A closer look at the 'Common Sense' gun laws

I’m not an asshole, at least I don’t try to be, but sometimes my posts can come off a bit snarky at times. I blame it on the NY’er in me and my sometimes failing attempt at humor, at least that’s what my loving wife calls it.

The reality is that I try to be as open as possible when it comes to other’s positions, but lately it seems as if all that happens in ‘discussions’ is an inevitable breakdown in communication which usually leads to such name calling as: Liberal Lunatic, Teabagger, etc..  Once that occurs, civil discussion goes right out the window.

Now as we get ready to close the book on 2015, and move into the last year of the President's term, It is anticipated that he will make a move to bi-pass Congress and begin enacting some form of gun control through Executive Action, which is a topic for another day.

So I decided that I would try and take a revised look at this whole ‘common sense’ gun law thing and explain the reasons why I believe this is not realistic.

So what exactly are the new ‘common sense’ gun laws that folks on the left are proposing?

1.        Re-authorize the Assault Weapons Ban
2.       Stricter background checks
3.        Close the gun show loophole
4.        Denying guns to folks on the terror ‘no fly’ list.
5.       Ban large capacity magazines
6.       Ban fully automatic weapons

I’m even willing to go out on a limb and throw in the old stand-by:

1. No one is trying to confiscate your guns

For the record, I spent twenty-two years in law enforcement. I tend to be one of the folks that believe in the law and, more importantly, that our laws should be enforced. So you would think that I would be in favor of these ‘common sense’ gun laws, but I’m not and here is the reason why.

The Assault Weapons ban of 1994 restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons except for: a) those already in lawful possession at the time of the law's enactment; b) 660 rifles and shotguns listed by type and name; c) permanently inoperable, manually operated, or antique firearms; rifles unable to accept a detachable magazine of more than five rounds; d) shotguns unable to hold more than five rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine; e) and those made for, transferred to, or owned by the U.S. government or a U.S. law enforcement agency.

The ban had outlined specific cosmetic features that would classify a firearm as an assault weapon. For example, rifles and shot guns could not have folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mounts (my particular favorite, it was just a small little hunk of metal for crying-out-loud), flash suppressors or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor (why, what was so inherently wrong with trying to cut down on muzzle flash?). The bill also went so far as banning an attachable grenade launcher. (Really? Another obscure little hunk of metal bites the dust).

The problem is that the ban defined the term ‘semi-automatic assault weapon,’ which is commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round with each trigger pull. It was sort of a political shell game, because the term assault weapon was also commonly used to refer to some military weapons. The similar, but more technical accurate assault rifle, referred to military rifles capable of selective fire (Fully automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire). What they didn’t tell you was that these weapons are considered Title II weapons and were already regulated by the National FirearmsAct of 1934 and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Neither the original ban, nor its expiration, changed the legal status of automatic firearms.

The reality is that the Assault Weapons Ban should be referred to as the Spooky Weapons Ban, because it is consistently portrayed in the media that way. Essentially, if it looks evil then it is evil. Unfortunately, it is tantamount to slapping a Lamborghini emblem onto a Prius and claiming it is a sports car.

Now, I can understand this confusion with the public. The fact is that our president doesn’t even understand it. After the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama referred to the weapon used as being fully automatic and he also seems to think that there is no apparent difference between assault weapons and machine guns. Likewise so does Hillary Clinton, who in 2008 called for sensible regulations to “keep machine guns away from folks who shouldn't have them” and has continued to champion for more restrictions. I guess our much vaunted former Secretary of State hasn’t heard of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Interesting enough, after the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Gail Collins, of the New York Times, said that "the San Bernardino murderers were wielding assault rifles, with which they were able to fire an estimated 65-75 bullets in rapid succession." Collins also said that these assault weapons are "the armament of choice for mass shootings." The truth is they aren’t, as you will see in a moment. Collins was factually incorrect on both issues. So if the politicians and the press get it wrong, you can understand why the average citizen is confused.

How exactly did the much touted original ban workout? Well, not so well. Several academic studies, including the NRC, determined that the ban showed no clear impact on gun violence. The fact is that the pre-ban use of these types of weapons was rare to begin with. Their position was that, should the ban be reinstated, that  “its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as ‘assault rifles’ or ‘assault weapons’, are rarely used in gun crimes.” A position which I can personally attest too, based on my career in law enforcement.

