Los Angeles Actively Aids Criminals in Pursuit of Gun Control

Now let me start by saying that ordinarily I don’t have a problem with gun buyback programs. While I do believe that wider gun ownership makes everyone safer and makes our republic safer, I am pro-choice on gun ownership, so why would I care if you are induced to sell to the city which in turn will destroy your gun?  I also think it is quite unlikely to be useful, and thus a waste of money, but besides budgetary concerns, I normally have no deep, principled objection to these photo-ops.

But there is a creepy little gem hidden in this otherwise positive story about a gun buyback program in L.A.  It starts out nice enough:

L.A. gun buyback program breaks a record

More weapons are gathered by the city of Los Angeles than at previous such events. The effort was so successful that the city ran out of supermarket gift cards and got a private donation.

By Richard Winton, Los Angeles Times

7:36 PM PST, December 27, 2012

A one-day gun buyback event in Los Angeles on Wednesday gathered 2,037 firearms, including 75 assault weapons and two rocket launchers, officials said. The total was nearly 400 more weapons than were collected in a similar buyback earlier this year.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the collection at two locations was so successful that the city ran out of money for supermarket gift cards and got a private donation through the city controller to bolster the pot.

Oh joy!  But there is a dark side to all of this, buried toward the end:

Police Chief Charlie Beck said it was the most successful gun buyback event since the city began the program.

"Those are weapons of war, weapons of death," Beck said, motioning to a selection of military-style weapons on a display table. "These are not hunting guns. These are not target guns. These are made to put high-velocity, extremely deadly, long-range rounds down-range as quickly as possible, and they have no place in our great city."

Beck acknowledged that the weapons would not be checked for connections to crimes before being melted down. He said the sheer number would make that difficult, and he does not want to deter people from turning in firearms.

(Emphasis added.)  You got that?  So if someone stole a gun from you, and couldn’t figure out how to fence it, don’t worry!  The City of Los Angeles will give you some money in exchange!

Oh, and if you committed a murder and were concerned that the police might, say, use your gun to match the ballistics to the bullets in the corpse you left behind, then don’t worry!  The City of Los Angeles will helpfully destroy that evidence for you!  And pay you for the privilege of doing so, even!

And indeed, you have to wonder if part of the purpose of the program is actively to encourage theft of the variety indicated above.  It bears some resemblance to nations putting out letters of marque.  Letters of marque, you might recall, were essentially documents legalizing piracy against the enemies of one nation or another.  These were used by nations such as Britain and France as a way of taking their rivals down a peg, particularly Spain.  By rewarding piracy, they thus encouraged it against their enemies, providing a low cost way to inflict potentially catastrophic damage.  This no questions asked approach to turning in guns seems to serve, intentionally or not, a similar purpose.

Indeed, California law, like most states, requires pawn shops to take reasonable steps to avoid the receipt of stolen property.  But the City of Angels will make no effort to prove that the gun is yours before they destroy it.  So a woman might buy a gun to protect herself from an abusive ex, and her child might steal the gun from her and have it melted down, leaving her defenseless without her consent.

Indeed, wouldn’t that scenario be a violation of the Fifth Amendment right not to have your property taken without just compensation?  I wonder if any enterprising attorney in the Los Angeles area might find a particularly sympathetic client willing to sue the city for this idiocy.

And the worst line in the article is the one right after they announced they would not be checking if they are connected with a crime when Police Chief Beck said he is doing it this way, because “he does not want to deter people from turning in firearms.”  Which means he expected criminals to know that he was doing this ahead of time and expected their behavior to change as a result.  In other words he is admitting that he knows this will encourage theft and even the destruction of evidence.  But, hey it is more important to get a gun off the street than to find evidence that might convict a murderer.  After all, when that murderer disposes of the murder weapon it will be impossible for him or her to get a new gun, right?  And of course if that murderer gets a gun, an invisible force field will stop him from shooting anyone else, right?  (Note: I am being sarcastic.)

Indeed, I wonder just how far ahead of time they made it clear that this buyback would be no questions asked?  How much warning did the criminals have of this golden opportunity to fence stolen property and dispose of evidence?

Inquiring minds and all that.

For bonus points, sharp eyed readers might notice two other points:

The gun buyback also demonstrates the sheer futility of gun laws themselves.  Among the guns turned in were full automatics and even a few rocket launchers, both of which are illegal.  Surely the gun grabbers will cheer that those weapons are off the streets, but how many more are there out there that people were not willing to exchange for a $200 gift card?

Beck’s denunciation of the guns that were turned in indicates his hostility to all private gun ownership and even the right of self-defense, calling them “weapons of death.”  What exact gun is not a “weapon of death?”  This echoes a similar refrain seen by the people on twitter who argue that unlike a car, a knife, and so on, the only use of a gun is killing people.

Well, to be exact it is designed to kill or seriously wound living things (which doesn’t have to be people).  But yes, guns are pretty much 100% designed to harm other living things.  Let’s not sugar coat it: that is what they are.

But, first, that is a criticism that can be leveled at all guns.  So when you denounce a gun as a “weapon of death” you are indicating that you hate all guns.

By the way, I assume that since Police Chief Beck also said that such weapons “have no place in our great city,” he will soon have his officers melt down their guns and use pillows instead, right?  Well of course not, what he probably really means is that civilians shouldn’t have them, that the only people who should have them are pretty much the Police and, effectively speaking, the criminals (who might have had their evidence helpfully destroyed by the police).  The same city that gave us Mark Fuhrman and Rodney King is telling its residents to trust in the police and only the police to protect their lives.  Like I have said before, not all cops are bad, etc.  Most try their best to protect everyone regardless of race, color or anything else that inspires less than the full equal protection of the law.  But 1) exceptions to that rule undeniably exist, and 2) the police can’t be everywhere, all the time.

And, second, is harming a person, or even killing a person always a bad thing?  If a man breaks into a woman’s house with a knife and rape on the mind, and she pulls out a gun and kills him, is that bad?  No, in fact in that case, the law of every state will declare that this is a justified act and thus not a crime.  So when you denounce a gun because it is only designed to kill you are saying you don’t believe there is any circumstance when killing is justified.  You are saying that you don’t believe in the right of self-defense.

Update: By the way, if the police did actually check to see if any of these weapons are involved in any crime, what are the chances that they would be traced back to the "Fast and Furious" faisco?

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.