Hill’s ‘Common Sense’ Gun Control

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

— William Pitt the Younger, Speech in the House of Commons, Nov. 18, 1783

Unfortunately, we’ve become accustomed to the politicization and reactive social media posts subsequent to public mass shootings by criminals and the insane.

Here’s a recent example:

“#HR8, The Bipartisan Background Checks Bill, would expand background checks on gun sales — including those at gun shows, over the internet or from private dealers –– that currently don’t require a background check. Total no-brainer and supported by over 90% of Americans.”

— Rep. Katie Hill, Twitter

This tweet contains significant omissions and misrepresentations, i.e., all firearms sold by licensed firearms (FFL) dealers without regard to where the transaction occurs are currently and for decades subject to FBI background checks, firearms aren’t sold legally over the internet without FFL dealer involvement, nor is “private dealers” defined or the 90% assertion supported with a reference containing specifics.

Arguendo, let’s assume the legislation that Rep. Hill voted for is a solution for public mass shootings (it isn’t) and examine how effective is the California model of “gun control” that requires all transfers of firearms new or used be performed via FFL dealers, including background checks by the FBI and California Department of Justice.

A study entitled “California’s comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality” was published February 2019 in the Annals of Epidemiology . The abstract: “Purpose: In 1991, California implemented a law that mandated a background check for all firearm purchases with limited exceptions (comprehensive background check or CBC policy) and prohibited firearm purchase and possession for persons convicted within the past 10 years of certain violent crimes classified as misdemeanors (MVP policy). We evaluated the population effect of the simultaneous implementation of CBC and MVP policies in California on firearm homicide and suicide.

“Results: The simultaneous implementation of CBC and MVP policies was not associated with a net change in the firearm homicide rate over the ensuing 10 years in California. The decrease in firearm suicides in California was similar to the decrease in non-firearm suicides in that state. Results were robust across multiple model specifications and methods.”

However, Rep. Hill is either ignorant of or ignoring the data and tweeted this:

“Here in CA, we have some of the best gun violence prevention laws across the country. I’ve met with our local @MomsDemand groups to discuss how I can best advocate to pass and implement legislation that meets this high standard throughout the United States.”

It’s revelatory that legislative efficacy is eschewed, and Hill gives away the objective, i.e., implementation of billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s national gun control agenda as distributed by one of his astroturf front groups.

Despite railing against $1.6 million in lobbying by an authentic grassroots organization of over 5 million members founded in 1871 (NRA) in a recent column , here’s how the Bloomberg relationship is described in a recent editorial in The Signal:

“You can talk all you want about taking ‘big money’ out of politics, and Hill does just that with no apparent sense of irony despite the fact that her campaign benefited from organized national fundraising and multiple millions in PAC money. This includes outside sources like Michael Bloomberg, who spent $4.5 million to elect Hill and, as far as we know, has never visited the Santa Clarita Valley and almost assuredly couldn’t pick it out on a map.”

“Common sense gun control,” “universal background checks,” “gun show loophole,” “weapons of war,” etc., are elements of a finely crafted branding and marketing strategy backed by tens of millions of Bloomberg dollars every election cycle. And Katie Hill is funded to deliver the message.

The objective is to track every firearm transfer and, if implemented on the national level, one public mass shooting or another will be leveraged to advocate for a national firearms ownership database.

Why would a government that ostensibly rules by the consent of the governed seek to disarm them to achieve a monopoly on force?

Our founders didn’t consider that “common sense” when an authoritarian monarch attempted it.