I just had a very bizarre revelation...

High capacity magazines are banned in Vermont.

Seriously! "Gun friendly Vermont" won't let you buy high capacity magazines as of 1 October 2018. On the other hand, it seems that possession of one is legal? I'm going by this:
https://tinyurl.com/vermontgunlaws

And the word of politicians.

I could get it if there was a lot of gun violence in Vermont. Well, other than the state has the highest rate of gun death in New England.https://vtdigger.org/2021/04/01/allie-breyer-vermont-has-the-highest-rate-of-gun-deaths-in-new-england/ OK, this is suicides, not the type of gun violence most other places see.

It also has had 1 mass shooting in the period from 2013-2019: https://www.gvpedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Vermont-Mass-Shootings-State-Fact-Sheet-1.pdf

I am dead certain that the High Capacity Magazine ban has prevented a steep rise in mass shootings.

Did I forget to mention that "assault rifles" are still legal? And you don't need a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

And this mess passed the Vermont Supreme Court. I have this weird feeling that the only person charged under this law will try to take it to SCOTUS, which will probably side with him since he is the stereotypical republican. In fact, he's the stereotypical gun owner.

While I support gun laws: I would like them to make sense.

And this is as out to lunch as you can get. 

Hey, wait!!! Vermont also has recreational cannibis...

I guess we know what the Vermont lawmakers were on when they came up with this.

This: https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/?source=emne_states_courts_20230725&refcode=emne_states_courts_20230725

is what started this. I'm not sure how they came up with their rankings, but this is one of the many reasons I am on the outs with a lot of the "gun violence prevention" organisations. 

Maybe I'm wrong, but...

This is coloured by the fact that I have practised criminal law for over 30 years now.

Most of the riots, er "peaceful protests", have related to people resisting arrest. Maybe excessive force was involved, but I see active resistance happening.

I don't care who you are or where you are, but the cops do not take that lightly. A little "blackplanin'" here:

The example that comes to mind was when I was a student at University of Exeter in England. Exeter is a nice little town in the Southwest of England. The place I was at, Gandy Street, is supposedly the inspiration for Diagon Alley in the Harry Potter books.

But one night in that lillywhite setting, a drunken white guy decided to resist arrest. Literally about six cops were fighting with him to try and subdue him. And he was a skinny little guy.

What people miss is that one person who is fighting arrest can create a lot of disruption.

Yeah, the amount of force used needs to be the minimum to stop the threat, but when exactly does the threat stop. Anyway, whether the force was reasonable is a question for the jury: not the general public.

Especially not a general public which is highly polarised to the extent they can't see straight.

You can't go around saying you support "first responders" and "essential workers" and then try to second guess them when they do their job. You either want them to run into that building with an active shooter, or live with the fact that they don't want the liability.

Which gets to my next point. Daunte Wright had an open warrant for a firearms offence where he threatened a woman.

Should the people who want to regulate guns and get them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them support someone like that? Isn't there a serious amount of hypocrisy going on here? Or is this a case of blinders being so blinding that the people who blindly support Daunte Wright neglect that he is someone they should hate more than Donald Trump?

OK, maybe we should say he is alleged to have done these things. Likewise, Derek Chauvin is alleged to have killed George Floyd until he is found guilty if we are going down that road.

The bottom line is that if you run around saying no one is above the law, maybe you shouldn't be giving support to people who are videotaped resisting arrest and have long criminal records.

Especially if the result of that silliness is that you end up supporting someone who is what you claim to want to see ended: a man who beats women and carries guns which are used in crimes.

Bottom line, there is a legal system, which is where the question of whether the arrest was legal, especially if there was resistance, should be decided. I know that the outcomes would have been vastly different if the legal system had been where this was decided instead of the street.

Reality versus gun rights

It's really fun watching people defend the rioters and looters in the current situation. I'm going to use Pennsylvania law, but there is Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55: Riot, Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses, which means that the destruction and looting caused by the rioters is illegal.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Trashing stores and stealing the contents is not a political act, but a criminal one.

