End the War on Freedom - RKBA

Heller Decision -- Deeper Analysis

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:35:12 -0500

Alan Korwin, The Uninvited Ombudsman - Chicago's Mayor Daley fears a "return to the days of the Wild West." Biased, misleading, and prejudicial news coverage. So-called "gun deaths" are really drug war deaths. "The big hurdle, with Heller now in place, will be control of the court of popular opinion." Handguns are fully recognized as "the quintessential self-defense weapon." And:

Quote:

THE TRULY TREMENDOUS ADVANCE FOR RKBA:

The core issue of "judicial scrutiny" is now established -- better than we had dreamed -- in what will be known as Famous Footnote #27 (p56). Laws impinging on the Second Amendment can receive no lower level of review than any other "specific enumerated right" such as free speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy or the right to counsel (the Court's list of examples).

This is a tremendous win, and overlooked in all initial reviews I've seen. Attorney Mike Anthony was the first to spot it, way to go Mike. "Strict scrutiny," which many folks sought, is a term without formal definition that could prove problematic. I was hoping for a test of some sort and got more than I hoped for. By recognizing 2A as a "specific enumerated right" the majority ties 2A to the rigid standards and precedents of our most cherished rights. That's as strong as there is. Very clever indeed.

...

Critics and anti-rights advocates are almost gleeful at the Court's acceptance of Mr. Heller's request for registration and a license to carry his gun in his own home, as long as the terms aren't arbitrary or capricious. Agreed this is a weak and unsavory intermediate step with potential for abuse, while on the way to greater freedom than D.C. currently has. It has a very dangerous potential for abuse that will be exploited. Antis will try to imply that registration and licensing are more than OK, they are the new standard. This is completely false:

-- It is not a national requirement, it's a response to a specific request.

-- Heller's request applies specifically to his case, at home, in D.C., to be acted upon by D.C. for its residents.

-- Because RKBA is now recognized as a "specific enumerated right" (a phrase you should start using), laws related to it will be subjected to stringent standards like those protecting freedom of speech, protection against double jeopardy or the right to counsel (among the most safeguarded rights we have).

-- Registration and a license to practice free speech would obviously never be permissible, so Mr. Heller's request should hold little sway, if any, outside the context of his "prayer" (the Court's word) for relief from the onerous disability he suffered as a D.C. resident. Anti-rights lawyers and legislators will try to argue otherwise, but the ammunition is piled high in the pro-rights arsenal. Our argument is compelling, do not yield...

...

Detailed, step-by-step review of the decision, the dissents, and the events leading up to the case will form the heart of my next book, "The Heller Case: Supreme Court Gun Cases Volume 2." Leading experts will contribute their view of where the Heller case will lead us, and suggest a course of action for using this landmark decision in defense of liberty. Every gun case the Court has ever heard -- all 96 -- will be discussed, along with summaries of all 66 amicus briefs filed in the Heller case, and the full text of the case. Hundreds of juicy quotes from Heller will be highlighted for easy reading and navigation through the thick legal discussions.

Eric S. Raymond Returns to the Blogosphere

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:41:36 -0500

Armed and Dangerous, the blog of Eric S. Raymond, has been inactive since June 12, 2006. ESR made a number of posts over the last few days, beginning with the linked post. He also has three posts on the Heller decision: A Victory for Civil Rights, Civil Disobedience, and The Heller ruling and the 2008 elections. Welcome back, Eric!

From Civil Disobedience, a report of Eric's visit to his local chief of police:

Quote:

I told him that I had been intending to speak with him for several weeks, to inform him that I intend to begin exercising my right to open carry of a firearm (quite legal in Pennsylvania and in most other states as well). I explained that I thought it best he and the local police knew of this in advance in order to avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings. See opencarry.org for background on this fast-growing form of civil-rights activism.

I also told him that, in the wake of the Heller ruling, I intend at some future point to deliberately violate the Pennsylvania state law forbidding concealed carry without a state-issued permit. The Heller ruling does not enumerate those among permissible restrictions, and I would be happy to be PA’s test case on this point. As a citizen of the United States (I explained) I believe I have not only the right but the affirmative duty to challenge unjust and unconstitutional laws; and that since the founders of the U.S. pledged their lives and fortunes and sacred honor to sign the Declaration of Independence, merely risking imprisonment to challenge this law seems to me no more than my duty.

