left a trail of his intentions on Social Media that he was going to do something and did just what he said he was going to do. The Authorities knew he was talking about it, reported it to the FBI and they did nothing either. How about Law Enforcement do a better job of prevention when the evidence is on Social Media. That is where I believe many of these shootings can be prevented. Not by infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens!

Reply from Mike Sherman:

Ed, I understand your point. It can be intrusive, no doubt about it. You almost made my point when you asked why nothing is done when someone is reported to the authorities. When you purchase a gun and they do a background, the denial is based on convictions I believe, not incident reports. If someone has a lot of local history with the local authorities and a background check includes local data bases, and discovers potential problems (but no convictions), then a visit by someone might help prevent an idiot from completing the purchase.

You are 100% correct about the potential abuse of Red Flag laws. Obviously the home visit would be a simple knock on the door. If the personal contact actually resulted in a denial, there should be an appeal process allowing the applicant to plead his case. I believe the home visits would in fact “help law enforcement do a better job of prevention when the evidence is on social media”. Evidence can be found in local law enforcement records also. We need more pro-active, prevention methods. It is not hard to determine that someone is perhaps not dealing with a full deck and should not have a gun. I do appreciate your comments.

There are more guns than people in America. I doubt our founding fathers imagined our ability to develop weapons capable of killing a hundred people within a few minutes. Our weapons are not being used against government thugs abusing their power, but that was the reason they wrote the 2nd Amendment, I do believe. They are being used to commit crimes. They always have. Only now we have killing of innocent citizens on a scale that exceeds current, ongoing war(s) in other countries.

I believe we will always have the right to own guns, but obviously there needs to be some level of control over who gets to own one. I am trying to understand why anyone would need an automatic rifle capable of firing 100 rounds without reloading, but there are those that advocate absolute total freedom for all under the guise of protecting the 2nd Amendment. A home visit by a local sheriff should not and would not damage the 2nd Amendment, but it could very well result in a discovery that the individual in question is a nut that has no business owning a gun. Oh, I realize he can still get one through other channels, but at least law enforcement would know who he is, and where he lives.

Where am I going wrong?

Note: We know what we discuss in this column may be controversial. While we invite your polite, constructive comments, inflammatory remarks will be immediately deleted.

Mike Sherman is a retired street cop and investigator with 30+ years of RV experience as a traveler, camp host and all-around advocate for the joys of living on the road. His articles are for general discussion purposes only – you should always consult your local authorities or legal counsel for specific answers if necessary. Write him at MikeShermanPI@gmail.com if you have questions, or leave a comment below. 

Read more RVer Safety articles here.

##RVT911

Subscribe
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

37 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

David Colvin
1 year ago

Mike, you are 100% right.

RW Baker
1 year ago

I agree with Ed… You appear to be biased, and somewhat ill informed, as far as Constitutionality of your opinions. Probably shaded by the UCMJ, you were indoctrinated from a young age.

Wolfe
1 year ago

(Chapter three before my fingers fall off…)

I’ll answer in video form! If you wonder why good people would need more than a single-shot, here’s several trained LEOs using up their ammo and still being stabbed by a “definitely unstable” person, who “surprisingly” didn’t stop when told to:

https://www.full30.com/watch/MDIxMjI3/graphic-why-officers-shoot-until-the-threat-has-stopped?fbclid=IwAR1hqhu1PoZwmEpOHrF7WOkms1svHcCpfBJS5Sr39LvCeiqDJS4vi0SPOHA

For people who believe that a single-shot rifle wouldn’t be as bad of a threat, play THIS video from the 7m27s timestamp — that’s a (yes, magazine fed but single shot) lever action he’s using — NOT automatic or semi-auto.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkbt5UXPjVE

Wolfe
1 year ago

MikeS: regarding “I doubt our founding fathers imagined our ability to develop weapons capable of killing a hundred people within a few minutes”:

Actually, the Fathers wrote extensively on this subject, so we know exactly what they knew and were thinking and why. 2A isn’t about hunting (which was a tacit “given” in that day). It wasn’t about self-defense either (which again, was a given, although a village posse or militia was more likely than the nightstand defense we think of). It was not *so* much about national defense, even though citizen militias might be conscripted under the official army. 2A was emphatically and directly and explicitly about preventing tyranny of our OWN government using that official army against the citizens. Several Founding Fathers wrote at great length about what the “shall not be infringed” clause really meant — time, place, storage, caliber, you name it — they THOUGHT of it and wanted it “uninfringed!” I’ll have to find the exact quote, but one explicitly wrote about “the common people shall retain the right to any arms that their government shall possess, and keep it upon their person.” So, in modern phrasing, the citizens shall have unrestricted carry of military-grade weapons, with the intent of restraining their OWN government from overreach. It’s pretty astonishing HOW clear the writings actually are that you’ll never read in a public school. Having just lived through tyranny, the Fathers would be considered way paranoid in most people’s modern sensibilities.

