Categories
All About Guns Being a Stranger in a very Strange Land Cops

A Judge Pulled a Gun in the Courtroom—and Then It Got Weird Jose Pagliery

Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty
Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty

During a trial in West Virginia earlier this year, witnesses tell The Daily Beast, a state court judge whipped out his handgun, waved it in the air, and left it on the bench with the barrel pointing directly at the corporate lawyers who had irritated him.

Circuit Judge David W. Hummel Jr., who oversees cases in the tiny city of New Martinsville, repeatedly told The Daily Beast it never happened. When reached by phone in March, he initially professed shock at the allegations. On subsequent phone calls, however, his story kept changing as he claimed to recall more details about the incident.

“I did not have my 1911 at any point during that trial,” he said then, referring to a common type of semi-automatic pistol. “It was secreted in a drawer on the bench. I never showed my 1911 at the trial whatsoever—at any point during that trial.”

That judge is now under investigation by the state’s judiciary for violating the profession’s code of conduct, according to three witnesses now sharing information with law enforcement and official communications about the investigation reviewed by The Daily Beast. The judge’s own staff has since told an investigator that the judge did, in fact, display his gun openly during an attorneys-only hearing and boasted about having it in his possession, according to two of those witnesses.

Hummel insisted to The Daily Beast that there was no recording of the incident that would back up these accusations, but two witnesses say the state investigator has acquired a videotape of the interaction.

“You don’t understand what a terrible victimization it is,” said Lauren Varnado, the attorney who was standing at the podium when the judge pulled out his gun. “It was pretty traumatic for multiple people. The whole trial was insane.”

“We have no power in this situation,” she said. “It was way scarier than even just a normal person on the sidewalk. You need more power over us than you already have right now? That’s frightening, because he could order us to do whatever. Why would you ever need to pull out a gun?”

The judge’s show of force was the culmination of months of building tension between him and Varnado’s team of corporate lawyers. The Daily Beast has reviewed hundreds of pages of court transcripts and spoken to several people involved.

As with many legal battles in West Virginia, it all started with fossil fuels.

Until the case settled recently, Hummel oversaw a dispute involving West Virginia landowners who sued over the royalty payments they get from the natural gas giant EQT for fossil fuels extracted from the earth hundreds of feet below their property.

But the gas company’s lawyers accused the judge of never disclosing that his parents get gas company royalties that may someday pass on to him—sparking questions about a glaring conflict of interest. When the gas company’s lawyers sought to disqualify him, court transcripts show he grew increasingly aggravated at Varnado and her team.

At an April 2021 court hearing in which he was asked about his family’s gas interests, the transcript shows how the judge patronized EQT’s lawyers as he detailed his family tree and dismissed their concerns, ranting about how his cousin “Christy” got mad at him for not recognizing her at a wedding. When the attempt to have higher state courts disqualify him failed, Hummel started the next court hearing in similar fashion.

“Okay. Excellent. And I’m Judge Hummel, and I have no conflicts, Supreme Court said, so here we are. And this time I don’t have to talk about my Aunt Rose’s numerals or which shoe I put on first or anything,” he said on July 19, 2021, according to another transcript.

<div class="inline-image__caption"><p>The dispute revolved around the energy company EQT.</p></div> <div class="inline-image__credit">Photo Illustration by Rafael Henrique/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty</div>

The dispute revolved around the energy company EQT.

Photo Illustration by Rafael Henrique/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty

The eventual trial was always going to be fiercely contentious. EQT cut its royalty payments nearly a decade ago, shortly before the energy value of the state’s natural gas production began to overtake coal. While the state has relied heavily on the exports of coal and oil since the 1800s, natural gas from the fracking of the massive Marcellus Shale underground has the promise to enrich the state.

By the time the two-week trial started in February in New Martinsville, the locals were so angry at how the gas company had cut their royalties in recent years that EQT lawyers felt the need to be escorted by ex-CIA private security contractors, according to three members of that team. But when lawyers on both sides were called into the century-old sandstone courthouse for a special hearing on Saturday, March 12, bailiffs at the entrance surprised the legal teams with a new rule for the day.

“Trial counsel only today,” they said, according to three witnesses who spoke to The Daily Beast on condition of anonymity, fearing potential reprisal.