One Man's Memory of the Slow Death of RKBA in Amerika

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:18:48 -0500

Skytrooper at Get Your Hands Dirty! - a good personal account of the slow death of the right to keep and bear arms, starting with the 1968 Gun Control Act. I have printed the whole post below, with Skytrooper's permission.

by Skytrooper

Perhaps I’m older than you because I can remember the 1950s and 60s. I can recall firearms for sale in the Sears and J.C. Penney mail order catalogs and 20mm anti-tank cannon for sale for $190 in Shotgun News. I recall walking into Stan Lisk Sporting Goods in Salinas, CA in 1966 at age 14, handing over $45, and walking out with a new Remington bolt-action .22 rifle, soft case, cleaning kit and some ammo. Even in California there was no paperwork (other than a cash register receipt), waiting period, background check, or other infringement of my RKBA.

Every Thursday night for the next year, I walked halfway across town, openly carrying my rifle, to shoot at an indoor range in the police department’s basement. A teenager who tried that today couldn’t walk a block before 50 sheeple would place 911 calls and he’d be lucky if the SWAT team didn’t shoot him on sight. During the 20 years I lived in Salinas, somehow the city muddled along without a SWAT team. Now, most every small town and rural sheriff’s department has a herd of pot-bellied, wannabe commandos anxious to use their Fed-supplied machine guns, battering rams, armored cars, etc.

I joined the NRA in 1966 because it claimed to staunchly oppose the proposed legislation which eventually became GCA-68. When Lyndon (May He Burn in Hell) Johnson signed GCA-68 into law, I could no longer purchase ammunition for my .22 rifle, let alone a firearm of any type. When I returned home from Vietnam at age 20, despite Uncle Sam issuing me a M-60 machine gun, M-16A1 rifle, M-203 grenade launcher, and a M1911A1 pistol, I still wasn’t old enough thanks to GCA-68 to buy ammo for my .22 rifle, let alone purchase a handgun. In case anyone forgot (or never bothered to learn in the first place), GCA-68 was drafted by Senator Thomas Dodd (D-CT) using an English translation (obtained from the Library of Congress) of the Nazi Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938. Unlike the NRA and the politicians it endorses, I have a problem with this.

In 1974, I visited the office of my NRA-endorsed U.S. Representative, Burt L. Talcott, a conservative Republican. Burt clearly resented a lowly college student wasting his precious time. He said he had no problem with GCA-68's restrictions and saw no contradiction between the government issuing automatic weapons to young men forbidden to purchase rimfire ammunition or pistols for their own use. He further said telescopic sights should be banned for no better reason than he didn’t have one as a kid growing up in Montana.

When Burt approached me a few weeks later, his jaw dropped. Instead of the blue jeans-wearing college kid, he saw an elected representative of the Monterey County Republican Central Committee clad in a suit and tie. I was also carrying concealed, “illegally” to dgg9 and his ilk, a loaded S&W model 39. Unlike dgg9, I would die on a torture rack before I’d beg permission to exercise an unalienable individual right every human being is born with. Burt’s manner changed remarkably since he was there to beg for help raising campaign funds. He later fawned over me for awhile and said, “I’m really not trying to take your telescopic sight away.” [What, just other peoples’ scopes?] We didn’t part as friends. Despite the advantages of incumbency, he lost reelection in 1976 to Leon Panetta and that House seat has been occupied by ardent anti-gun Democrats since.

I believe it was in 1974 that the waiting period on handgun purchases in California was increased from 3 to 15 days. The fiend responsible for that was the NRA-endorsed, conservative Republican state senator from my district. I used my RP position to gain an audience with the rascal. When I castigated him for betraying his oath to adhere to the Second Amendment, he was befuddled. All he could do was stammer, “but ... but the police want it.” “It” being the 15-day waiting period. “There’s a name for a country where the police get what they want,” I said. “It’s called a Police State.” He didn’t run for reelection so I missed the opportunity to vote against him.