So, if a new ban won’t work, perhaps stricter background checks would. Ok, I’m going to take a step out onto the ledge here and say “psst….. I agree”. Okay, get up off the floor, it isn’t that shocking. In fact, I think a lot of folks would say that they feel as if there should be more stringent checks. The problem here is who is going to do it and what will it encompass? Right now, each state has their own criteria. I agree that should be amended, but you have to be intellectually honest and admit that the federal government doesn’t exactly shine here. Consider for just a moment that some of the 9/11 hijackers overstayed their visas. The Boston Marathon bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was known to the FBI and was even being investigated for a triple homicide. One of the San Bernardino shooters, Tashfeen Malik, who came here on a K-1 visa and was fully vetted, but the address she gave in Pakistan was non-existent. Neither her, nor her husband, had any criminal record nor were either of them on any terrorist watch list. Now granted, while these are notorious examples, they still serve as a reminder that simply saying that people are ‘checked’ doesn’t really mean a lot. Let’s not forget that the agency you would think would be able to be the keeper of records, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, doesn’t exactly have a stellar record of being able to track guns used in their own sting operation.

But let’s just say that we somehow came up with an all-powerful, all-knowing, federal agency that could handle it. What should be on it? Or maybe we could come up with a list of those who shouldn’t be on it. Persons arrested for violent felonies? Yeah, that’s a good start, but wait, should it be arrested for or convicted of? What about the man (or woman, in this PC world we live in) who beats up/ threatens their spouse. That’s kinda clear cut, except when the spouse is lying. Believe me, it happens a lot. So should that person lose their firearm? Some on the left believe this doesn’t happen, but it does. Who decides when they get it back? Maybe if they are acquitted, that sounds good. But wait, what happens if the spouse decides to retract her allegation? If she / he says they lied, then the person should get their firearms back, right? What if she / he is lying about lying? This also happens, a LOT.

What about mental health? Oh wait, they are already excluded. Yeah, you say, but that’s not working. Okay, I see your point. Let’s create a database so we can flag them. Hold on, can’t do that, federal privacy laws. Wait, you mean that the same federal government that calls for more in-depth background checks won’t allow mental health to be included? Yep.

Let’s take those wild and wacky Texans for example. You know that radical right state that seems to love everything bigger and better. Over one million folks a year buy a gun in Texas and get the required background check. The checks look at a person’s criminal history, but not always their mental health record. You see, in Texas, court ordered commitments or guardianships must be reported, but, according to both Texas and federal law, information about a person’s emergency mental health detentions / warrants, protective custody orders, or drug / alcohol rehab services cannot be made public for a background check.

Well that sucks.

But realistically, how much impact would that make?

Well, if you were the victims of Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Adam Lanza, Aaron Alexis, Nidal Hassan, Dylann Roof, or Robert Dear, a lot. You see, none of them should have had weapons, which is of little consolation to the 72 dead and 113 injured.  

So what new common sense law would have prevented it? Sadly, none.

You see, medical records are kept private to encourage folks to get help, which is a great idea, except when they don’t. Unfortunately, the mental health community believes that any new laws could do more harm than good and they tend to vociferously object to the inclusion of those records. In a way it makes sense. Most people will suffer from a mental ‘issue’ in their lifetime, whether it is the death of a loved one, marital problems, or financial issues. The majority of people sort it out and move on, a small minority don’t. The mental health community will tell you that we should be very wary of stigmatizing the many, in an attempt to stop the few.

Kind of odd that you always hear the NRA being blasted for saying something similar, yet no one objects when it comes from the mental health community. I guess they have a better lobbing group.

Well, it doesn’t seem that we are any closer to coming up with a better system, so let’s move on to what many believe to be the real problem: The Gun Show Loophole.

I so want to make this a drinking game, but I’m afraid that I’d be too boxed, in too short a period of time, to actually be able to breathe on my own. Here is the truth: there is no gun show loophole. Despite what politicians and the media claim, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. It doesn’t matter whether a dealer sells from a storefront, a room in his house or a table at a gun show, the rules are the same. The dealer must get authorization from the FBI for the sale. The truth is that firearms are the most regulated consumer product in the United States, the only product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale.