But, what arms DID they know about? “100 people in minutes,” you asked? How bout blunderbus shotguns that sprayed shrapnel into the enemy lines, often maiming dozens per shot? How bout cannon that blew apart columns of soldiers for hundreds of yards before the bouncing ball would stop? How bout the repeating versions of EACH of those (black powder with rotating barrels) that could index and fire both of those a dozen times in a minute? I’d wager EASILY 100 men per minute mowed down. But they didn’t have FULL auto, you might think. Actually… STILL wrong. George Washington wrote about a crank-operated multi-barrel gun that he decided against using only because it was kinda heavy, “requiring 2 men to carry even if equalled the guns of 10 men.” So, we had full-auto “WMD of the day” guns at the time the 2A was written. We had explosives, of COURSE. And we had Founding Fathers saying ANYTHING the army can have the citizens must be allowed as well. Whether muskets or RPGs or eventual laserguns, the Fathers wanted us to have access in perpetuity.

No, **I** do not want or feel I need a rocket launcher — I’m old and fat and not the guy who’s going to bother resisting that level of tyranny. But the intention WAS clear for any younger folks.

Wolfe
1 year ago

Mike: I agree with your good will and sincerity, and fully support denying people with DOCUMENTED mental health and FACTUAL questionable actions — but you may share a certain “unawareness” of the paranoid lay of the land, and why pro-safety folks are objecting to “deny under any doubt” thinking. I believe you answered your “where wrong” question with your “You are 100% correct about potential abuse of Red Flag.” What you missed is how abused such “nervous” laws ALREADY are, without the capricious and often anonymous nature of official Red Flag witch hunts.

Because I teach *long* safety seminars/defense training, I sometimes hire sub-instructors and LEOs and lawyers to assist with Art. 35 discussions, extra RSOs for live fire etc. These are people with decades of professional training whom you would expect to be GOLDEN “good gun owners” (and they are IMHO). Two of them have run afoul of “red flag” type laws, so I’ll tell their abbreviated stories:

1) A many-decade NRA instructor and Boy Scout leader and rifle instructor saw trespassing kids screaming through private woods towards a barb-wire fence and dangerous dropoff where the 40mph kids would likely be beheaded or fall to their death. To get them to stop, he put the muzzle 12″ from the ground and fired 3 shots as a signal (isn’t 3-shot signalling still in Boy Scout manuals? It might be SOP). The kids were stopped/saved, but called cops on the instructor. He was arrested for wreckless endangerment, improper handling, brandishing (none factually true, all three slugs easily recovered) but in court STILL lost his permit and had his entire gun collection confiscated. It sounds absurd, but happened.

2) A friend and co-instructor held a “high” security clearance that let him walk into some “seriously secure” places. He had an FFL and part time gun store. He chose a crazy exwife, who in order to expedite their divorce falsely claimed domestic abuse (not only zero evidence, but eventually factually proven and admitted in court to be lying). JUST THE HINT of being shady was enough to yank his FFL, civvy permit, security clearance, and thereby BOTH jobs. Exwife was mildly criticized for perjury, but otherwise unscathed after destroying my buddy’s career.

3) Bonus! At one point, I myself was fired because someone at work found out I teach personal defense in women’s shelters. Scratching your head? So was I. I made it clear I do NOT carry in the office, don’t mention my day job in lectures, etc. They admitted on record I was an exemplary employee, had a big raise coming, but they just didn’t want any gun-owners working for them. Employment at will, they could have fired without cause, but since they put it on record I sued them, successfully, for a reasonable severance package for their idiocy. I don’t consider that a real win, because their ignorance and the harm to my career both remained.