In 1968, Richard Nixon was barely elected president and then only with the votes of gun owners still angry over LBJ signing GCA-68 into law. Nixon had the tacit endorsement of the NRA. In 1969, Nixon appointed the vehemently anti-RKBA Warren E. Burger as Chief Justice of SCOTUS. Nixon created the BATF and years later told reporters there was no anti-gun law he wouldn’t approve of.

In 1975, NRA-endorsed Gerald Ford appointed the anti-RKBA John Paul Steven to SCOTUS. This is the same Gerald Ford who urged Republican legislators to vote for the Brady Act and AWB.

Quote from: dgg9 on June 29, 2008, 10:21:49 am
In the late 70s and in the early to mid 80s, gun control was on the rise. Like socialism in the 30s, it seemed like an irresistible force, an inevitability whose time was coming. Defense of RKBA was very much a rear-guard action, with low chances for success. Neither the public nor any majority of legislators were behind RKBA.

This was the period when a number of states (starting with Georgia in 1976) enacted dgg9's beloved “shall issue” CCW permit laws. Voters in Massachusetts (of all places) voted down a handgun ban. Anti-gun Senator John Tunney lost reelection in California in 1976 due to his vocal support for gun control. In 1982, despite overwhelming press support for Proposition 15, a near-ban on handguns, Californians voted it down 2-to-1. dgg9's “irresistible force” for gun control wasn’t so irresistible even in liberal Massachusetts and California.

In 1982, Harlon Carter, NRA Executive VP, fired Neal Knox from his position as head of NRA-ILA. Knox was an ardent RKBA champion and many NRA members were confounded by Carter’s action. I attended the NRA annual meeting in Phoenix in 1983 where members pressed Carter for an explanation for firing Knox. In his typical arrogant manner, Carter exclaimed if the members demanded an answer, he’d give it then quit. I was the guy yelling, “Quit, Harlon, quit!” But I was drowned out by mindless loons shouting, “No, Harlon, the NRA can’t survive without you!” Knox was fired because he seriously insisted members of Congress who sought NRA endorsements and money actually do more than pay lip service to the RKBA.

In 1982, Republican George Deukmejian was barely elected as governor of California. He was only elected due to the turnout of gun owners opposing Prop. 15. One of his first official acts was to appoint the vehemently anti-gun police chief of Foster City as head of the California State Police. California NRA members were outraged. At the Phoenix convention they asked NRA officials to issue a public condemnation of Deukmejian’s action. What did Carter and his pals say? “No, no ... we might make the governor upset at us.” Perhaps this is what dgg9 considers “pragmatism.”

In 1985, I attended the NRA convention in Seattle where Knox was running for Executive VP. His opponent was a guy most NRA members had never heard of, Ray Arnett. The big event was a video presentation by Ronald Reagan (the same guy who promised in 1980 to abolish the BATF if he was elected president, but expanded it’s size and powers instead). While Reagan was supposed to be making a tribute to the NRA, it was actually a NRA-financed commercial on behalf of his crony, Arnett, who had been Reagan’s DFG chief when he was governor of California. Between Reagan’s praise and a speech filled with lies by Wayne LaPierre, Arnett won the election. Within a year, Arnett was ousted for having an affair with a female staffer (then getting a 6-digit “hush money” payment from the NRA) and Wayne LaPierre was the new honcho. NRA publications were curiously silent about why Arnett was gone or the payout of members’ money to Arnett.

In 1987, President (and NRA Life Member) Ronald Reagan attempted to appoint Robert Bork as a justice on SCOTUS. Bork has repeatedly declared the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals. He also said the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are dead; the Ninth because he can’t figure out what it means and the Tenth because SCOTUS refused to enforce it for so long.

In 1989, President (and NRA Life Member) G.H.W. Bush signed an executive order banning the importation of many superb semiauto firearms. His son, NRA-endorsed G.W. Bush, refuses to rescind his father’s order, just as he refuses to rescind Bill Clinton’s executive order banning the sale of surplus military ammunition to private citizens. In 1990, President (and NRA Life Member) G.H.W. Bush appointed anti-RKBA David Souter as a justice on SCOTUS. This is the same G.H.W. Bush who voted for GCA-68 when he was a member of Congress from Texas.

