“I take my family into the city quite often, but I’m at the point where I’m ready to boycott the city of Chicago. That someone can’t go to Millennium Park … This scumbag is out on the street when he should be in jail. Instead … now, my friend is dead, his life is gone.”
Below, you’ll find the Reasoning & Rationale to what we call a Bill-Request. Once certain milestones are met, as defined HERE, lawyers will be called upon to draft what will then become a Bill-Demand to Congress and the President.
Published in 2015, updated in 2016
This Guns & Jobs bill-request is about advancing employment and creating millions of new jobs in relation to a sound firearms policy that both respects gun rights and ensures the public safety, assuring the security of our school-going children especially. Gun rights are a divisive issue, although they don’t have to be — we intend to convince you of that, as best we can, up ahead.
But, first, in the interests of disclosure, let’s get something out there about those of us who work here at Main Street Gov: There are some amongst us who’ve never owned, let alone fired a gun, and then there are others who own several firearms each. All of us who own firearms have concealed-carry permits. One of those concealed-carry permit-holders is a young woman who acts in an administrative capacity and moves in-between locations for us, in sometimes a nightshift. None of us who carry a concealed pistol have ever had to draw or discharge a weapon in self-defense, and hopefully it stays that way till it’s time for each of us to leave this existence peacefully.
While we understand the legitimate concerns of gun lobbies regarding universal background checks and gun registration, and the possible misuse of such information, by government, for confiscation of legitimately acquired & owned firearms in the future, for the record all of us who work here:
- have undergone N.I.C.S. background checks with every purchase
- (for those of us who are Nevada residents) we’ve registered all guns with Nevada authorities, per Nevada state law until such law was struck down in 2015
- (for those of us who’ve acquired silencers/suppressors) we’ve done all that’s demanded by the A.T.F.
For reasons that’ll reflect the reality that history repeats itself — and we’ll shed a bright light on what we mean by that in the details to come — America is the only nation on earth to have a wide swathe of it that recognizes the right of law abiding individuals, of eligible age, to not just legally buy guns but also carry them on their person, to defend themselves if need be from assailants who present a mortal threat or a threat of great bodily harm. In this wide swathe, are what are called “shall-issue” states.
If, however, there’s discretion of local authorities involved in the granting of a concealed firearms permit (CFP), then you’re more than likely dealing with a “may-issue” state.
While New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, California, and the District of Columbia are technically “may-issue,” in that they may issue you a CFP provided you demonstrate “good cause” for such issuance, CFP’s are — for the ordinary, but NOT the extraordinary — near impossible to secure in New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington DC with Wikipedia adding in context that: “In these locations, the definition of ‘good cause’ is generally limited to specific and immediate threats on an applicant’s life that cannot be mitigated by any other means.” Unfortunately, as we’ve hinted in the disparity invariably separating ordinary from extraordinary, that’s not quite the case, in that it does not tell the whole picture. Because, if you happened to be a wealthy individual and a potential or past donor to a powerful politician in New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Washington DC, your chances of getting a CFP are pretty damn good actually, provided (that is) you haven’t beaten up your spouse too badly, recently, and got caught for it.
Yep, as you can see once again, here and elsewhere on Main Street Gov, the 0.1%, in particular, are subject to a different set of ‘rules’ than the 99.9% — especially in New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington DC, where the deep-pocketed and politically-connected elites have either bodyguards or permits, or both, to protect them.
Look no further than Donald Trump and his family — they’ve had both bodyguards and permits to protect them, even before there was any election.
In New York (where a few of us have lived in years past), we know a number of residents who have carry concealed permits, and they all got the same combo in common — gobs of money and/or lots of political honey.
So, yes, in their world, guns are for the 0.1% — in their world, the other 99.9% should learn karate.
While this advice would apply equally to the other metropolises we mentioned earlier, for those of you in Chicago who’ve inundated the city’s Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board with lawsuits for denial of a license to carry without reason, cause, or justification for the denial, here’s a recommendation: figure out a way to find out who did get approved, who did get licensed, and who did end up with concealed-carry permits, then match that up with income/net worth, political connections, and campaign contribution history, and you should end up with a pattern that you can take to court in class action, and win. Discrimination, based on wealth and/or “having friends in high places” should, in any decent society, have no place infringing upon the right to protect oneself with, if necessary, the use of lethal force.
A not so minor reminder: The Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” inherently bestows the right to bear arms, meaning on one’s person — there’s nothing in there that says you have to be in your house, or property, to be bestowed that right.