Now, you could say that bigotry towards gun owners is not illegal, we are not a protected class in any way, or even that you’re ready to screw over some people to save others. I have said before every gun owner I know would stop shooting paper IF that stopped CRAZY PEOPLE doing bad things. As you’re well aware, it won’t. In fact, Red Flag gives yet another weapon TO the crazy/paranoid factions. Is it “ok” that good people lose their natural, individual, legal, constitutional rights on the paranoid whim of gun-ignorant fearful folks? To me, this is the same logic as saying we will disarm our army because our enemy doesn’t feel comfortable with armed resistance — no kidding!

Again, if there are factual and documented reasons, by all means deny purchases and prosecute the attempt — but anything short of that, we have to side with the right of the innocent individual in keeping with the Constitution.

Edward Price
1 year ago

Mike:
In your words “A home visit by a local sheriff should not and would not damage the 2nd Amendment, but it could very well result in a discovery that the individual in question is a nut that has no business owning a gun. Oh, I realize he can still get one through other channels, but at least law enforcement would know who he is, and where he lives.
Where am I going wrong?”

Well Mike, since you asked, let’s see how this scenario might play out for you (back in the day when you were a working cop). A group of gun-owning neighbors has heard some strange things about you, so several of them conduct an unannounced visit on you at your home. They apparently have the authority to compel you to cooperate with their interview, as well as a right to inspect your property for evidence that you may have no business carrying a gun or being a sworn officer. By what criteria are you being judged? Well, anything that gives these citizens a bad feeling about you. Maybe you have more guns in your home than hands, and some may think that only a nut needs that many guns? Do you store your service weapon(s) in a gun safe as soon as you enter your home and do you have any secretly cached, loaded weapons hidden in your home? Is your ammo also safely stored? Perhaps they see your selection of weapons books and magazines; that could indicate an unhealthy fixation on weapons. Anything might be cause for those citizens to be concerned, even if you have broken no laws. It’s good for the citizens to know that you may only be a marginal nut, and where you live. Where am I going wrong?
Now let me change direction for a moment; during your working experience, were arrests made for those who attempted to purchase weapons and were rejected under the Federal check system? I mean, it’s a felony to even attempt to buy a gun if you are ineligible to legally purchase one, but I never hear of prosecutions under this existing law.

chris p hemstead
1 year ago

What I honestly think will happen to the 2nd is nothing. What I honestly think is that there will be some sort of tighter controls on AK47s. And you seem to honestly think that you and your guns are going to somehow overthrow a tyrannical government. I think you’re living in the 1700s.

chris p hemstead
1 year ago

I guess I used the wrong ‘reply’ button. This is supposed to be under Ed D.

Seann Fox
1 year ago

Tell me has no one ever noticed the relationship between the you can’t discipline your children movement and the now gun crimes being caused by these children some grow into adults but still if they were children and never disciplined no I’m not advocating in any way shape or form beating a child but a spanking or discipline goes a long way to making them a better human being when they’re out of line it’s too late by the time they’re in their twenties in jail doesn’t do anything for them then

chris p hemstead
1 year ago
Reply to  Seann Fox

I’ve noticed what it did to our president.

Don Kostyal
1 year ago

Mike, to say you doubt that the founding fathers did not think about weapons killing a hundred people within a few minutes can’t be serious–or you do not know your history well. You only have to look back in history where ways were thought of and machines made that fired several arrow or spears at one time, and catapults were made to hurl larger boulders or several smaller rocks all with the intention of killing or harming more soldiers/people than one person with a bow and arrow or a sling and a rock could do. The cave man used a rock or a club. Eventually he figured out how to throw it farther with a sling. A sharp stick became an arrow and the bow was “invented” to send the arrow further and faster. The Chinese developed gun power and saw its use to propel projectiles. During the revolution and earlier there were cannons which fired a single ball or often were loaded with nails to kill or injury severely enough to take out of the fight many combatants. The “Blunderbus” was also an early “scatter gun.” There were also weapons that were made with several barrels that a single person could fire several rounds in succession or all all at once. Several muskets were fixed to a rail, or a cart on wheels and could be loaded and fired by a single person. So it is not only a weak but totally false statement to say our fore fathers never thought the weapons we have today would ever replace the musket and flint stone. That is the thinking people who thought the auto would never replace the horse and man would never fly.

chris p hemstead
1 year ago
Reply to  Don Kostyal

I’ve never seen those weapons at a schoolyard.

