Update no.823

Update from the Heartland

No.823

2.10.17 – 8.10.17

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- Beyond the scale of the Las Vegas massacre [822], there are a number of related issues raised by the evolving extraordinary facts associated with this incident.

            The video clips indicated the shooter used one or more automatic rifles and multiple large capacity magazines.  After writing some of this, law enforcement released a few of the images from that hotel room.  He used several similar 5.56mm long rifles with special large capacity magazines and modified with the bump stock from Bump Fire Systems, which makes a semi-automatic rifle function as if in automatic, i.e., multiple shots with ONE trigger pull.  Actually, the bump stock works by using the rifle’s recoil to move the trigger mechanism back into the trigger finger, causing another trigger pull, which is why many people say it functions “like an automatic weapon.”  To my knowledge, he purchased the rifles, magazines and bump stock modification kits legally.

            From various Press reports, the ATF was asked 20+ years ago to decide whether bump stocks were legal.  I heard a retired ATF agent who was active and familiar with the judgment.  He answered the question, “It is legal to purchase and possess bump stock; it is illegal to use them.”  Go figure!  Automatic firearms have been illegal since 1934 {National Firearms Act of 1934 [PL 73-474; 48 Stat. 1236; 26.6.1934]}.  The law did not stop this killer.  Further, the bump stock modification certainly circumvents the law.  Whether the weapon in automatic or “like” automatic, there are zero questions in my little pea-brain that those video clips from that night sounded like automatic weapons fire.  Full stop!

            Late in the week, law enforcement disclosed the note found in the room was actually trajectory calculations for what he intended to do.  The accumulation of more than a dozen of specifically modified rifles along with that note tell me that we can eliminate a spur-of-the-moment, emotional, crime of passion by the shooter.  What we have is a carefully planned and meticulously executed event to kill a lot of people.  What we do not know is . . . why?  For several days, I thought it could be a form of retribution for the casinos enabling his gambling habit; however, Press reports indicate that he was winning even the days before the attack and that he made a good chunk of his wealth from gambling.  So, the retribution hypothesis seems largely implausible.  Persistent “rumors” pop up of a religious motive . . . based predominately upon the repeated ISIL claim of responsibility, i.e., a jihadi-inspired terrorist event.  I understand ISIL seeking credit for the worst mass murder in U.S. history, however, to date, no evidence of any connection or affiliation have been disclosed.  There are also no signs of mental illness or incapacity to my knowledge.  This one remains baffling, kinda like MH370 [638] – designed and intended to remain an enigma.

            This event brightly illuminates a series of deficiencies in the current law.  The law must be improved to eliminate all work-around modifications that enable automatic or automatic like fire, to prohibit silencers or any device to mask the firing report, to prohibit any design or modification to minimize or eliminate the muzzle flash, and prohibit possession of large caliber firearms, e.g., pistols greater than 45-caliber and rifles above 30-caliber.  We could get more specific on charge grains relative to projectile mass, but that is a more technical topic.  I would also like to see the United States get serious about mental illness and treatment, and the creation of a national registry of those deemed by due process to be below the threshold for firearm ownership, and such registry to be yes or no accessible by a federal background check system.

P.S.: It appears the website for Bump Fire Systems of Moran, Texas, has been taken off-line, as of Tuesday this week, supposedly because of high demand for its principle product.

-- The National Rifle Association (NRA) [758] on Thursday signaled it would not oppose restrictions on bump stocks.  The NRA declared devices like bump stocks “should be subject to additional regulations.”  Wonder of wonders, we might actually make some progress in improving the law regarding firearms in this Grand Republic.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.822:

Comment to the Blog:

“There will never be a ‘proper time and place’ for public protest that suits those who fear change.  It's just not going to happen.  In any case, the purpose of the NFL protests has nothing to do with either the flag or the national anthem.  The timing is a way to get attention without violence.

“As far as ‘disrespect for the flag,’ first of all, kneeling has never been disrespectful.  Kneeling before anyone or anything is mostly a sign of submission or grieving, not of defiance. Beyond that, here are a couple of references: 

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/chapter-1

“It seems disrespect is more commonly things like making T-shirts with the flag.  Both references point out that they are guidelines, not enforceable laws.  The spirit and the letter of the Constitution allow disrespect because that is part of free speech.  (Are we more concerned with the American ideals or the symbol of those ideals?)  That said, the First Amendment allows a high degree of control over employees' speech to private employers in situations where employees represent the employer, and that is established law.  I have experienced that in customer service work.  For example, no customer service person can tell a customer they are an ignorant pig, no matter how true that is.  Perhaps the NFL owners let a few people be offended by protests against police brutality rather than upset their most valuable assets, their players and fans.

“It's too soon for a thoughtful comment on the horror in Las Vegas.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: those who fear change.  Agreed!  Fortunately, the Constitution and established law mentions nothing about and allows for restrictions of freedom of speech based on fear of change.  The NFL protests have nothing to do with the flag or the national anthem . . . I believe I stated that very point.