Let's add in that not only is it a criminal act, but it is actual violence. As I said to one person being able to understand the rioters would also mean that you understand why people are protesting the Covid-19 lockdowns with guns. As they say, they may not agree with the method, but they understand the frustration.

Actually, I find the armed protesters less of a threat than I do an out of control mob who are actually engaged in violent acts. Arson is a major cause of loss of life and injury in commercial properties. Strangely, the people who somehow find that the rioting and looting are justified have an issue with people exercising their right to self-defence.

Rioting, looting, arson, and the other illegal acts mentioned in Title 18, the crimes code, and specifically Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55, are just that crimes and illegal. On the other hand someone does have the right to self-defence if they have a reasonable belief that are in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Which happens to be a very real threat if you are in the sights of rioters.

One person said, "couldn't you get out of their way, or leave town?" Is that a fair question if you get the lockdown order and AREN'T allowed to leave? Someone in that situation is pretty much stuck.

Which gets to the gun rights type's question: "shouldn't the person be allowed to defend themselves?" To which "Fuck, yeah!" seems to be the most sensible answer. And if the best weapon happens to be something semi-auto that can accept a large capacity magazine: then they should indeed be allowed to have such a weapon.

Which is why I titled this the way I did.

The person who somehow feels that the violence is "justified" or "understandable" should also be able to accept that people have a right to protect themselves. And the right which is lawful is the one of self-protection.

Not rioting.

Or as Donald Trump said: “when the looting starts, the shooting starts."

While I don't like Trump or the underlying events which led to the protests, the movement to violence has changed the game to a no win situation. And the people who are going to be the big losers are the ones the protests were supposed to help.

Likewise, I have made it clear that I don't support "gun rights" or believe it to be a real thing, but if people are going to condone violence, then they need to accept that the cycle of violence will continue.

And isn't ending the violence what the protests were trying to do?

 You can condemn the violence, yet still support the underlying cause. If anything, it makes far more sense to condemn the violence instead of allowing the cycle of violence to keep rolling on.

No surprises from Gov. Martin O'Malley

I've mentioned that I know Martin O'Malley and my connections to him.

If you think I'm anti-gun: Martin makes me look like one of you lot!

Anyway, he has just signed into effect some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, which comes as no surprise to me.  I'm not sure where Maryland fell in the gun law pile, but I thought they were somewhat strict.

Now, Gun magazines will be limited to 10 bullets, gun ownership by people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility will be banned, and Maryland State Police will be able to suspend the licenses of gun dealers who fail to comply with recordkeeping obligations.

This says several things to me with the main one being that there is the political will to get stronger gun laws in place.

Martin is a politician (I'm too smart to be one).  He wouldn't do something if it were going to cost him political points.  And I think he wants to emulate the Kennedys and take a stab at the presidency.

Well, with some politicians seeing the blowback from failing to vote for background checks--he may have a point.

The real question is where will gun politics go in the US?  Especially now that there may be an end to the Public Health research ban.

Prof. Simon Chapman's Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and the Fight for Gun Control - Australia's last gun massacre is now a free E-book

Prof. Simon Chapman's Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and the Fight for Gun Control - Australia's last gun massacre is now a free E-book and available at the following link:

http://bit.ly/YZtHQ2

I strongly suggest that anyone who is involved in the US gun violence/gun control movement read this book.  Australia's political climate surrounding this issue at the time of the Port Arthur Massacre was eerily similar to that of the US, yet the Australians were able to cut through the non-sense and enact serious and effective gun control laws.

This is a valuable lesson for people who want to see similar laws in the US.

This book is really about the workings of the media, the use of lobbying, and the skills of advocacy. So pick a day when you are tired of dealing with the aftermath of ignored public health issues and read this ripping yarn, arm yourself with the tools it offers, and be ready to go into battle.