While we may vary individually in firearms experience here at Main Street Gov, all of us still agree that certain gun rights need to be protected to the last breath, for they are inalienable rights. That said, we would also submit that gun violations of every kind need to be prosecuted far more strenuously, and then punished far more severely. And, yes, we do have a solution to the complication of prison-overcrowding that it could exacerbate. We’ll get to that, later. But, for now, consider the following abomination, from the annals of extreme miscarriage of justice:
Barack Obama bemoans gun violence at every political opportunity, yet we find his court appointments (who are, in general, fierce gun-control advocates) extending inordinate leniency to criminals caught committing serious firearms-procurement crimes. On Nov 2 2015, we even came across an instance of a devastatingly consequential firearms-procurement crime going entirely unpunished — this being the case before U.S. District Judge Eleanor Louise Ross, nominated to serve on the bench by the President in Dec 2013, who sentenced a Jalita Johnson to 40 hours of community service, 180 days of house arrest, and one year of probation, after she straw-purchased a handgun, a 50-round drum magazine, and a plentiful supply of 9mm ammunition, for boyfriend Marcus Wheeler, someone she knew to be a violent convicted felon, who then went on to use the weapon to kill Omaha (Nebraska) Police Officer Kerrie Orozco as she served a warrant; Ms. Orozco, a mother to a newborn daughter, was only hours away from beginning maternity leave. (In her honor, we have this picture of her HERE.)
Understandably, Ms. Orozco’s loved ones and the Omaha Police Department were left distraught by the legal outcome — which was, in essence, a slap on the wrist. Said O.P.D. Chief Todd Schmaderer: “[T]he court missed an opportunity to make a bold statement.” We’d be far less diplomatic about it and say: “In handing down, and standing by this ridiculous and insulting sentence, the Justice Department, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia (where this federal crime was prosecuted), Judge Eleanor Ross, and by way of his endorsement & appointment of this judge, President Obama, just told the Jalita Johnsons of America that devastatingly consequential firearms-related crimes will be dealt with the same severity accorded to an act of shoplifting.
Think about it. If one person drives another to commit an armed robbery of (say) a convenience store, and he/she stays in the car while the other goes in with the gun, and a clerk is shot dead in the act — because the gun went off by accident, whatever — the driver can still be charged with felony murder. That he/she did not even participate in the holdup, much less set off the trigger, is irrelevant — a murder was committed as a result of the driver’s felonious role-play as a getaway. A life sentence, could be in order. Jalita Johnson’s role in the execution of Ms. Orozco is, in our eyes, little or no different from the driver’s here, except Jalita got to stay home and do community service for it. Disgrace!
Understand that there are federal sentencing laws, relating to firearms violations, that are in the books already. The problem is, lots of big cities especially, and large metropolises in particular, do NOT enforce them. (Chicago, America’s deadliest city, has the distinction of ranking at the very bottom of an almost bottomless list — showing up as 90th out of 90 cities evaluated — for enforcement of federal gun laws, by the way. More on that in a bit.) Among the federal sentencing laws that are routinely un-enforced, are the following:
- 18 U.S.C. § 922[g][1-9] prohibiting certain individuals from possessing firearms, ammunition, or explosives. Sentence for violation: 10 years imprisonment.
- 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) mandates (depending on specific circumstances) 5-year, 7-year, 10-year, and 30-year minimum sentences for possessing, brandishing, or discharging a gun in the course of a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence. There are also mandatory minimum sentences of 25 years for each subsequent conviction. The law requires that these mandatory prison terms be “stacked” or served consecutively and not concurrently, meaning served back-to-back.
- 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) or “The Armed Career Criminal Act” mandates a 15-year minimum for anyone who possesses a gun or ammunition and also has three prior convictions for drug trafficking or violent felonies.
Now, keep those items in mind as you read this:
On Sep 24 2016, in the city of Chicago, an exchange of words between Peter Fabbri, a 54 year old father of two, and Paul Pagan — a 32 year old gang member, arrested an incredible 39 times, convicted 4 times for felonies that included a 2015 conviction for assault with a deadly weapon and, at the time of the incident on that fateful day in September, a fugitive from justice for felony aggravated assault with a firearm — resulted in Pagan pulling out a gun and shooting Mr. Fabbri in the torso and the head, rendering him brain-dead. Fabbri had been at a wine-tasting event with his sister and his girlfriend only a short time before he was attacked near the Windy City’s otherwise trendy Millennium Park. Captured soon after, the gangster was charged with first degree murder after Mr. Fabbri was pulled off life support. By Sep 27, an editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times, entitled “more blood in the news cries out for saner gun laws,” wondered why Illinois did not have a law that would’ve kept Pagan off the streets that day, given the length and depth of his rap sheet, forgetting that there was enacted federal law negating the need for state law. Long story short, Mr. Fabbri would still be alive had city officials in Chicago enforced existing federal law. He’d still be working at his boss Matt Lativsky’s coating business in the suburbs. Mr. Lativsky had this to say about the tragic loss of life of his “friend” and the “scumbag” that took it:
Here’s how we see it from the perspective of enhanced punishment:
You can’t have a felon, found guilty of a violent crime, and convicted next of the federal firearms violation of being a felon-in-possession, getting out of jail in a couple of years — such an infraction should carry a mandatory sentence of 20 years flat.