In 1993, the Brady Act was passed thanks to the votes of many NRA-endorsed members of Congress. The original Brady Bill imposed a waiting period and background checks on handgun purchases from licensed dealers. The NRA lobbied and got an “InstaCheck” system and expanded the bill to cover long guns; something Sarah Brady never even asked for. Many congresscreatures cited NRA-sponsored amendments as political cover for voting for the Brady Act. Despite having enough votes in the Senate to filibuster the Brady Act, Republicans caved in and the NRA didn’t hold it against them. NRA-endorsed Bob Dole congratulated Sarah Brady when the act passed.

In 1994, the federal AWB was enacted. A switch of just one or two votes in the House could have killed it. Where did the necessary votes come from? NRA Life Member Ronald Reagan wrote every Republican member of the House and urged them to support the AWB. Several “pro-gun” Republicans changed their votes and cited Reagan’s letter as political cover. Did the NRA denounce Reagan’s treachery? Not a chance.

When I attended the NRA annual meeting in Minneapolis in 1994, during the question-and-answer session a member attempted to ask Wayne LaPierre why the NRA co-wrote Pennsylvania’s anti-gun Act 17 along with Handgun Control, Inc. How did NRA officials respond? They turned off the power to the guy’s microphone. The first gun owner convicted under Act 17 was a NRA member.

As usually happens at every NRA meeting, nearly every time a member attempted to introduce a genuinely pro-RKBA measure or resolution, some LaPierre shill would jump up and move for a vote to table it. There was only one exception. NRA officials were pushing for a federal law requiring states to have drivers licenses indicate whether a person was a convicted felon. A well-known Texas judge argued on behalf of a resolution prohibiting the NRA’s support for such a law. Despite their best efforts, LaPierre’s crew couldn’t prevent it from passing. Predictably, the resolution, and the NRA’s support for such a law, was never mentioned in NRA magazines.

On 16 May 1995, while speaking before the National Press Club (along with Sarah Brady; televised on C-SPAN2), Tanya Metaksa, then head of NRA-ILA, was asked if there was any anti-gun statute which the NRA endorsed. Rather than say, “no,” she stated “the NRA fully supports the Gun Control Act of 1968.” My wife and I nearly fainted.

We had barely recovered from that shock when Wayne LaPierre appeared on Larry King’s CNN program on 18 May 1995. He was there to publicly apologize for calling the deputy U.S. marshals, BATF agents, and FBI agents at Ruby Ridge and Waco “jack-booted thugs.” That wasn’t bad enough. When King asked LaPierre if the NRA wanted to abolish the BATF, rather than say “yes,” the duplicitous scoundrel said the NRA “didn’t want to restrict the BATF in any way.” My wife and I promptly resigned our NRA Life Memberships.

In 1996, every NRA-endorsed U.S. Senator, including NRA Director Larry (“widestance”) Craig, voted for the Lautenberg Amendment which made it a federal felony for persons convicted of certain misdemeanors from possessing any firearm or ammunition. Thousands of LEOs and military personnel (even USAF fighter pilots) lost their careers thanks to that law. Despite being a major anti-gun statute, the NRA never penalized any member of Congress for their vote in favor of the Lautenberg Amendment.

In 2000 and 2004, the NRA endorsed G.W. Bush for president despite the fact he supported the same anti-gun laws as Al Gore and John Kerry: NFA-34, GCA-68, Brady Act, Lautenberg Amendment, and making the federal AWB permanent. In 2004, I watched a NRA spokesweasel on TV brag about the NRA supporting all existing federal anti-gun laws, specifically mentioning NFA-34 and GCA-68. These are the same riffraff who piously exclaim, “It’s the Second Amendment, stupid” and “It’s an individual right” to dull-witted, cheering members at NRA conventions yet turn around and betray those same members again and again and again.

The NRA is citing the decision in Heller to raise funds and recruit more members, omitting the small detail that NRA officials sought to prevent the Heller case from even being filed. Anti-gun groups are also praising the Heller decision and for good reason: other than complete bans, the language in Heller is supportive of virtually any gun control legislation.