So what’s the issue? Well, it stems from private sales. In some states, individuals do not have to run a check. You might think that is odd, but let’s just say my wife falls in love with my old .38 S&W revolver. I am pretty sure of her criminal history, as well as her mental health background, and she has the proper license to possess it, so do I really need to do a background check before I give it to her?  

Now many believe that this loophole is a really big thing and they cite some impressive numbers like “25-50 percent of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers.”

Holy crap, call out the National Guard!!

Whoa, hold on, wait a moment, I’ve been to a lot of gun shows. This is one of those trick questions, or rather a trick statement (pay attention, you’ll see this again).

You see the number might be correct, but it’s the terminology that is the problem. They use the generic term ‘vendor’ to promote their claim. Unfortunately, for those of you, like me, who have gone to gun shows, it is more often than not that you have to wade through table after table of ‘vendors’ selling:  Candles, Cookies, Jerky, Books, Knives, Lights, Coins, Stamps, Surplus Military Gear, and an assortment of other crap that makes you wonder why they just don’t call it a flea market. In fact, an NIJ study once concluded that gun shows were such a ‘minor source of criminal gun acquisition’ that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.

Damn, this isn’t working out well. Let’s move onto something we can all agree on, denying folks on the terror ‘no fly’ list.

Last night the president asked congress to pass legislation that would strip anyone who was on the terrorism ‘no fly’ list of the ability to purchase a firearm in the United States. Senator Dianne Feinstein has also proposed a bill that would prohibit anyone, whose name appears on the list, from buying a firearm. A lot of folks are claiming that makes sense, after all, no one wants a terrorist to be able to buy a gun.  I mean how controversial could this be? If they have been placed on the ‘no fly’ list, surely they pose a significant threat and should be banned from owning a weapon. Right?  

I see you nodding your head in agreement. You have much to learn my little padawan.

First, we need to establish some basic information about the ‘no fly’ list, which is a component of the FBI’s terror watch list. The list, which came about after the 9/11 attacks, was founded on good intentions, but we know all about the road that is paved with those. The truth is that the ‘no-fly’ list is an unmitigated disaster. While there are many on the list that are connected to terrorism, nearly half of the names belong to people who don’t.

Wait, how is this possible you’re asking?

Well, like I said before, it started out with the best of intentions, but government seems to always find a way to screw things up, even when they aren’t trying. In the case of the ‘no fly’ list, some would believe they are trying.  

Take for example Stephen Hayes, a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Mr. Hayes was added to the list simply because he booked a one-way trip to Istanbul for a cruise, and then returned to the U.S., a few weeks later, via Athens. Hardly grounds for someone to lose their right to own a firearm, but Mr. Hayes is a contributor on Fox so maybe…. No, perish the thought. How about priests, nuns, students and peace activists? Heck, in 2003 the New York Times railed against the Bush administration regarding the list, stating that some had been on the list simply for their liberal views. When President Bush left office the list contained nearly 50,000 names. Under the Obama administration this mangled, bureaucratic mess contains over 700,000. Not hearing much out of the NYT now however.

The truth is that all it takes is for the government to declare it has reasonable suspicion that someone could be a terrorist. In fact, it doesn’t even take the government. An anonymous source can make the claim.

The problem is that the list contains names, not identities, and has led to any number of misidentifications and confusion. As a result, innocent people, with no connection to anything remotely terror related, have found themselves smack dab in the middle of a nightmare. To make matters worse, there is no easy way to have one’s name removed from what amounts to a secret blacklist. I am certain that there are a number of folks who don’t even know they are on the list. Hell, former Senator, Ted Kennedy, and Congressman John Lewis were on the list. I won’t even begin to go into the details of the 18 month old child who was removed from a flight because she was on the list.

Under the Feinstein bill, those on the list would have their 2nd Amendment rights denied. Now there are some that say that our 2^nd Amendment right is not absolute, and they are correct. Under the current law felons, fugitives, drug addicts and domestic abusers are prohibited from purchasing firearms. The sticking point is that those folks listed above are entitled to due process, before that right is taken away, a luxury not afford to those on the ‘no fly’ list. All that would be necessary is to have your name pop up on a list, because someone in the government said, without any probable cause, that it should be there.