You can’t have a straw buyer, fronting to buy a gun for an extremely high-risk individual, getting off with a light sentence — should also be 20 years flat if the end-user is an ex-con convicted of a violent crime, or a provenly dangerous sociopath, and known to be either by the straw buyer.
Should be 15 years mandatory for passing a firearm onto someone known:
- to have acute anger management issues, to have exhibited uncontrollable rages, to have shown an obsessive compulsive disorder in which aggression factors heavily
- to be afflicted by psychopathic mental illness, or to be suffering from recurrent bouts of deep depression aggravated by grave addiction
- to have expressed a desire of wanting to do harm to others — that expression could have been made on his or her Facebook page, or other social media, in his or her emails and texts, or in his or her spoken word
Should be 10 years mandatory for (knowingly) passing a firearm onto:
- anyone convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year
- anyone that is a fugitive from justice
- any person subject to a court order issued after a hearing attended by that person, which order restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or partner’s child, and which order includes a finding that the person is a credible threat to such partner or partner’s child
- anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
- anyone dishonorably discharged from the military
Should be 5 years mandatory for (knowingly) passing a firearm onto:
- an alien who is unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa
- someone who’s renounced his or her U.S. citizenship
In Sep 2015, Raleigh, North Carolina, News & Observer writer Ned Barnett would pen a piece entitled “Legal Guns Fuel Criminal Gunfire” to promote the thesis being increasingly espoused by the gun-control crowd — that guns being stolen from civilians, from their cars and homes, are the mother-lode-source of the guns making their way into the hands of criminals, and — thus — that legally acquired & stored firearms are the problem. Barnett went on to say that it would be “unfair” to lock perpetrators up for too long in prison for just “breaking into a car,” especially in light of the fact that the owner of the car gets off without any culpability. Or, as Barnett sees it, why should the perp have to get in so much trouble, when the victim (with the God-awful “Glock in the glove compartment”) gets to walk, scot-free? Let us address this most twisted logic, as follows:
- No, we need not lock perpetrators up for extended durations for just “breaking into a car” and stealing a purse and a cell phone. BUT, we should lock them up for a very long time for “breaking into a car” and stealing a purse, a cell phone, AND A GUN! If it’s 6 months in jail for the former offense, and 20 years in a federal penitentiary for the latter, more than likely the perp will take the purse and cell phone and leave the gun behind.
- A gun in a car can save a life, of especially a young woman targeted by a sexual predator, a carjacker looking to forcibly enter the vehicle at a traffic light gone red at a quiet intersection, a kidnapper looking to rape and kill the young woman after his abduction of her at a secluded parking lot. Think that doesn’t happen often enough to warrant keeping a gun in a car for self-defense? In all the countless numbers of young women who’ve gone missing inexplicably (i.e. leaving true loved ones behind), who have only Missing Persons reports left behind now to their names, many did not just run away.
Not that he’d listen, but if we could give Barnett a pointer, we suggest he move to California, where we hear they just amended state criminal statutes, sometime in 2015, to reduce the charge for ‘theft of a firearm’ from a felony, down to a misdemeanor.
Look, the most significant impediment to criminal intent, and its escalation to the commission of a grievously profound crime, is deterrence. At the heart of deterrence, is punishment. If aggravated murder (kidnapping, rape, and killing of a child, for example) were not a capital offense, punishable by death, we’d probably encounter more of it. We’ve seen so much leniency in sentencing, since gun-control advocates took power, that we’ve come to wonder: Who are they trying to protect with their gun-control agenda?
This Guns & Jobs bill-request is just 1 in our total of 24 bill-requests. In many of the other 23, we’ve documented how corruption has overtaken just about every facet of public $ervice (yes, the $ sign in public $ervice is intentional). To preserve that cash flow, percolating to and fro between Wall Street, K Street, and Washington DC, and to shore-up the insolvent systemic banks that largely supply that cash flow, the Establishment has had to encroach upon the Constitutional Rights of the People. So in asking the question ‘who are they trying to protect with their gun-control agenda’, we’re being dragged to the conclusion that it is not the public they’re trying to protect, but themselves and the bankers that — by accounting & securities deceit and fraud — finance them, as they first chip away at the Rights of the People with an intent to rip away at them next. (Those deceits & frauds, and the revolving doors they furnish, have been amply recorded here and here.)
