Crime, Bail, Defund, and Disarm

Crime, Bail, Defund, and Disarm

By Steve Pomper

Antifa: “only an idea,” gathered in St. Paul, MN. Nov. 2020

The continuing rising crime in radical leftist jurisdictions across the U.S. is no accident. I thought about that recently when I heard Levi Strauss heir, U.S. House Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), also an Adam Schiff flunky, attack one of the few genuine reporter we have, Townhall’s Julio Rosas, during a House Homeland Security Committee hearing on left-wing violence.  

After a lame attempt to demean Rosas’s journalism credentials (he covered most major 2020 BLM/Antifa riots, has a new book out Fiery: But Mostly Peaceful, and is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran), Goldman declared Antifa is “only an idea.”

I’m a retired Seattle cop. Ideas don’t hurl frozen water bottles, bricks, and urine at police officers, the Antifa militia does. Ideas don’t chant for officers to shoot themselves, as Seattle City Council members looked on silently. According to, one council member even said an angry man threatening to murder cops was justified.

Antifa: The “idea” brought assault, burglary, arson, rape, and murders to Seattle in 2020

Yet Goldman simultaneously believes that some nebulous “white supremacy” notion is not “an idea.” He says these phantom “hordes of racists” are today’s “most dangerous threat to America.” How can Americans expect rational solutions for fighting real crime from folks who won’t even acknowledge Antifa militias exist, never mind admit to its members’ very real violence and destruction? 

U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY)

I was also moved to write on this topic by the Heritage Foundation’s Amy Swearer, who recently wrote in the NRA’s, America’s 1st Freedom, “Four Reasons for the Crime Increase.”

She examines four issues conspiring to keep people in leftist-run cities frightened by preventable criminal violence. These expressions of radical leftist ideology conspire to ensure the violence endures and crime remains high—and people remain afraid.

Swearer lists four reasons for crime increases. Together they form a quartet of catastrophe (unless you’re a Marxist, then they’re succeeding wildly). But rather than simply relaying my take on Swearer’s view, I used her categories as prompts to make brief comments. Then, I went back, read the article, and pulled quotes showing our agreement. Not surprisingly, I found plenty.   

First: “Refusing to Prosecute and Punish Violent Offenders.” Many blue cities place an emphasis on not enforcing certain crimes against certain people (protected classes). This includes crimes committed with guns, which radical leftists supposedly hate. But they only seem to hate guns that belong to law-abiding gun owners, which they also hate. So, instead of enforcing existing laws against actual armed criminals, they legislate new laws that target law obeying Americans.

The anti-self-defense folks want you to believe the people committing crimes with guns come from one enormous pool of all people who possess a firearm legally and illegally. As if all people who possess guns pose the same risk. As if the crime is about the gun, not the criminal.

But as Swearer points out, “A majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by a small and predictable number of serial offenders, many of whom are already legally prohibited from possessing the firearms they use to carry out these crimes.” In my police experience, this analysis is spot on for most crimes.   

Second: “Releasing Violent Offenders Under Ill-Conceived Bail-Reform Policies.” Too many criminals who do somehow manage to get themselves arrested in blue jurisdictions fall into the “catch and release” category, released either with no bail or no charges at all. The U.S. Attorney in Washington D.C., Matthew Graves, infamously releases felons, asserting he doesn’t have the “resources to prosecute” them.

Yet, according to The Guardian, “Graves… sent a one-page letter to the chief judge of Washington DC federal court, apprising her of the potential deluge of [Jan. 6th] defendants, Bloomberg News reported.” Apparently, Graves has no resources to prosecute violent felons but has abundant resources to prosecute and incarcerate people who allegedly mostly commit non-violent misdemeanors.

U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C.

I won’t argue who in either group deserves what consequences. But I will argue the blue criminal justice system sure ain’t equal. As Swearer points out, “In addition to legislative or administrative reforms, some rogue prosecutors go even further by implementing their own intraoffice policies that effectively ensure dangerous offenders won’t be detained for long…” if at all. 

Third: “Demoralizing, Defunding, and Hamstringing Police Departments. These radicals even prosecute people for exercising their God-given self-defense rights, whether armed or unarmed. Take Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg whom, after succumbing to the mob, recently charged Marine Corps veteran Daniel Penny with manslaughter after he reportedly protected himself and other passengers from a wanted, violent career offender. None of the statutory elements for manslaughter or any crime appear to exist. There’s a reason Bragg did not impanel a grand jury, opting for a summary indictment.

What’s the logical answer to crime? The police. What’s the logical answer to more crime? More police. But that’s not how the radical left thinks. Their answer to more crime is less police protection. And their answer to increasing crime is decreasing cops. The radical left calls it “defund the police.” Well, at least, that’s what they called it before they learned it inevitably doesn’t work and ticks off their voters. 

Swearer mentions the folly of “police reform” (translation: we hate the police laws). While the radical, anti-police left has run around pushing for what they call police reform, it’s uncanny how many of those laws are imploding, failing for all the reasons real cops told them they would.   

Fourth: “Imposing Significant Burdens on the Second Amendment Rights of Peaceable Citizens.” The sadism of a government is on display when they make it more difficult for Americans to exercise their Second Amendment self-defense rights. This is especially cruel after inflicting the first three items on Swearer’s list that intentionally put people at higher risk of violent crime. 

What kind of people do that?

Washington State, where I now live, once again, is punishing law-abiding gun owners for the actions of armed criminals. As I write this, the tyrant Governor Jay Inslee has signed a law that prevents me, a retired cop with over two decades of service and a current gun owner (and other good citizens), from buying an “assault rifle.” Whatever that is. The list has over 50 models, including “AR-15- and AK-47styled” firearms, which are the most popular rifles with Americans for home defense (what the courts call in “common use”).

Arbitrary gun type restrictions keep law-abiding people from buying certain guns but do zero to prevent criminals from buying/stealing guns because they aren’t law-abiding. How does that even make a little sense? It obviously doesn’t. It only allows self-defense opponents to say they did “something” about guns, while having done nothing about armed criminals.

You know the radical left is not serious because they’re banning weapons that “look scary” to them even if they operate identically to guns not banned. The weapons they banned are semi-automatic rifles. Pull the trigger once, it fires one bullet. Every semi-automatic rifle (and handgun) works the same way. But by demonizing a gun for its accessories, they get their foot in the door to their goal of an eventual banning the sale of all semi-auto firearms (and then all firearms), and then for their confiscation—which is their true goal.

AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, 1 trigger pull, 1 bullet fired

Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle, 1 trigger pull, 1 bullet fired

What makes AR-15-styled rifles so popular is their versatility. People like that they can add and subtract certain accessories to the weapon, adapting it to their individual needs. Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but people tend to be different in many ways. An individual’s size and strength come to mind, and the AR-15 can be more easily adapted to compensate for physical limitations than other firearm styles.

Because of new anti-Constitutional legislation in several states, a law-abiding single mother, let’s call her Ellen, can’t buy one of these rifles to protect her life and those of her kids—without breaking the law. But criminals will still be able to get those guns to victimize Ellen and her kids, and, if past is prologue, the radical leftists in office will continue to refuse to prosecute those criminals but will continue to go after good people who use self-defense.

By the way, can someone tell me how Ellen has a God-given, constitutional right to life, if the government won’t allow her to protect her life with the most practical means available?