Varnado’s private security guard and a paralegal were turned away. The lawyers made their way into the courtroom on the second floor. Once there, according to a transcript, the judge castigated the gas company’s lawyers for having private guards, noting that if there were any concerns about safety, “I promise you, I’ll take care of them.”

“We were never told these folks were security until most recently,” the judge said, according to a court transcript. “I got this man here carrying a man purse, which I make fun of him every damn day for wearing such a sissy-ass contraption. And I hear he has blood coagulant. I have blood coagulant up here too, and I’ve got lots of guns. Like, bigger ones too.”

 

Hummel then pulled out a black handgun from an over-the-belt leather holster beneath his robe, and started waving it around the room, according to Varnado and another person in the room.

Hummel then put it down on his wooden desk, known as a judge’s bench, and left the barrel pointing at Varnado, her New York law partner David R. Dehoney, and their local West Virginia attorney Jennifer Hicks.

The gun stayed there for the rest of the hearing. When the attorneys were directed to negotiate in a private room, they found the handgun still waiting for them when they returned. When lawyers had to approach the judge, the resting gun remained pointed at their faces.

“It’s just a violation of basic gun safety, having it out like that pointing at people,” Varnado said. “It was too stunning to even process it. My brain didn’t even process it until after the hearing concluded. I was on edge. I don’t know if it was loaded.”

Indeed, pointing a firearm at anything but a target violates the National Rifle Association’s primary rule on gun safety, which is to keep a barrel pointed away from people at all times. And the judge seems to have broken a second rule of safe gun handling, which is to check whether a firearm’s chamber is empty and clear of ammunition—then say so out loud.

In the days after the hearing, Varnado reached out to the FBI to report what happened. But she decided to seek help from the feds 100 miles away in Pittsburgh, concerned that local law enforcement might be untrustworthy given the judge’s position of power and influence.

Varnado still feels confident that was the right move. When The Daily Beast reached out to Wetzel County Sheriff Michael L. Koontz, whose deputies provide security outside the courthouse, the sheriff remembered that a special hearing happened that Saturday morning—but denied any knowledge about the judge pulling out the gun.

However, two sources with direct knowledge say a sheriff’s deputy who was in the courtroom that day has since confirmed to the state investigator that the judge brandished his pistol.

When reached by phone a few weeks after the episode, Hummel first denied anything remarkable ever occurred.

“There is no incident… I absolutely, categorically deny I had a gun that day in the courtroom,” he said. “It was just me and the attorneys. I had no reason to have a firearm that day… I’ve never shown a gun in my courtroom to anybody. I don’t want them to know that I have it. I do not display my firearm at any time during trial.”

“My job is not to protect anyone with firearms,” he said. “That’s what my bailiffs and deputy sheriffs are for.”

Minutes later, the judge called back and said he now recalled having a holstered gun on him beneath his robe during the trial the previous week. But it wasn’t the 1911 pistol, he said. It was a long, classic-looking revolver that hails from the days of the Wild West.

“I wore the Colt Peacemaker,” he said. “The Peacemaker never ever came out of the holster during that trial.”

When the judge called back a third time, he acknowledged showing something to the attorneys in the courtroom that day. But he said it wasn’t a gun.

“I did pull out a small, red first aid kit. But it was casual. I did show her a foiled packet, and said this is blood coagulant. We have preparations for active shooter situations,” he said.

In April, a spokeswoman with the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia told The Daily Beast that she was not aware of the gun incident. And records showed that Hummel had not been the subject of an admonishment or formal statement of charges.

But in the weeks since, Judicial Investigation Commission of West Virginia investigator David Hudson has been gathering evidence about the incident, asking witnesses to describe the firearm and how they felt about it being displayed by the judge, according to communications reviewed by The Daily Beast.

In a signed affidavit submitted to the investigator, Varnado, who hails from Texas, described the judge’s gun as a “Colt 45,” a widely recognized pistol otherwise known as a 1911.

The judge, his court clerk, a secretary, and a court reporter have all submitted sworn affidavits describing the events that day to the investigator, court reporter Holly A. Kocher told The Daily Beast on Wednesday.

Since March, the FBI’s Pittsburgh field office has repeatedly declined to confirm that a special agent there has been assigned to look into the incident. The judge did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.

The state judiciary, citing policy, declined to provide details about the ongoing ethics investigation. But its staff pointed to its website, which indicates that judges who violate the rules face a one-year suspension.