Ed D.
1 year ago

Mike, it is not a matter of where you are going wrong. It is a matter of rights under the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we have the right to bear arms upon approval from the local Sheriff and a shrink. The Constitution addresses the potential reason that we may need those magazines that hold upward to 100 rounds. It is simply to prevent a tyrannical government from infringing on the right to be free in this country. With the way some of the politicians are promoting “alternative” forms of Government, what do you honestly think will happen to the 2nd A, if they wind up running this country? One of the parties has even gone so far as to threaten SCOTUS that if they rule in favor of the 2nd A on pending cases that they will restructure the SC. I don’t know about you but that scares the heck out of me! Sorry Mike but I will never agree with you on this one. As always, I may not agree with what you have to say but I will go to my grave defending your right to say it!

chris p hemstead
1 year ago
Reply to  Ed D.

So I take it you’re OK with the kind of tyranny in the White House right now? You have to go along with what people vote for, not what you think is best using your guns. I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

Edward Price
1 year ago

Chris: If the White House was as tyrannical, capricious and lawless as your continuous litany suggests, you would already have been disappeared.

chris p hemstead
1 year ago
Reply to  Edward Price

I grow weary of the continuous litany that seems to suggest we’re still living in the 1700s

chris p hemstead
1 year ago
Reply to  Edward Price

The point I’m trying to make, that’s obviously being missed, is this notion that you need your guns to protect yourselves from an ‘oppressive government.’ I fail to understand what that means.

Ed K made a comment last week, which I’m still trying to get him to clarify, about those who would make our gov’t a socialist one. What does that mean..if a democrat is elected you’re going to storm the White House with your guns??

chris p hemstead
1 year ago

sorry.. Ed D

Primo Rudy
1 year ago

” I am trying to understand why anyone would need an automatic rifle capable of firing 100 rounds without reloading, ” Sir, it’s not a matter of need. Our society doesn’t need many of our possessions. As one of the greatest countries (if not THE greatest) we have afforded ourselves to go beyond needs and obtain some wants. We don’t need fast food, fancy cars, big screen tv’s or tons of shoes. I don’t need a (semi) automatic rifle, but is sure is fun to take to the range and put holes in paper.

Ed D.
1 year ago
Reply to  Primo Rudy

Read the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution. I am fairly certain it explains why.

Ed D.
1 year ago
Reply to  Primo Rudy

My apology Rudy, I did not read your statement correctly the first time. I agree with you 100%.

Ed D.
1 year ago

Here we go. My comment was censored. Would you care to explain why? I saw nothing in it that was offensive.

chris p hemstead
1 year ago

Last week Ed D made this comment: “Today as well. Especially when we have those that would turn this country into a Socialist country.”

I would like clarification on this comment.

Alex
1 year ago

A scenario worth exploring – suppose “assault” style long guns were banned; no longer manufactured or imported. How would that affect the value or price of those already possessed by law abiding citizens? Would they be motivated to part with them? The most likely outcome would be existing AKs and ARs and SKSs etc. prices would skyrocket. Now consider whether a PO’d unbalanced individual could afford a $3,000+ weapon? Isn’t it less likely for such a person to approach a private citizen to buy one rather than an anonymous transaction at a shop or show? Yes, a Ruger 10-22 isn’t an assault weapon but can be just as deadly and would remain affordable. If one were to contemplate inflicting mass casualties, one would likely opt for the $400 AR-15 rather than the $200 Ruger. I’m totally supportive of our 2nd Amendment rights. However, I disagree with the notion that serious weaponry should be easily affordable for everyone.

chris p hemstead
1 year ago

” I am trying to understand why anyone would need an automatic rifle capable of firing 100 rounds without reloading, but there are those that advocate absolute total freedom for all under the guise of protecting the 2nd Amendment.”

I am too. Saw a good meme last week: “We’d like to thank the hundreds of school children who laid down their lives to protect the 2nd amendment.”

If you really want to be a ‘well regulated militia” to protect yourselves from an oppressive government, you’re probably going to need bazookas, napalm and a couple tanks. Can you buy those?

Ed D.
1 year ago

No but do you honestly think our Armed Forces would remain loyal to a government that was trying to oppress the citizens of this country? I don’t! So the Tanks and Bazookas might be in the cards.

chris p hemstead
1 year ago
Reply to  Ed D.