Oh, and remember what I said before about the ‘no fly’ list being a component of the FBI’s terror watch list? Well then this should make your head spin. It’s been revealed that, in the course of an Inspector General investigation, the names of seventy plus members of the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Safety Administration, appear on the terror watch list. Do they have actual ties to terror or are they simply there by accident? I don’t know, but apparently neither does the TSA. If you couple this information along with the fact that OIG agents were able to get weapons past screening points in 95% of their exercises and it doesn’t exactly instill confidence in me to fly anytime soon.

I don’t know about you, but I thought this was going to be easier. I think I need a drink.

Let’s move on to banning large capacity magazines. Surely that’s something that shouldn’t be too controversial, right? Obviously, you’ve never loaded a magazine before. This matter sort of falls under the whole ‘spooky’ thing. Think about this for a moment. I am inclined to go on a shooting rampage, but the law says I can’t have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds (7 rounds in New York). Damn, well there goes that rampage, said no one ever. Did you miss the part where I said 'I was inclined to go on a shooting rampage'? Do you really think that if I were limited to a 10 round magazine that I would somehow be less of a threat?

This is kind of a two-fer, and includes banning fully automatic weapons. First let us consider the weapon. The overwhelming majority, and I mean like 99.+% majority, involve semi-automatic weapons, not full auto. Why you ask? Well, because the overwhelming majority of folks that have the money to purchase full auto are really not the type that go out and commit crimes. So, let’s deal with the semi-automatic. It doesn’t matter whether you have ten rounds in the magazine, or thirty, or one hundred, you still have to pull the trigger to fire each round.  I once heard a reporter say that a particular ‘assault weapon’ could fire a staggering 800 rounds per minute. Sounds completely diabolical, where do I get one?

Again, this is the trick statement. While a particular weapon might be able to fire 800 rounds per minute, does the gun we are talking about have this ability? In the case of that reporter, the answer was no, it did not. Well, why not? Because the gun being talked about was the spooky semi-automatic gun. The 800 number is the cyclic rate, which is the technical rate of fire. Under mechanical conditions, at full auto, it can, but in semi-auto it’s not even remotely close. You would have to fire more than 13 rounds per second, without stopping, to achieve this number. I don’t know about you, but I have done more than my fair share of shooting and my trigger finger gets sore long before I ever hit this mythical number, and nowhere near in a one minute interval. You would also need twenty-six, 30 round, magazines to achieve this. Soldiers in Afghanistan don’t even carry that much ammo.

While we are on the topic of full-auto weapons I should let you know that, while they are capable of firing that way, the VAST majority of people who shoot, or have shot them, will tell you that almost no one does. Why? Well, if you are paying for your own ammo, the bill racks up pretty quickly. Add that to the fact that full-auto ain’t worth shit if you are trying to hit an actual target, hence the motto ‘spray and pray’. So realistically, just because it can, doesn’t mean you will. In my experience, the 3 round burst is the better choice.

So why shouldn’t we ban large capacity magazines? I guess the real question is why should we?

To be fair, this is a personal thing. I don’t like to reload; frankly it’s a pain in the ass, or at least a pointer finger. In the grand scheme of things, if I am so inclined to commit a heinous act, it won’t matter to me. I can reload from three 10 round magazines almost as quickly as I can fire from one 30 round. The average shooter will probably be a bit slower, but at that point it’s almost academic.

So where does that leave us? Well, no closer to a resolution, but I at least hope you have seen things in a different light.

Oh wait, I almost forgot my add-on, the old no one is trying to confiscate your guns story.

You know, there was a time when that wasn’t true. In fact it was actually only a couple of days ago. The New York Times said as much in their editorial. They are not the first and they certainly won’t be the last. To be clear, the word is not used, that would be bad optics. Gun confiscations rarely go over well, just ask those who witnessed it in my previous post. So they use passive words like surrendering for the good of all, or they issue notices that your weapons are now illegal and you need to turn them in. It’s the ‘rose by any other name’ syndrome.

But is the idea of gun confiscation really the manifestation of some right-wing nut job seeing government conspiracies behind every corner? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

I am reminded of the old adage: Once is a mistake. Twice is a pattern. Three times is a habit.

In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Confiscation Act, authorizing federal troops to begin confiscating weapons in preparation for military re-conquest of the South.