Categories
All About Guns Cops

The Norco Shootout, 40 Years Later

Categories
All About Guns Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops

British Obsolete calibre law changes

Categories
Allies Cops

It’s time to shut down the failed, vast, arrogant monster our police forces have become By PETER HITCHENS FOR THE DAILY MAIL

Like some dud bog-standard school, Britain’s most important law-enforcers, the Metropolitan Police, find themselves humiliatingly condemned to ‘special measures’. About time too.

Now we have also learned that one in seven police forces is in special measures. Quite frankly, I’m not surprised.

The howling, blatant failure of all Britain’s police forces to do the job for which we pay them so much has been a scandal for years. It has been at its worst in the capital.

Now, at last, even our political class has begun to notice. If we have the sense to seize it, the moment has come to replace our failed police, who have traded for decades on a reputation won by others many years ago.

Normally the liberal elite, cocooned by money and power, have little idea of what is going on in this country. They seldom visit anywhere outside their privileged enclaves, and dismiss reports from the real Britain as ‘moral panic’.

For years they have not cared, as most of us have, that the police are too politically correct, and too absent, to be any use against crime and disorder. Now, it turns out that the police are not politically correct enough, either. Everyone thinks they are useless.

Scotland Yard’s fall comes after it was subjected to the leadership of Cressida Dick – for years the liberal establishment’s favourite police officer, groomed and polished so that she could finally step into the Commissioner’s job. And then she turned out to be an utter flop on almost every measure known.

Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick standing with Mayor of London Sadiq Khan

+4
View gallery

Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick standing with Mayor of London Sadiq Khan

What are the police for? Why do we put up with them? If your car won’t go, or your hoover stops hoovering, or your fridge no longer keeps your food cold, you get rid of them and buy new ones. So what do you do when your police stop policing?

And they have stopped. Their response to burglary and car theft is now such a national joke that even official statistics have begun to reflect it. Their interest in quelling the nasty disorder that infects so many of our streets is zero.

As Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary said of the Metropolitan Police this week, they suffer from ‘a barely adequate standard of crime recording accuracy, with an estimated 69,000 crimes going unrecorded each year, less than half of crime recorded within 24 hours, and almost no crimes recorded when victims report antisocial behaviour against them’.

The flat phrase ‘anti-social behaviour’ does not begin to describe a huge and horrible problem. For many years, in the long-ago days when people still had some expectation of police support, I was often contacted by despairing men and women trapped in their homes by menacing louts, intolerable noise, screeching persecution or incessant thefts from their small businesses, from which they could not protect themselves.

They knew that if they dared raise a hand in their own defence, the police – protecting their monopoly of force – would come for them. They, unlike their persecutors, were easy targets, not frightening, ready to co-operate with authority.

The Metropolitan Police of Wayne Couzens who was jailed for the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard

The Metropolitan Police of Wayne Couzens who was jailed for the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard

I remember a lawyer who wrote to me in a state of shock, having had his career ruined by the police after he grabbed a young vandal and tried to march him to the police station. He was the one who ended up in court. We all recall the horrible case of Fiona Pilkington, who killed her own severely disabled daughter Francecca and herself, after enduring ten years of unimaginable persecution from cruel neighbours – in which the police were barely interested.

We all remember Garry Newlove, kicked to death outside his home, after confronting a gang of youths he suspected of vandalising his wife’s car. The area had suffered for years from uncontrolled disorder of this kind.

But these events are not unique. They are among thousands of miserable episodes that never make the headlines, but which show the failure of the police to prevent this kind of thing.

Well, that problem only affected ordinary people, so the authorities, the BBC and The Guardian newspaper paid little attention to it and learned no lesson from it.

Sarah Everard, 33, was murdered by serving Met officer Wayne Couzens after she was abducted as she walked home in south London

Sarah Everard, 33, was murdered by serving Met officer Wayne Couzens after she was abducted as she walked home in south London

But the police reaction to the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving officer – pitiful, lumbering and stupid – probably turned the balance among our governing class. Here was something they could not ignore: a woman had been murdered by someone she should have been able to trust utterly.

How had he been in a position to do this? One problem is that the police, as they now are, do not always attract the right sort of recruits, or retain the kind of men and women they really need.

The killer, Wayne Couzens, was obviously totally unfit to be a police constable.

