Aurora CO Shooting and Pending Obama/Holder Gun Crackdowns?

by dave on July 26, 2012

Everyone's heard about the shooting at the Theater in Aurora.  Whack job young male with mental instability shoots and murders innocent attendee's at the Batman premier in Colorado.  His weapons included a Remington 870 shotgun (12 ga.), a modified AR .223 rifle, and two Glock .40 caliber handguns. 

This hits close to home for me.  Literally, I'm a Colorado native and I live about 35 miles from the theater.  This is my community, my home, and my neighbors. 

It's no secret that the Obama Administration has a long standing mission / policy to curtail the 2nd amendment and crack down on gun owners.  He's been relatively silent on the issue with regards to the Aurora incident, likely due to it being an election year.  He has little to win with vocalizing his disdain for firearms (Illinois and his former campaign chief Rahm Emanuel are the posterboy for removing your right to defend yourself and has the nation's strictest gun laws, particularly with regards to conceal & carry but even transport of otherwise legal firearms.  Interesting that Chicago now has the most stringent gun laws in the nation and now has one of the highest murder rates in the nation — criminals have them, law abiding families can't.  Ridiculous.) 

That's what has me worried.  Incidents like these rightfully force us to question what could have been done to prevent the actions.  Unfortunately, the focus will likely be solely on the firearms, and not on the process, warning signs, or mental markup of the individual and safeguards that could have been in place.  Caveat – I certainly don't claim to have all the background on the shooter. 

Let's look at his background and actions.  James Holmes had no criminal background.  He had 1 speeding ticket.  That's all.

aurora shooter james holmesHe was a doctorate medical student.  He was over 21.  He had no felonies, or drug/alcohol convictions.  No spousal abuse claims (only a claim is necessary to block your background check – which is pretty open to abuse if you ask me, but I understand the intent).  So none of the safeguards in place for legal background checks caused any red flags.

That's the point.  Sometimes events will happen that are from a process perspective unpreventable.  We do make reasonable trade-offs for the purpose of individual rights and liberty.  We've given away some of those liberties with the Patriot Act.  You compromise a degree of personal privacy due to security when you fly (it's a privledge, not a right).  And yes, we do make trade offs on the 2nd amendment too.  What else would you propose, a mandatory mental evaluation prior to issuance of a background check?  No thank you – that put's FAR too much power in the hands of the government in what should be considered a "shall issue" measure. 

How about mental incarceration or psych provisions?  Maybe, there could be some limited more extreme considerations done here, but you tread carefully on privacy laws.  Where would you draw the line?  Your sister or friend who suffers from bipolar?  Maybe if they were ever hospitalized?  What if it was self admitted and not compulsory stay?  Yes, it gets very complicated.

So where do you think this will go?  My guess is AG Eric Holder (yes, the contempt of Congress laden AG we have in office today) and the Obama administration will begin to tighten around several areas.  First, what they label as "Assault Rifles".  That's a whole other discussion outside this thread.  Second they'll look to eliminate what they will label as "high capacity magazines" and categorize anyone who uses them as unreasonable.  Yes, that will eventually include even things like your 13 round magazine in your Glock.  That too is an infringement on your rights, but they'll do it with a story of "protecting the citizens and neighbors". 

(note: Holder photo source from http://blog.jonolan.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/holder-contempt.jpg)

Lastly, they'll begin to try and control ammunition.  More on that later too.  This will come after the elections, should they prevail. 

Politics aside (by the way, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat – I'm Libertarian) why am I running down this path on a Glock / handgun forum?  Because what happens in the election matters on the issue of firearms and self protection, target shooting, and hunting.  I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and feel an informed, trained, public is the best way to promote safety and to protect yourself, your family, and your way of life.  It's also an inherent deterrent against tyranny. 

In the case of the shooting in Aurora, and other events, sometimes there is no clear new "rules" or "laws" which would have caused a magical prevention of the event.  At least I don't see any, not in the form of gun control anyway.  Intervention, mental health interaction, and other acts – hell ya those should be reviewed and that's where the real cause and opportunity at intervention is.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: