Firearm Traces: Pointing Fingers

Bloomberg’s anti-rights propaganda outlet, The Trace, has been looking at the ATF’s 2018 firearm trace data in an attempt to draw some conclusions about the sources of “crime” guns.

Potential Gun Trafficking Hubs Revealed in ATF Data
The aggregate data from those trace reports, analyzed by The Trace, provides a map of the interstate routes that display the most glaring signs of firearms trafficking. The data also bolsters the well-documented pattern of guns flowing from states with loose gun laws to nearby states with stricter ones. (emphasis added)

Meh… not so much. You only see that if you carefully ignore most of the source states (and territories). Continue reading

New Zealand “Buyback” Report: 27,632

Previous reports

Oddly enough, even though the average payout per surrendered firearm has increased by NZ$145.95, Kiwis still seem reluctant to give up their property to authorities who have failed to protect them.

Here are last month’s numbers in comparison to the latest NZP official numbers (10/14/2019).

Cat A banned: 19,184
Cat E banned: 3,126
Total: 22,310
Program cost is averaging NZ$1883.21 per firearm
Estimated total cost at NZ$451,970,400

Cat A Banned: 23,729
Cat E banned: 3,903
Total: 27,632
Program cost is averaging NZ$2029.16 per firearm (up)
Estimated total cost at NZ$486,998,400 (up)

Running Compliance total: 11.51% (using last .gov estimate of 240,000 firearms)

Cat E compliance: 26.92% (using estimate of 14,500 firearms). Nearly 3 in 4 registered owners of registered Cat E firearms are not complying yet.

Projection: They are averaging 2.56% compliance per month, for 4.5 months. I guesstimate 15.35% final compliance if rates remain steady.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)


I’m having a Twitter discussion about the killing of Atatiana Jefferson. For once, it’s a reasonable discussion with someone willing to look up related data. (ferndog, I hope you realize how much I appreciate sanity on Twitter for once. Thank you.) Some things get a little complicated to explain in Twitter-sized bites, thus this blog post.

Said ferndog raises what can be a valid point. I call the killing murder. He says:

Took your advice, looked it up. Since it happened so quickly, intent will be hard to prove. Manslaughter should be open and shut, with the given evidence.

I think he may be mistaking intent for premeditation. In Texas law, intent is the factor that distinguishes between murder and manslaughter.

But intent does not mean the officer planned to kill Atatiana. It doesn’t even mean he decided to kill her in a surge of emotion under pressure.

Intent simply means: 1) he knew he was exercising deadly force, he meant to aim at a person, and he meant to squeeze the trigger. In fact, this was outlined rather well in the trial of Amber Guyger for murdering Botham Jean, which is why the jury rejected the judge’s suggestion of manslaughter; even if she thought she was in her apartment, she meant to shoot the “intruder.” (The question of whether she reasonably could have thought she was in her apartment was a separate issue — that of self defense — and was also rejected by the jury; her alleged belief was not reasonable, given all the cues she claimed to have missed.)

A hunting accident can be manslaughter. He wasn’t wearing an orange vest, so I thought he was a deer, so I shot him (an actual case in Georgia in the ’90s). The intent was to shoot a deer, not a person.

A child or idiot playing with a handgun and negligently discharging a round through a door, striking and killing someone who wasn’t targeted could be manslaughter. (Again, a real case; though complicated by possession of a stolen firearm.)

Another real case, from New Hampshire: informal police training on clearing a building. After the exercise, a sergeant was explaining some fine details and demonstrating. He pointed his sidearm at an officer and pulled the trigger. But he’d forgotten that he’d reloaded after the exercise proper. The officer survived, but that could have turned into a manslaughter charge, versus murder, because, while he meant to aim at a person, and he meant to pull the trigger, he did not mean to discharge a round he — stupidly — didn’t realize was in the chamber. (Actually, I always wondered about that case, but the thin blue line of silence…)

But in Fort Worth… Officer on a nonemergency call for a welfare check.* Instead of checking, he sneaks around the property with gun drawn. He sees a person in a window. He deliberately aims at the person. He begins a verbal command. He shoots the person.

For manslaughter, the officer would have to show at least one of four things.

  • That he didn’t know that the object to which he was giving a verbal command was a person.
  • That he wasn’t aiming at the person that he struck, while addressing that person.
  • That he didn’t realize a round was chambered when he fired.
  • That, even though he was aiming his drawn gun, and shouting at the person, and has already claimed he “perceived a threat,” that he didn’t mean to pull the trigger.

Murder, not manslaughter.

All that said, I expect the department fallback position to be “justifiable homicide,” which is more complicated yet, but also doesn’t apply.

* Yes, the FWPD is already spinning this as dispatch mistakenly coded the nonemergency welfare check call as an “Open Structure” call, in an attempt to give the officer some CYA. Unless they charge the dispatcher with manslaughter too, I don’t buy it. I’ve seen the excuse used so often, in so many jurisdictions, that I strongly suspect it’s a deliberate ass-coving policy to protect trigger-happy cops. And it still doesn’t change the facts of the shooting. The officer deliberately shot an innocent resident in her home.

NZ Buyback: Preliminary October Report

Previous reports

‘Twould appear wise Kiwis are still thumbing their noses at the government’s firearms ban.

As of October 6, 2019, via Stuff.NZ: Continue reading

If the Democrats really wanted to impeach Trump

They had their moment, and they pissed it away.

Instead of investigating and trying to impeach Trump on a bunch of imaginary stuff, and things Obama and Biden did worse, the Dims should have gone after the one truly unconstitutional action he really took…

…and brags about. Continue reading

Senator Kneepads: You can be a felon, or you can be a felon

Delusional presidential hopeful Kamala Harris has a plan that makes me wonder if there’s a federal prosecutors union backing her campaign.

Earlier this year, the habitual liar said she would issue an EO fiat making anyone who sold more than five guns in a year a dealer, requiring an FFL. Apparently she’s upped her game by changing the threshold to four.

This gets interesting because she also wants mandatory “buybacks” of so-called “assault weapons.”

If you’ve bothered to read any of the pending “assault weapon” ban bills, such as HR 1296, you’d know that they cover an awful lot of different firearms. While I can’t speak of what they currently own, I’ve known a lot of people with more than four of the firearms HR 1296 would ban.

Couple a four gun sales limit with mandatory sales of more than four guns, and gun owners are presented with an interesting dilemma: Be federal felon as an unlicensed dealer, or a federal felon for not complying with the ban/buyback? An idea that surely delights federal prosecutors intent on racking up an impressive conviction tally for their political aspirations.

There’s always option 3, which — I swear to Bog — I’m beginning to think these idiots want.

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills, and general life expenses. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

This is a lawyer?

Jay Honohan, whom the Iowa City Press-Citizen alleges is a local attorney, wants him some gun control. Sadly, he’s not very well informed on the subject.

“There is a case holding the government can regulate. It is US v. Miller (1939). In which a unanimous court held against a felon owning a sawed off shotgun. Judge Scalia even cited that case as support for the regulations he mentioned.”

If Honohan is really a lawyer, I fear for his clients’ welfare. Just on MILLER, he is flat wrong on three points. Continue reading