Much is being made by cognitively- and ethically-impaired gun owners about five of the Nine Nazgul proclaiming the Second Amendment protects an individual RKBA. It’s true Antonin Scalia (who endorsed torturing prisoners, admitted to stretching the language in the Constitution beyond recognition to rationalize police misdeeds, and who resurrected the medieval concept of deodands to justify asset forfeitures) used the words “individual right” and an “inherent right” of self-defense. The majority also excluded millions of Americans — felons, persons convicted of various misdemeanors under Lautenberg, and other “prohibited persons” — from any Second Amendment protection. The fact a woman with a tax or marijuana conviction a decade ago faces ten years in federal prison if she possesses a firearm for protection against wannabe robbers, rapists and murderers is fine with Scalia & Company ... and the NRA. So much for the “inherent right” of self-defense.

The “individual right” recognized in Heller only applies to some Americans and then is subject to arbitrary restriction, licensing, registration and even revocation by the government. The “individual right” only applies to government-approved firearms and the carrying of such weapons is at the whim of legislative caprice. Scalia's “individual right” is actually nothing more than a mere privilege subject to the usual government regulations, conditions and abridgments. In his opinion, Scalia never bothered to explain how the majority’s decision squares with the words “unalienable” in the Declaration of Independence and “shall not be infringed” in the Second Amendment.

The majority correctly held the words “the people” in the Second Amendment referred to the same “the people” mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendments then promptly contradicted themselves. Even in Scalia’s authoritarian mind, “the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments applies to everyone inside the USA. Per the majority in Heller, “the people” referred to in the Second Amendment are only those folks which the government “allows” to possess firearms. In his otherwise ludicrous dissent, Justice Stevens pointed out this obvious inconsistency in the majority’s decision.

NRA Files Second Amendment Cases in Illinois, California

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:06:14 -0500

NRA-ILA reports that the NRA has filed five lawsuits, challenging handgun bans similar to the one overturned by the Supreme Court in DC.

Quote:

The San Francisco lawsuit challenges a local ordinance and lease provisions that prohibit possession of guns by residents of public housing in San Francisco. NRA is joined in that suit by the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Chicago case challenges a handgun ban nearly identical to the law struck down yesterday in Washington, D.C. The other Illinois suits challenge handgun bans in the suburban towns of Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park.

All five suits raise the issue of the application of the Second Amendment against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, known in constitutional law as “incorporation.” Because Washington, D.C. is not a state, incorporation was not specifically addressed in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, but the decision did repeatedly equate the Second Amendment to the First and Fourth Amendments, which have applied to the states for 80 years.

DC v Heller Decision

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:22:42 -0500

As you've likely read everywhere, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, June 26, 2008 on DC v Heller. They held the decision of the lower court, commanding DC to give Mr. Heller a permit to possess his pistol in his house, assuming he hadn't lost his right to do so due to a felony or mental illness. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority. Justice Stevens wrote the dissent. I skimmed the opinion, but not the dissent. The general philosophy there was good. We have an individual right to keep and bear arms (properly defined as possessing and carrying around), which predates and is protected by the Second Amendment. But, and it's a big but, the state may restrict this right with licensing and registration, and concealed carry may be restricted. Typical narrow ruling that really only forces "shall issue" for DC's licenses, but will likely eventually force all state licensing to be "shall issue". It might also make it difficult to ban open carry. Scalia also forbade the banning of whole classes of generally-used weapons, but whether this will be found to forbid so-called "assault weapons" bans remains to be seen.

Bottom line: They won't be coming door to door to collect our guns any time soon, so there shouldn't be a need for a shooting war on that account. Had the decision gone with the minority, I would be expecting the war to begin soon.

Here are a bunch of links I collected:

Text of the decision (1.2 meg PDF) (my mirror)
ScotusBlog has lots of coverage:
- Gauging Interest In The Guns Case, by Jason Harrow
- New case tests Second Amendment's reach, by Lyle Denniston
- Heller Discussion Board: Miller, Colt .45s and Natural Law, by Ben Winograd
- Heller Discussion Board: Substantial Victory for American Gun Owners?, by Brian Sagona
- DC v. Heller Round-Up by Brian Sagona - links to lots of stories
You Will Give Up Your Guns, by J. Croft (my mirror) - very negative take on the ruling
News: Supreme Court States the Bleeding Obvious, by Larken Rose - part of The Most Dangerous Superstition series
GOA Hits The Airwaves On Heller Decision, from Gun Owners of America - "GOA is already preparing to wage constitutional challenges to a range of laws -- federal, state and local -- that violate the Second Amendment principles endorsed by the Court in yesterday's majority opinion." They're asking for donations.
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right, by Mark Sherman - AP story
High court affirms gun rights in historic decision, by Mark Sherman - another edit of the AP story
We Win, by GeekWithA.45 - fireworks and rejoicing
Thoughts on the Heller Decision, by Dave Markowitz - summary of the decision
HELLER AFFIRMED by David Codrea - lots of links and reader comments
Bob Barr Calls Heller Decision on Gun Rights "One of Court's Most Important Rulings on behalf of Liberty" - press release from the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate
The Pros and Cons of Heller, by Daniel L. Schmetter at JPFO
Substantial Victory for American Gun Owners? by Daniel L. Schmutter at JPFO
Dave Kopel has lots of links, some of which are in this list
Constitution Is Big Winner in D.C. Gun Case, by Dave Kopel at Pajamas Media
The Second Amendment Goes to Court, by Joyce Lee Malcolm, Randy Barnett, Alan Gura, Brian Doherty, David B. Kopel, Glenn Reynolds, Sanford Levinson and Jacob Sullum at Reason
More on the Heller Case, by Jason Channell at Handgun Club of America
Second Amendment Triumph: Justices Uphold Individual Right! by the Second Amendment Foundation
SAF Files Lawsuit Challenging Chicago's Handgun Ban - The Second Amendement Foundation is attempting to overturn Chicago's ban that is similar to DC's. They filed their lawsuit 15 minutes after the Supreme Court decision was released. Mayor Daley is not amused. Good.
Illinois State Rifle Association has lots of news links
Winners' Test, by Glenn Harlan Reynolds at the New York Post - time to get to work cementing the victory at the state and local level
An Escape from Fear, by Linda Chavez at The Washington Post
The Thugs Win the Case, by Colbert I. King at The Washington Post - I've gotta link to a few antis
Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke On Supreme Court Second Amendment Ruling - hand-ringing from the Brady Bunch
"Sport Shooting Ambassador Award" Winner Antonin Scalia's 2nd Amendment Ruling Does His Gun Pals Proud, by Josh Sugarmann at The Huffington Post - if you can't attack his ideas, attack the reporter

Countdown to Heller: With Bated Breath...

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:36:09 -0500

Concerned American at Western Rifle Shooters - we've been promised three Supreme Court decisions today, starting at 10am eastern time, including DC v Heller. Story includes this poem from Mike Vanderboegh:

Quote:

'Twas the night before Heller
and all through the dwelling
The sweet odor of Hoppes
Was there for the smelling.

The patches were scrubbing
the bores with light oil.
And all was in readiness,
thanks to the toil.

The bolts were tested
with a "clack-clack-clack,"
In case Justice Kennedy
veered off the track.

Closed Hand - An Open Letter to the ATF's Jim Cavanaugh

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:28:17 -0500

Mike Vanderboegh at Western Rifle Shooters - Mr. Vanderboegh warns Mr. Cavanaugh that America's gun owners have learned the lessons of history. There is no longer any justice to be found in Amerika's courts. So they're on their own to defend themselves. We're living under "Waco Rules" now. Thing is, they're prepared to do defend themselves a lot better than the Cheyenne and Lakota were at Little Big Horn. Mr. Cavanaugh shouldn't expect another attack like the one on 28 February, 1993 to end with any of his men still alive. Compassion for predators didn't work then, so we won't give it now.

Quote:

I mention this just in case somebody in your department feels as froggy as you did on 27 February 1993. We have absorbed the lessons of history, including recent history, and I don't think you'll get a second chance at backing away with your hands in the air.

After all, Christian mercy didn't do the Davidians a lick of good in the end, did it?

And if the justice system works like it did for poor Olofson, then it really is Waco Rules, right?

The Law of Unintended Consequences sure does bite.

Be safe.

And remember Little Big Horn.