He should never have been hired in the first place. His blatant lewd behaviour should have made sure that he was got rid of very quickly.

Yet he stayed, and seems to have been too readily tolerated by some of his colleagues. Then came the lumpish, concrete-headed police treatment of a perfectly reasonable vigil in memory of Miss Everard. Once again, the questions began to form, in letters of fire, in the public mind: ‘Whose side are the police really on? What actual use are they?’

I could write a book about the crisis of the police. In fact, I have done. (It is called ‘The Abolition of Liberty’ and is still in print 19 years after it was first published.) I have pressed it into the hands of senior police officers and one Home Secretary, begging them to pay attention. Not one of them has even responded.

Former prime minister and founder of the modern police force Sir Robert Peel

Former prime minister and founder of the modern police force Sir Robert Peel

The police, I have argued now for almost 20 years, are doing the wrong thing. Their problems have nothing to do with numbers (they used to do far more with many fewer officers).

Their job is not to patrol Twitter, but to patrol the streets on foot, to prevent crime, to show that order and law will be upheld, to deter the first signs of bad behaviour so that it never gets out of hand.

This method still works (it was used to great effect in New York City a few years ago) and it was what they were originally hired to do by the great Sir Robert Peel.

Constables engaged in these simple, comforting activities do not need to get involved in politics or opinions. They rapidly become the friends of the law-abiding public, get to know their neighbourhoods, see trouble coming and pick up intelligence about all kinds of problems.

This kind of policing came to an end thanks to a few decisions mainly taken by the arch-liberal Home Secretary Roy Jenkins in the 1960s. We were never asked about them. Jenkins killed off regular foot patrols, and destroyed dozens of local forces that knew their areas and were respected there, replacing them with vast distant bureaucracies.

In Scotland, even more worryingly, local policing ended entirely with the creation of a nationwide organisation, which has unsurprisingly run into grave trouble since.

It would be just as easy to reverse these decisions, to begin next week to recruit and establish new, small local constabularies dedicated to the old Peel principle of prevention above all. And once they were ready, we could close down the vast, failed, arrogant monster which our police have disastrously become.

There is no longer any point in pretending that they have not failed. And when institutions fail, the best thing to do is to replace them from top to bottom. That would be a truly special measure.

Categories
All About Guns Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops

Here For Your Guns! – ERPO Gun Confiscation

Categories
All About Guns Cops Grumpy's hall of Shame

And yet again all these gun laws were a waste of time / Also I feel sorry for the Gun Shop Owner myself

REVEALED: Highland Park parade shooter bought Smith & Wesson rifle online then picked it up from a local store

  • Crimo bought his Smith & Wesson M&P 15 for between $700 and $800 online on a website Buds Gun Shop
  • He then picked it up from Red Dot Arms, a store in Illinois 30 miles from his home
  • It’s unclear exactly when he bought the gun but he did so legally with a FOID card
  • He purchased other weapons from the same store, according to police 
  • Crimo is now in custody on seven murder charges  
Highland Park parade shooter Bobby Crimo bought his Smith & Wesson rifle online then picked it up from a local store

Highland Park parade shooter Bobby Crimo bought his Smith & Wesson rifle online then picked it up from a local store

Highland Park parade shooter Bobby Crimo bought his Smith & Wesson rifle online then picked it up from a local store.

The 21-year-old had been quizzed by police twice in the years before Monday’s massacre, but he was still able to legally purchase the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 for between $700 and $800 online on a website Buds Gun Shop.

He had it delivered to Red Dot Arms, a store 30 miles north of Highland Park.

The owner of that gun store insisted to The Daily Beast on Wednesday that he filled out all of the necessary paperwork to link Crimo to the weapon – writing down the serial number, his name and his address.

Crimo had a valid FOID card to purchase the weapon, which had been signed by his father. The FOID card was issued by the Illinois State Police.

‘We meticulously do the paperwork. That’s, that’s our job. That’s what we do to track,’ the man said on Wednesday. He declined to give his name.

He added that when the shooting happened on Monday, the store was closed for the July 4th holiday.

When police contacted him, he raced to the store and produced the form which related to the serial number that was on the gun Crimo dropped at the scene.