            Re: kneeling versus flag burning.  I believe the latter is far worse than the former for several reasons.  My only point for raising the Supreme Court’s rulings on flag burning was to that end, i.e., flag-burning is protected free speech, so it is not and cannot be the speech that is objectionable . . . the time & place is based on their employment.

            Why the NFL chose not to act in the original Kaepernick act (2016) is baffling to me.  The NFL’s failure set the stage for what has happened this year, i.e., they failed to enforce their rules, which established precedent for further violations of their rules.  Your customer service experience is directly applicable and appropriate.

            Re: Las Vegas.  Indeed, far too early.  There is a reason or reasons he did what he did.  I want to know why.  Law Enforcement appears to be making rapid progress in the investigation.

 . . . Round two:

“Where we differ on the NFL is that you seem upset that they did not enforce their rules.  I'm not. The NFL owners can make those decisions for the same reason that customer service supervisors or managers can basically tell a customer to go away.  The good of the organization (i.e., profitability) can sometimes be served by letting a particular customer or group of customers go away.  The NFL revolves around players and fans. That's what makes the money.  If those players are concerned about police brutality so much that it affects their actions, the NFL has to pay attention.  If enough fans support the players, the owners' response will be dictated by the necessity of keeping the participation of those players and the support of their fans.  That's capitalism.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            First, I’m not upset.  We are discussing / debating a contemporary issue of our day.

            Second, by the NFL’s inaction, they have de facto sanctioned any form of protest any player, coach, owner or employee chooses to exercise.  As such, the rest of us just need to shut up and accept whatever their employees choose to do.

            Third, I’m tired of his topic.

            Fourth, I choose to close with affirmation of my support for the NFL employees protesting police misconduct in the use of excessive force, causing injury to our citizens without probable cause and due process.

            Fifth, and most importantly, I want those citizens who feel compelled to resist a law enforcement officer’s instructions, to comply and deal with police misconduct in the proper manner.  Resistance will be met with force and rightly so.  Placing law enforcement further at risk in the name of political correctness is simply unacceptable.

 . . . Third round:

“Your second paragraph has no basis in reality.

“I'm tired of most of these topics. Please remove me from the blog mailing list.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            My most humble apologies.  I mistakenly used a possessive pronoun rather than the intended demonstrative pronoun, and my mistake made my comment appear personal rather than indirect.  My comment was actually meant to the fellow in the Oval Office (or at least supposed to be in the Oval Office), not toward you in any form or manner.  Without you, I would rarely have any contributions from readers.  I missed my mistake during my edit before hitting SEND.  Again, my apologies.

            Re: “Your second paragraph has no basis in reality.”  Why so?  Seems rather obvious to me.

            Re: “remove me.”  I try to respect the wishes of my friends.  You have been the most consistent and frequent contributor to this humble forum.  I fear your request may have been a knee-jerk reaction to my mistake noted above.  If so, I would suggest we table your request for a few days.  I’ll check back with you at the end of the week.  If you still feel the same, then I shall honor your request.

            Again, please accept my apologies.

 . . . Round four:

“The notion that making an exception to a stated rule on one occasion eliminates the rule for any purpose doesn't hold water. It's an example of the "slippery slope" fallacy. For example, police officers rarely issue speeding tickets for speeds less than 5 mph over the posted limit. They still issue plenty of tickets for higher speeds and they retain the authority to issue a ticket for even 1 mph over the limit. Making an exception to a rule does not invalidate the rule.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            “Making an exception to a rule does not invalidate the rule.”  Quite correct.  However, it does open the potential of precedent.  The Supreme Court has used that metric more than a few times.  Selective or non-enforcement of a law by the Executive diminishes the strictness of the law.  Just a thought . . .

 . . . Round five:

“We're not discussing Federal cases here, just whether a sports organization can do selective enforcement.  As with traffic laws, most enforcement is selective, often even more so in private industry than in government.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            Again, quite so.  My only purpose in raising SCOTUS reasoning is the interpretation of law.

Another contribution:

“We are as I’m certain you are in deep shock and horror over the recent shooting. You know my views and those of most Englishmen on arms so I will not ‘go on’.  I have heard it said here that if your nation does nothing about the general availability of weapons and copious amounts of ammunition then every American subject will have ‘blood on their hands.’”

My reply:

            Yes; it seems every time one of these events occurs, we enter into this discussion.  So far, with the limited information we have available to us in the public domain, this particular event appears to be outside the usual causal factors.

            The easy perceived answer is to restrict weapon ownership.  It appears to have worked in other societies.  I just cannot imagine it working in this Grand Republic – history is too deep.  I would like to see common sense gun regulation.  The nonsense currently consuming public debate since last weekend is the foolishness over bump stocks.  Automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934.  How the ATF could interpret law to decide possession is legal, use is illegal, is beyond my comprehension.  Anything and everything related to or associated with automatic weapons is and should be illegal.  Any feature or accessory to make weapons less detectible, e.g., flash suppressors or silencers, should be illegal as well.  If hunters want to save their hearing, wear ear protection.  Yet, at the bottom line, we must not outlaw the tools for the misuse of a deranged man.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)