An Open Letter to the Gun Control Crowd

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:58:18 -0500

Mike Vanderboegh at Western Rifle Shooters - after the November election, the Brady Bunch may have enough clout in DC to finally get their private transfer ban (aka closing the "gun show loophole") and a renewed and strengthened ban on ugly semi-automatic rifles with sufficient magazine size (aka "assault weapons"). Mr. Vanderboegh warns them to be careful what they wish for. [codrea]

Quote:

Of course it's really our fault for we have been TOO law-abiding and we never pushed you back. Now, having backed us against the wall, you are about to give us no choice. Your nanny-state meddling with free people is about to achieve critical mass, and the explosion will be catastrophic to your plans.

Pass a ban on private sales of arms and we will defy it.

Pass a ban on semiautomatic rifles of military utility -- in effect, try to disarm us -- and we will refuse to turn them in.

Send thugs to come and take them from us and we will shoot back.

People are going to die - lots of people.

And that's only the beginning.

Concise

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:46:11 -0500

Mke Vanderboegh at The War on Guns - entire essay quoted below. [codrea]

Quote:

(Author's note: David has recently taken me to task, not without reason, for being too long winded. Therefore, I have written the mini-essay below just for War on Guns.)

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

The End

The Founders and firearms

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:24:51 -0500

Stephen P. Halbrook at The Washington Time - a pretty good analysis of the meaning of the words of the Second Amendment. Were the Supremes to listen to Noah Webster's definitions, they would have no choice but to strike down any so-called "law" that didn't allow any man, woman, or responsible child to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. [scopeny]

Quote:

The Supreme Court questioned whether the D.C. statue "violate* the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

For the answer, turn to Noah Webster. Known as the "Father of American Scholarship and Education," Webster believed that popular sovereignty in government must be accompanied by popular usage in language. In "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1806, and "An American Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1828 and adopted by Congress as the American standard, Webster defined all the words in the Second Amendment.

Absolved

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:11:18 -0500

Mike Vanderboegh at The War on Guns - somehow I missed this when it was posted in February. It's a chapter from Mr. Vanderboegh's upcoming novella of the same name. You can read another chapter, Sippenhaft, at Western Rifle Shooters. [codrea]

Quote:

(Disclaimer: This story is both fictional and true. Any resemblance to individuals living or dead is purely coincidental, or positively intentional, take your pick. Some might see a parallel here to recent events such as the Olofson case or Randy Weaver or the Davidians. If so, they may be right. Or wrong. There are all kinds of people in the world -- all kinds of Phil Gordons, all kinds of gangs and all kinds of thugs. You may choose which thugs you think I'm writing about here. The story begins at three o'clock in the morning the day after tomorrow, one year from now. Or not. The decision is up to the thugs.)

Packing in public: Gun owners tired of hiding their weapons embrace 'open carry'

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 20:41:19 -0500

Nicholas Riccardi at The Los Angeles Times - nice piece on a few gun owners who have decided on open carry for their self defense. Especially nice to see this in the LA Times. [gsc]

Quote:

PROVO, UTAH -- For years, Kevin Jensen carried a pistol everywhere he went, tucked in a shoulder holster beneath his clothes.

In hot weather the holster was almost unbearable. Pressed against Jensen's skin, the firearm was heavy and uncomfortable. Hiding the weapon made him feel like a criminal.

Then one evening he stumbled across a site that urged gun owners to do something revolutionary: Carry your gun openly for the world to see as you go about your business.

In most states there's no law against that.

Jensen thought about it and decided to give it a try. A couple of days later, his gun was visible, hanging from a black holster strapped around his hip as he walked into a Costco. His heart raced as he ordered a Polish dog at the counter. No one called the police. No one stopped him.

You Won the Battle But Lost the War

Sun, 25 May 2008 10:39:32 -0500

Aaron Zelman at JPFO - a Memorial Day open letter to "Our Fathers and Grandfathers". Penned in 2002, and just as valid today. [jpfo]

Quote:

To our fathers and grandfathers who fought in World War II:

America owes everything to you. You sacrificed your youth, you saw your buddies die before your eyes, you gave up life and family and love as you fought in Europe or the Pacific -- all to save the world from fascism.