Crimo had his gun delivered to Red Dot Arms in Illinois after buying it online from a Kentucky website called Buds Gun Shop

Crimo had his gun delivered to Red Dot Arms in Illinois after buying it online from a Kentucky website called Buds Gun Shop

It's unclear what kind of checks the website Bud Guns Shop performs before selling weapons to online customers. It is still advertising July 4th specials

It’s unclear what kind of checks the website Bud Guns Shop performs before selling weapons to online customers. It is still advertising July 4th specials

Crimo was able to legally purchase the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 for between $700 and $800 online on a website Buds Gun Shop

Crimo was able to legally purchase the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 for between $700 and $800 online on a website Buds Gun Shop

It’s unclear what kind of checks were performed by the website to purchase the gun.

The Daily Beast cited unnamed police sources who say he bought other weapons from the gun store.

Buds Gun Shop did not immediately respond to comments about what kind of checks were performed when he bought the weapon online.

Crimo appeared in court virtually on Wednesday to be charged with seven counts of murder.

He said nothing other than to confirm that he did not have a lawyer, and to ask for a public defender to be assigned to his case.

Tributes to the seven people who died in the massacre were left along the parade route

Tributes to the seven people who died in the massacre were left along the parade route

The 21-year-old shifted on his feet and looked side to side throughout the brief hearing.

Crimo will return to court on July 25th for his preliminary hearing.

Police have still not been able to determine a motive for the crime, but say he had an obsession with the numbers 47, which is 7/4 inverse – the date of the attack.

His parents have not been charged but they have retained a lawyer who on Tuesday night spoke out in their defense, insisting they did ‘nothing wrong’ and that there were no ‘red flags’ to report.

Categories
Born again Cynic! Cops

And I guess that I am suppose to be shocked by all of this?

 

 

Won’t you look at that.  He has previous encounters with law enforcement for violent threats, but those were not sufficiently dealt with so the shooter was able to pass a background check, buy a rifle and shoot up Stoneman Douglas High School Robb Elementary School an Independence Day parade.

Illinois already has a red flag law.

I guess nobody thought to invoke it.

The suicide attempt is the real shocker.  I’m surprised that didn’t get him an involuntary commitment that would make him a prohibited person.

Or maybe Illinois didn’t inform NICS like what happened with Sutherland Springs.

I’d put even money on someone having said something to the FBI about him too, and that being ignored.

I guess the big takeaway is that the purpose of red flag laws is to be a political weapon because they certainly don’t stop crazy people who get the cops called on them from getting guns.

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops

Sounds to me to be some pretty good ideas! Grumpy

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops

After Uvalde, Politicians Push Irrelevant Gun Control Proposals The gun control policies under discussion are fundamentally ill-suited to prevent mass shootings. by JACOB SULLUM

The horrifying May 24 massacre at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, which killed 19 children and two adults, happened just 10 days after a gunman murdered 10 people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York. Both crimes predictably prompted politicians to reiterate their demands for the gun control laws they already supported, even though the policies they pushed are fundamentally ill-suited to prevent mass shootings.

“In New York,” former Gov. Andrew Cuomo bragged after the Buffalo attack, “we passed the best [gun control] laws in the nation.” Although those laws manifestly did not deter the Buffalo shooter, Cuomo thinks the answer is more of the same.

Cuomo mentioned a federal “assault weapon” ban, and other politicians responded to the Buffalo massacre by recommending expanded background checks for gun buyers. After the Uvalde shooting, President Joe Biden repeated his longstanding support for banning “assault weapons,” and Senate Democrats mulled an “accountability vote” on a bill that would expand the federal background-check requirement to cover private transactions as well as sales by federally licensed dealers.

As Democrats framed the issue, anyone who resists those measures is manifestly untroubled by the murder of grocery shoppers and schoolchildren. “When in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?” Biden asked during an emotional speech. “When in God’s name are we going to do what we know needs to be done?”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) suggested that callous indifference was the only plausible explanation for opposition to his gun control agenda. “Republicans don’t pretend that they support sensible gun safety legislation,” he told reporters. “They don’t pretend that they want to keep guns out of the hands of those who might use weapons to shoot concertgoers or movie watchers or worshippers or shoppers or children.”

In Texas, Beto O’Rourke, the Democratic nominee for governor, heckled Gov. Greg Abbott during a press conference about the Uvalde attack. “The time to stop the next shooting is right now,” O’Rourke told Abbott, “and you are doing nothing.”