In 1890, at the height of the American Indian relocation effort, U.S. Troops, confiscated the weapons from the Sioux at Wounded Knee. After they were disarmed, the troops shot and killed nearly 300 of them.

In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt used the attack at Pearl Harbor to justify the mass confiscation of guns, and other property, from people deemed ‘enemy aliens’ all over the United States.  After the confiscation, the disarmed individuals were rounded up and placed in concentration camps.

Most recently, in 2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the city of New Orleans launched a wholesale, door-to-door, gun confiscation under the declaration of martial law. Members of the New Orleans Police Department, as well as the National Guard, went door to door securing these weapons. Over 1,000 firearms were seized, and untold numbers of people, houses, and vehicles were aggressively searched in the process.  Residents, who had already suffered the hardships of the hurricane, were left vulnerable and defenseless by the government that had thus far shown they were unable to protect them.

Following the disaster, the government promised that gun confiscation would never happen again.  But the reality is that such guarantees aren’t worth the paper they are printed on during a crisis situation.  As the above shows, the guaranteed rights in the constitution have certainly not been upheld in the past, so why should one more promise prevent future gun confiscation?

Gun confiscation is an ugly term and is proving to be damning to those seeking higher office. Many gun owners are concerned, and rightfully so. There are many who feel strongly about removing firearms and make no bones about it, you only have to turn on the TV and see a whole host of pundits and politicians championing this. But even if they stop talking about confiscation, does that mean the threat is really gone? No.

Here is what I know.

Microstamping legislation was passed in California AB 1471 and signed into law on October 14, 2007. D.C. is the only other place to adopt similar legislation and is set to enforce it next year. Similar legislation is also under consideration in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maryland, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

Microstamping is a ballistics identification technology whereby microscopic markings are engraved onto the tip of the firing pin and onto the breech face of a firearm with a laser. When the gun is fired, these etchings are transferred to the primer by the firing pin and to the cartridge case head by the breech face, using the pressure created when a round is fired. At face value, most people would say that’s a great idea. Sadly, they would also be wrong. There are a number of variables which make this issue problematic from a law enforcement standpoint: a) Discarded brass, such as that from a firing range, could be misused, providing false evidence and increasing the workload for investigators. b) Firing a large number of rounds will eventually wear down the microstamp. c) Microstamping is relatively new, with a single source provider, and has not been subjected to sufficient testing.

The reality is that this was an end run. Rather than ban guns outright, the state of California created a de facto ban, where they simply eliminated new gun sales.  Gun manufacturers Smith & Wesson and Ruger have already stopped selling to California.

San Bernardino shows that, despite it being a direct terrorist threat, the narrative was immediately turned toward gun control. The fact that California has some of the nations’ most stringent ‘common sense’ gun laws on the books meant nothing to the two criminals who were so inclined to break the law. Gun laws also don’t mean anything to those suffering from mental illness.

For decades we have had what amounts to a revolving door justice system that has taught felons, old and young, that laws will not be enforced. It’s the same reason why a few weeks back, in New York City, Junior Regis, a member of the Brooklyn’s Most Wanted gang, with a lengthy rap sheet including robbery, was nabbed for the 2nd time in just ten days for gun possession. After the 2nd arrest, prosecutors recommended that Regis be held without bail or be given a $500,000.00 bail. Much to their surprise, the judge released Regis on $1,000.00 which he promptly posted.

To many this might be a bit of a shock, but to those of us in law enforcement, who have seen this same scenario play out time and again; it is nothing more than business as usual. Despite the incredible amount of gun laws, already on the books, the criminal justice system seemingly refuses to incarcerate offenders for them. Yet, we, the law abiding gun owners, are constantly being told, by this administration, that what we simply need to fix our gun problem is more gun laws.

In the immortal words of Rahm Emanuel: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases, then please like my Facebook page and feel free to follow me on Twitter.

San Francisco County Sheriff Defends Release of Illegal Immigrant

San Francisco County Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi defended his department’s release of the suspect in the shooting death of Katie Steinle. The suspect, Francisco Sanchez, an illegal immigrant with an extensive criminal history, and who had already been deported five times, was released, from the San Francisco County jail, after local authorities there declined to prosecute on a drug related charge.