So, who’s gonna pay for firearms violators being incarcerated for much longer terms of 10, 15, and 20 years? Not gun violence prone cities that are broke, like Chicago, obviously. So, it’s gotta be the federal government. The feds have had no qualms deploying trillions of dollars to save criminally culpable bankers on Wall Street — and nor will they at the next banking crisis that we’ve projected for around Thanksgiving time 2017 (again, it’s all spelled out here and here) — therefore, what’s a few billion to build enough prisons to house firearms violators for stretches that deter?
Turning all gun-related crimes over to federal jurisdiction, is a thought.
As Americans, we agree that mass surveillance/recording of our telephone calls and internet posts, is wrong, but the fact is that it’s happening whether we like it or not. Every murderer leaves an imprint to his or her mental state and motive, either on a phone call or an internet post, all of which are recorded by the National Security Agency — and don’t believe it, if they tell you otherwise. Would it not be a good idea then to seek out such imprints if they are clearly and irrefutably pointing to an impending act of murder or mass murder that can be independently verified by (ideally) the Special Inspector General that we called for, for oversight of the NSA, in this Bill-Request?
It might be a debate the country needs to have, especially if violence flares into a fast down-turning economy. For privacy advocates, like us, the debate will be a tough one. But in light of what’s going on instead, which is that we have domestic spies engaged in warrantless espionage targeting peaceful/lawful citizens of the United States, it might not be that tough after all.
Ladies and Gentlemen, whether you are for or against gun control, or for “sensible gun control” to use the politically correct term bandied about by politicians looking not to alienate gun-rights voters, what’s up ahead is going to be much more than about rights and permits only, it’s also going to be about what we see ‘through the windshield’ for the Second Amendment, what we propose as solutions to (among other things) the rampages where innocents have been mass slaughtered in so-called “Gun Free” zones — that should ALSO be “Gun Safe” zones if they must be gun-free!
John Lott is a gun rights advocate we have no affiliation or any adherence to (we’d not even heard of the guy until Aug 7 2015 when James Holmes — the mass murderer in the Aurora Colorado movie theater massacre — was spared the death penalty). A Ph.D. in Economics from UCLA, Lott’s resumé includes teaching gigs at Yale, Wharton, and the University of Chicago. The 2014 report from The Crime Prevention Research Center, co-authored by Dr. Lott and Rebekah Riley is the subject of our next discussion. While we’ve not independently verified the following to be true about James Holmes — who killed 12 and wounded 70 to set a national record for the greatest number of casualties inflicted in such a cowardly attack — if the following is true (and we have specific plans to find out if it is), it should serve as an epiphany to all, be they for or against gun control:
Per Lott and Riley:
[Mr. Holmes] lived within a 20-minute drive of 7 movie theaters that were showing the premier of the Batman movie. He could have simply chosen the theater that was closest to his apartment, or the one with the largest auditoriums in the state [to maximize his head-count]. Instead, he picked the single theater where guns were banned and the victims would be defenseless.
Provided we are not obstructed by the warden of the prison that Mr. Holmes is locked up in, we’d like to ask the question, as to whether the aforementioned by Lott & Riley is true or not, directly of the killer. Thus, we’ve put a jailhouse interview with Holmes on our agenda.
A number of us at Main Street Gov have daughters. They often leave us at 18 years of age to move on with their lives, with love for us in their hearts. May they always be protected, wherever they go. This Bill-Request thus asks that women of adult age, constitutionally endowed to vote at 18, be granted (with appropriate training) the right to carry-conceal a firearm for their protection from those cowards who may target them because they are assumed to be the weaker sex.
A permit’s minimum age requirement of 21 years might be okay for men, but not for women. Women are smarter than men at 18 anyway — so let’s give our loved ones, our stronger sex, the power to defend themselves from those lowlives who may attempt to prey on them.
Reminding you of something we said up-top: This Guns & Jobs bill-request will at its core be about advancing employment and creating many millions of new jobs in relation to a sound firearms policy that both respects gun rights and ensures the public safety, assuring the security of our school-going children especially. The link to all that, awaits you below.
You’ve just read the short description to the Reasoning & Rationale for this Bill-Request. If that’s enough for you to vote in support of it, please do. If there’s more you’d like to have to make up your mind, then you’ll find the long description HERE.