While the urge to do something after an appalling mass murder is understandable, that does not mean anything will do. “It’s one thing to say that, regardless of the facts, you should just do something,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R–S.D.) observed. “The question is whether something you would do would actually make a difference.” On that score, Democrats’ knee-jerk policy prescriptions seem decidedly unpromising.

As a response to the Uvalde massacre, expanding background checks was a non sequitur. The shooter, who was also killed during the attack, legally bought the Daniel Defense DDM4 V7 rifle he used from a federally licensed dealer, which means he did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record. That was also true of the man charged in the Buffalo case, and it is typically true of mass shooters. According to a 2022 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report on mass public shootings from 1966 through 2019, 77 percent of the perpetrators purchased guns legally, while just 13 percent obtained them through illegal transactions.

Even for the small minority of mass shooters who have disqualifying records, an expanded federal background-check requirement would not pose much of an obstacle. Data from states with similar rules, which in practice require that all firearm sales be completed via licensed dealers, indicate that gun owners generally do not comply with that edict. “Universal background checks” are universal only in theory.

Bans on so-called assault weapons likewise cannot reasonably be expected to have a meaningful impact on mass shootings. Such laws define the category based on functionally unimportant characteristics.

The NIJ study found that 77 percent of mass public shooters used handguns. A quarter of the perpetrators used what the NIJ described as “assault rifles,” meaning they had features targeted by the legislation that Biden favors, such as a pistol grip, a folding stock, a threaded barrel, or a barrel shroud.

A gun without those characteristics, such as the “featureless” rifles that remain legal in states that have banned “assault weapons,” still fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. The proposed federal ban explicitly exempts the Ruger Mini-14 and the Iver Johnson M1 carbine, for example, as long as they do not have prohibited features such as pistol grips or folding stocks.

According to the online manifesto that police attributed to the Buffalo shooter, the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle he used did not qualify as an “assault weapon” when he bought it, because it had been fitted with a fixed magazine. He easily reversed that modification so the gun could accept detachable magazines, and he reportedly used magazines that exceeded New York’s 10-round limit. Although that change had practical implications, other workarounds, such as replacing an adjustable stock with a fixed stock or a pistol grip with a Thordsen grip or a spur grip, allow New Yorkers to legally buy and own AR-15-style rifles like the Bushmaster XM-15 that are functionally identical to prohibited models.

The rifle that the Uvalde shooter used would qualify as an “assault weapon” in New York. But even if Texas had a similar law, the killer would have had many equally lethal alternatives.

Given the arbitrary distinctions they draw, it would be surprising if “assault weapon” bans reduced the frequency or lethality of mass shootings. “When we passed the assault weapons ban [in 1994], mass shootings went down,” Biden averred. “When the law expired [in 2004], mass shootings tripled.” But in a 2020 review of the relevant research, the RAND Corporation deemed the evidence “inconclusive,” saying “assault weapon bans have uncertain effects on mass shootings.”

In a 2017 column that The New York Times republished after the Uvalde shooting, Nicholas Kristof endorsed new firearm restrictions, including expanded background checks. But he noted that “the 10-year ban on assault weapons accomplished little, partly because definitions were about cosmetic features like bayonet mounts” and “partly because even before the ban, such guns were used in only 2 percent of crimes.”

Supporters of “assault weapon” laws frequently seem confused about which guns they want to ban. In a May 18 New York Times column urging Congress to “get rid of the guns,” Gail Collins mentioned “assault rifles” and “the infamous semiautomatic AR-15.” But she also talked about banning “semiautomatic rifles” and “semiautomatics.” In a Times opinion piece published a week later, Mary B. McCord, who served as acting assistant attorney general for national security in the Obama administration, likewise conflated “assault weapons” with “semiautomatic weapons” and “semiautomatic firearms.”

A ban on all “semiautomatic firearms” would be flagrantly unconstitutional, prohibiting myriad guns “in common use” for “lawful purposes,” the category that the Supreme Court has said is covered by the Second Amendment. It would ban many rifles that do not qualify as “assault weapons” and nearly all of the most popular handguns, which the Court described as “the quintessential self-defense weapon.”

Opponents of “assault weapon” bans warn that they are part of a broader, more consequential assault on gun rights. The rhetoric of prohibitionists like Collins and McCord suggests that concern is justified

Categories
All About Guns Cops

How William Fairbairn Created the Modern SWAT Team in Warlord Era Shanghai