We can't even measure how much we owe you -- you, and the staunch women who stood with you -- the WACs, the Waves, the nurses who treated the wounded under unthinkable conditions, and the Rosie-the-Riveters who kept the country going back home. Yet, in the decades since the end of the war, your victory has been stolen. From you, from your children, your grandchildren, and from all of us.

You won a long, hard, painful battle. But when you came home, you lost the war. You lost the Bill of Rights and freedom. And so we all lost.

...

When every president since Richard Nixon told us we had to fight another war, a War on Drugs, we paid our taxes and cheered as millions of our fellow Americans went to prison, as no-knock midnight raids became an American institution, and as police forces were corrupted by the lure of illegal drugs and black-market money, just as they had earlier been corrupted during Prohibition. None of this has saved our children from drugs or made American streets safe. On the contrary, it's been one of the biggest destroyers of the Bill of Rights, and one of the biggest factors in increasing violence and police-state power in the U.S.

...

We must fight ALL enemies, foreign and domestic -- as you pledged to do when you signed on to serve your country. We must recognize that some of our most ruthless, implacable enemies ARE domestic -- men and women who look like us and talk like us but whose values are as foreign to America as those of any Hitler, Mussolini, or Hirohito. We must not allow ourselves also to become domestic enemies of freedom by supporting their policies.

Setting a "LEO" Straight

Fri, 23 May 2008 08:06:50 -0500

L. Neil Smith at JPFO - Neil reams out a new asshole for some pig who found fault with his With Friends Like The NRA ... essay. [jpfo]

Quote:

"I don't feel the need," you inform us, "for law-abiding and honest citizens to own and carry fully automatic weapons, especially those capable of concealment, along with sawed-off shotguns." Pardon me if I point out that it couldn't possibly be less important what you do or don't "feel the need" for. I don't care what you "feel", nor would James Madison who wrote the Bill of Rights, nor would Thomas Jefferson whom it was written to satisfy.

Clearly, you fail to understand why the Second Amendment was written. While it's become popular to say it has nothing to do with duck hunting -- and that's true as far as it goes -- very few people understand that it has nothing to do with defending yourself from muggers, burglars, or rapists, either, although that's a surely welcome side-benefit.

The Second Amendment was written specifically to ensure that the people would always possess the physical means to intimidate the government, to keep it in line, or, failing that, to overthrow it at need and, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "provide new guards for their future security".

In its time, the Pennsylvania (or Kentucky) rifle represented the leading edge of technology, and those who possessed it could shoot three times as far, with much greater accuracy, than those stuck with, say, the British Army's "Brown Bess" smoothbore musket. Jefferson, an inventor and a technophile himself, would recognize the need today for the average citizen to be equipped with weapons that are the equal of, or superior to, whatever the government supplies its troops with.

David E. Young Interview

Tue, 13 May 2008 05:04:40 -0500

David Codrea and David E. Young at The War on Guns - An interview with the author of The Origin of the Second Amendment ($30) and The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms ($30). You can order his books from those Amazon links or via snail mail to the publisher via secondamendmentinfo.com.

Quote:

DC: So what is the purpose of the Second Amendment? Insurrection? A National Guard? Hunting? Self defense?

DY: The goal of the Second Amendment is to secure the free state the people have authorized against possible future tyranny. This requires that the militia, the able-bodied males, be capable of effective self-embodying defensive action, something which is dependent on them having access to their own arms and knowledge of their use. The only way to assure this against misconstruction and abuse of the government's powers is to protect the right of individuals to have and use arms for any legitimate purposes. The overriding concern is mutual defense against government tyranny, which is entirely dependent upon each individual having the right and ability to defend himself so he can associate with others for defense of the community if ever necessary. Hunting and target shooting, etc., are clearly beneficial aspects of this right, and since they involve having and using arms, are protected. I have emphasized the developmental historical examples relating to these points in The Founders' View.

...

DY: I specialize in study of the Constitutional Era and, to a lesser extent, the Colonial and Revolutionary Eras. Remember that my area of expertise is the development and adoption of the Second Amendment ending with Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson's announcement regarding ratification of the Bill of Rights amendments on March 1, 1792. Historical questions about anything after that date are simply requests for my personal opinion based on my best guess.