What do you mean by ‘oppress the citizens’?

You also haven’t responded to my question from last week, what do you mean by“ Today as well. Especially when we have those that would turn this country into a Socialist country.”

chris p hemstead
1 year ago
Reply to  Ed D.

I have questions for you but they keep getting moderated away.

chris p hemstead
1 year ago

ok, now it’s there

Alex
1 year ago

Chris, picture a catastrophic event where you live. Earthquake? Hurricane? Ebola outbreak? First responders unable to reach out to you. 911 doesn’t work. Bad people will take advantage to rob and hurt people. You’ll find some don’t wait for a catastrophes as home invasions are daily events. I’d be interested in your plan to protect your family and your home. Relying on local agencies to deter the bad folks is unrealistic.

chris p hemstead
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex

I never said people can’t own guns.

Bill
1 year ago

Please let me know where I can purchase an automatic rifle, as they have been banned since 1986. Disinformation, such as you have in your column, leads me to believe you we never a cop.

Greg Illes
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill

Bill, not completely accurate.

Full-automatic weapons are not “banned”, they are heavily restricted Federally (special permit required), and prohibited in some states. You can still go to Arizona (for example) and rent/shoot a full-automatic weapon.

I’m not sure whether Mike actually meant “automatic” or “semi-automatic”, but his general intent was pretty clear (to me). You shouldn’t be so hard on him for a nit.

Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Greg Illes

Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986. Only certain types of FFL/SOTs may make them, and then only for purchase by qualified state and federal agencies. There are no exceptions. According to the ATF’s official handbook on NFA laws and regulations, it’s not even legal to make new replacement parts for pre-1986 machine guns: “There is no exception allowing for the lawful production, transfer, possession, or use of a post-May 18, 1986 machinegun receiver as a replacement receiver on a weapon produced prior to May 19, 1986.”

So what about pre-1986 machine guns? Are civilians permitted to own those? Yes, with a host of exceptions. The pre-1986 machine guns may be sold only by a FFL/SOT and must be registered with the ATF. Easy peasy, right? Not really. The process of registering a NFA item with the ATF is costly, invasive, and time-consuming. Federal law requires extensive background checks of anyone wishing to own a NFA item such as a machine gun. If you wanted to purchase a machine gun today, it would take close to a year, and you would be required to submit fingerprints and a photo to accompany your background check. Each NFA item also requires its own tax stamp, which costs $200. Once the ATF decides that an individual is permitted by law to own a NFA item, it adds that individual’s name, address, and biographical information to a federal gun registry and matches it to the serial number of the licensed NFA item. This goes for every item listed in the NFA, not just machine guns. Individuals with NFA items are then required to notify the ATF when they move and any time they plan to travel outside their state of residence with the NFA item.

Ed D.
1 year ago

Mike, it is not a matter of where you are going wrong. It is a matter of rights under the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we have the right to bear arms upon approval from the local Sheriff and a shrink. The Constitution addresses the potential reason that we may need those magazines that hold upward to 100 rounds. It is simply to prevent a tyrannical government from infringing on the right to be free in this country. With the way some of the politicians are promoting socialism, what do you honestly think will happen to the 2nd A, if they wind up running this country? One of the parties has even gone so far as to threaten SCOTUS that if they rule in favor of the 2nd A on pending cases that they will restructure the SC. I don’t know about you but that scares the heck out of me! Sorry Mike but I will never agree with you on this one. As always, I may not agree with what you have to say but I will go to my grave defending your right to say it!

chris p hemstead
1 year ago
Reply to  Ed D.

The current administration scares the heck out of me. Should I grab an UZI and attack the White House?

Mich H.
1 year ago

Has the current administration harmed you personally in some way? Has it denied you some basic right or discriminated against you? Forced you out of your home or some other heinous act? Raised your taxes perhaps? This administration is no different than any other. Nothing has changed, and in the end nothing will have changed. Just like the administration before this one, and the one before that, and the one before that. You’re no better or worse off than you were before, you’re just not happy that the person you voted for didn’t win. If you really want to “grab an Uzi” and try to overthrow the government, I would recommend you first convince some others to join you. Perhaps pledge to each other your life, liberty and sacred honor as you engage in a new revolution. I wouldn’t hold much hope though…socialists are sheep.