                     

Sheriff Mirkarimi contends that if the feds wanted San Francisco to ‘hold’ Sanchez, then they should have issued a warrant or a court order. Since SanFrancisco is a Sanctuary City, they simply opened the door and let Sanchez walk away.

Pardon me if I take exception to Sheriff Mirkarimi’s statement. During the course of my twenty-two year law enforcement career I ran a county jail. We routinely housed federal inmates, including those that were released to us for the purpose of dealing with local charges. This is exactly the situation that existed in San Francisco.

Sanchez was picked up by federal authorities after he had completed a prison sentence. Since he had an outstanding charge in San Francisco, that charge needed to be addressed before they could process Sanchez for deportation on the federal immigration charge.

Federal inmates, which Sanchez was, are remanded to local authorities with what is called a detainer. Basically it directs the local agency to notify the feds when the local charges have been addressed, either by release or incarceration. In the case of release, the feds come and pick-up the prisoner. In the case of incarceration, they update their records and notify the correctional facility, where the prisoner is remanded to, that they have a federal hold in place and issue another detainer to the facility.

For Sheriff Mirkarimi to say that federal authorities should somehow have done more, belies the simple fact that he did nothing. The optics on this are horrible and he knows it. He is trying to deflect the blame instead of recognizing that San Francisco’s failed sanctuary city policies cost the life of another innocent young person.

Most career law enforcement officers will tell you that they often feel constrained by the politics that seems to pervade local law enforcement policies, but Mirkarimi is not a career law enforcement officer. He is an elected official whose law enforcement career didn’t begin until 2011, when he was elected as sheriff. Prior to that, he was a member of the San Francisco County Board, the same folks who are responsible for the whole Sanctuary City debacle. A policy he vigorously defends, despite being at odds with the members of his own department.

He is no stranger to controversy. In 2012, just after his election, he was suspended from office after being charged with domestic violence battery, child endangerment and dissuading a witness, in connection with an altercation with his wife. He pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of false imprisonment and was sentenced to three years of probation and had to stay away from his wife for seven months. He was reinstated seven months later, after the Board of Supervisors failed to get enough votes to remove him from office.

He has also had to deal with internal issues as well. In March, Mirkarimi issued a directive stating that only he could turn them over to ICE. This was brought about because his deputies, who opposed the policy, were reportedly secretly helping federal authorities get illegal immigrants off the streets.

Under the circumstances, I can understand why he would want to pawn off the blame to someone else.

This is another example of what happens when the rule of law becomes subverted; abused and twisted to comply with the rule of man, or, as it is in this case, the Board of Supervisors.

Mirkarimi, as well as the Board of Supervisors, is trying to push the blame for the tragic death of Katie Steinle to the feds, but it is a responsibility that lies squarely on their doorstep. It was their policy that allowed this to happen and they need to be held responsible.

San Francisco – The Dark Side of Sanctuary Cities

By now you have all heard of the terrible tragedy in San Francisco, where Kathryn Steinle was killed by Francisco Sanchez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico. Her death brought to the forefront the tragic policy of sanctuary cities.

For those of you that don’t know what a sanctuary city is, it is a term given to a city in the United States that follow certain local practices designed to protect illegal immigration. There are many who feel this is a good policy and I am sure their hearts are truly in the right place; however this policy belies a problem that many of these cities face, which is a growing threat from violent criminals.

We must understand that these sanctuary cities have taken the step to intentionally violate a 1996 federal law (the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act) which requires local governments to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security's, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens, so those here illegally often benefit from taxpayer funded government services and programs too.

Consider the ramifications to a police department, sworn to uphold the law, who are told not to co-operate with a federal agency. It tells them, in no uncertain terms, that the rule of man, and not law, is the order of the day. What is even scarier is the fact that the law becomes volatile, subject to political winds that may change to suit the whims of those in office at the time.

One of the justifications, for creating a sanctuary city, is the alleged concern for protecting immigrant rights, but that belies the fact that illegal aliens are not immigrants. Immigrants come to the United States legally, often as a result of a long and arduous process, and take the necessary steps to maintain their legal status. A person who is illegally smuggled into the U.S., or violates their visa restrictions, is not an immigrant, but an unauthorized alien subject to deportation under existing federal law.

I have heard all of the excuses, such as “Illegal aliens, who are victims of crimes, or who may be a witness to a crime, won't report them to police for fear of arrest and deportation.” Okay, sure……..

I spent twenty-two years in law enforcement. Let’s admit that this is a very convenient excuse which ignores one fundamental fact:  if illegal aliens were properly deported from the U.S., then they would not be here to become victims, nor would the predators that pray on them be here either. Try as I might, I could not find a spike in crimes committed by people legal immigrants from Denmark, Netherlands or Germany.

The truth of the matter is that these sanctuary policies do little to protect, but actually create a thriving environment for the criminal element, who fundamentally understands that they are unlikely to face any serious risk of being deported.

While I probably understand better than most, the need to protect the weak, I don’t believe that turning a blind eye to the law is the best choice. We have a problem in this Country in terms of illegal entry through our southern border. Simply renaming someone from ‘illegal immigrant’ to ‘undocumented worker’ is a ruse, which should be insulting to anyone capable of cogent thinking.  How would you feel if society decided to rename ‘burglars’ to ‘unannounced houseguests’, ‘drug dealers’ to ‘unlicensed pharmacists’, or, better yet, a ‘rapist’ to an ‘unrequited lover’?

Seems pretty absurd, doesn’t it?

Yet that is exactly what is occurring, under the false guise of protection. The truth is, anyone coming over the border illegally is a criminal. Simply changing their name does not negate that. If you don’t believe me, I suggest trying that you illegally enter the country of Mexico and see how well you are treated there when you claim that you are simply an ‘undocumented worker’.

And it is not just ‘protection’ that is being offered in these sanctuary cities. Consider for a moment that NYC recently implemented a program which allows illegal immigrants to obtain an official NYC identification card and they won't be asked about their immigration status. The card can be used for, among other things, to open a bank or credit union account, and obtain residential benefits from City Hall. NYPD officials have said the card will be used to issue summonses or desk appearance tickets instead of arrest. Think about that for a moment. Someone, who has come illegally, with no verification of ‘who’ they are, will be given a card that can be used to obtain benefits and as ID in the case of an arrest……… How do you know it’s them? Remember that the next time you are jumping through hoops to prove who you are at a governmental agency.

Just for the record, this nonsense is also being promoted by the same folks who tell you that getting an ‘ID’ to vote is somehow racist, because it somehow disproportionately affects minorities, the poor, and Democratic voters. Huh? What?........ Wait, we’re giving ID’s away to ‘poor, minority’ people, who we don’t even know, yet asking for ID to vote is somehow bad? I’ll leave that discussion for another day, as I digress.

For, once again, we are seeing the folly of the sanctuary city play out in stark reality.

Kathryn Steinle, 32, died in her father’s arms after being shot at random by Francisco Sanchez. Her last words were “help me, Dad.” As a father, I cannot begin to imagine the pain that her father is going through, but my heart breaks for him. It was a tragedy that did not have to happen.

Sanchez, a career criminal with a lengthy arrest history, should not have been on the streets of San Francisco, or any other U.S. city for that matter. He had been in the custody of the San Francisco Sheriff's Department last March 26, on a decade-old drug charge, but he was released on April 15, after local prosecutors declined to pursue charges against him. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said that at the time they had turned over Sanchez to local law enforcement, they’d requested to be kept apprised of any changes in his status, a common request that is routinely conducted in other jurisdictions, but they weren't. Instead, Sanchez was released from custody.

According to ICE records, Sanchez had been previously deported five times, most recently in 2009, and his record included seven prior felony convictions. ICE briefly had him in their custody after he completed a prison sentence in California, but turned him over to San Francisco, in March, on an outstanding warrant for a felony drug charge. 

Now Sanchez sits in the same jail he had been previously released from, but this time he won’t be leaving anytime soon. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to be of little solace to the grieving family of Kathryn Steinle.

How long before another family in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., Detroit, or any of the other two dozen more ‘sanctuary cities’ have to bury a relative because of the tragic and misguided policies that give safe haven to criminals.

Oh, and not to let a good tragedy go to waste, the White House has just announced that the death of Steinle, is actually the fault of congressional Republicans. They are also apparently at fault for the continuing gun violence in the President’s hometown of Chicago.

Maybe both the federal and state governments need a refresher course in the rule of law, instead of trying to play politics with the lives of American citizens.