At 5:59:55 I received a phone call. As I said, "Hello" I pushed the "Delete" button to make position 31 available. The man on the phone wanted to sign up for Boomershoot. I told him he had to do it on-line. He thanked me and I wished him good luck.

At 6:02 Carl pushed the button that claimed the position.

Carl was the instructor for the first firearms class I ever took. Taking that class enabled me to obtain my Idaho concealed carry license.

I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy right now. It's time to go back to bed with Barb.

From Time to decide: Gun control or out of control? By Adrienne T. Washington, February 19, 2008:

"I felt just shocked, like I had been hit by a truck," Mr. Thompson was quoted as saying. "There's over 90,000 licensed dealers in the U.S., and what are the chances that my company is involved with two mass murders inside of a year? I'm dumbfounded."

Really? With 90,000 licensed dealers and no one knows how many more unlicensed dealers, I'm not.

I've stared at these two paragraphs for several minutes and can only conclude Ms. Washington has a seriously malfunctioning logic center. But, as I like to say, it's irrational to expect people to be rational.

In my previous posting on microstamping I tried to be as objective as possible. Now I want to give my opinion.

Microstamped bullets

As much as the anti-gun people would like to implement something as expensive and worthless as microstamping of bullets matched to their cases and boxes I believe they will be laughed out of the legislatures. It is just too difficult and impractical to implement and even the police will complain at the paperwork and expense. Add in the ease with which stolen and re-manufactured ammo will defeat the technology and only the most rabid anti-gun people will support it. The police have a lot of influence anytime guns are brought up and without their support this technology will be defeated.

Microstamped firearms

The argument that microstamping of firearms will help solve crimes committed with guns is invalid. The only criminals that will be caught with this technology will be the stupid ones, those that committed crimes of passion, or those that had no plans to get away with the crime (murder-suicide types). In those cases the criminal would have been caught/detected anyway and the microstamping of the firearm will be irrelevant. There will be a few borderline cases where the microstamping does make a difference but the numbers will be insignificant. This is of little concern to the anti-gun people. Even if all crimes committed with guns were solved instantly they would still demand the banning of firearms. It's not about crime reduction, its about banning guns even at the cost of increased crime (see Washington D.C. and Chicago for example). That they tried less drastic measures and they failed will be one of the reason given for the more harsh measures which follow.

Microstamping of firearms, at this point in time, would be a great burden on manufactures. But I believe I have solutions to all the problems mentioned by NSSF as issues for manufactures. All those issues can be solved with a few changes in their processes. If so, then the promise of only adding a dollar or two to the price of the gun might become a reality. It will take some time and it will cost money to make the changes but ultimately it won't be major obstacle to microstamping. I'm not going to provide those answers here because it does no one any good. If I can come up with the answers in less than a day then so can a lot of other people.

As much as I would like for all manufactures to follow STI and Barrett's lead in refusing to do business with California and other anti-gun states the lure of having a less competitive market will mean some manufacture will fill the void. If there is a demand then someone will supply it. Just as with recreational drugs the price will be above free market levels and the quality may be lower but the demand will be filled. Once the boycott, if it ever becomes that, is broken by one or two manufactures then others will probably fold as well. The only question will be whether the manufactures will make guns specifically for sale in those anti-gun states or will they continue to sell non-microstamped guns in other states. I think the answer to that will depend on the "people of the gun". Will we pay a premium for an non-microstamped gun and/or will we mount an effective boycott against the manufactures that sell into the anti-gun states? I don't know the answer to that.

Conclusion

I'm left without a strong argument against microstamping and I'm afraid ultimately our legislatures will be too. It won't make a measurable change in the solving of crimes but it won't hurt the non-criminal gun owner much either. I can't make a case for it violating the Jews in the Attic Test because I claim the technology can be easily defeated. I don't like it because it is worthless and it gives validity to "reasonable government restrictions" on firearms. Ultimately it will lead to government restrictions on defacing the microstamping just as the existing laws against destroying the serial numbers of firearms. The replacement parts will ultimately be tracked and even if you purchase a gun through a private sale without a 4473 being filled out the repair of the firearm, even on your own kitchen table, will result in your gun being, again, tied to you. But this incremental firearm registration will be not be a sufficient hurdle to block it's passage in the legislatures.

I believe the bottom line is that in order to stop state legislation mandating the microstamping of firearms we will mount an effective boycott of those manufactures that sell into those states. Against Federal legislation we will have essentially no defense.

The Solicitor General has argued, Congress may prohibit such persons as idiots, imbeciles, felons, and children from possessing any firearm whatsoever. Id. at 25-26. While the Second Amendment would not absolutely preclude exclusions, it does prohibit them if they rest upon the constitutionally impermissible ground of unfitness. Exclusions may only be based upon the foundation that the class of persons excluded are not art of the constituent "people" -- i.e., those persons ho have authority to constitute and reconstitute the government -- being either incapable of giving the requisite consent to be governed, such as children, or having forfeited their civil rights, such as a convicted violent felon. According to the republican political philosophy underpinning the Second Amendment, whether a person is "trained" in the use of a firearm, and thus fit to possess it, is a matter of self government, not subject to any fitness regulation of the government.

Herbert W. Titus
Gun Owners of America
Brief amicus curiae in D.C. v. Heller.
February 11, 2008
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0802.pdf

From NIU parents call for more gun control:

"Think of how many (people) are on anti-depressants in this country," she said. "If someone goes off their medication does that mean we should hand them a weapon of mass destruction to go and act out their despair?"

[...]

Jacob said she felt that more funding needed to be put towards mental health services.

"I think there should be more focus on mental health," she said, though she also believed in more gun control. "I don't think these kinds of guns belong in anyone's hands, sane or not sane. And law enforcement doesn't need these kinds of guns in people's hands."

John and Sharon Roszkowski, of Downers Grove, are parents of a student at NIU and came all the way to Skokie for the press conference. Sharon said she was primarily looking for what she as an individual could do to help prevent similar events from happening in the future.

"I think there are just too many shootings," she said.

The press conference didn't give her a good idea of what she could do, but at least, "I feel like I have a direction," she said.

A pump 12-gauge shotgun and a couple 9mm handguns are WMDs? And no one should have these kinds of guns? Then they should start by removing them from the police.

I especially like the part about not having a good idea of what to but yet she has a direction. Press conferences, emotion, and more government--that's what they do, that is their "currency".

How are they going to defend against this new binary explosive?

[Thanks to JoeyD Sr.]

Position 31 for Boomershoot 2008 will become available tomorrow morning, Tuesday February 19^th, at 6:00 AM PST (I think I have my alarm set correctly this time).

Shooting benches are recommended for this position. See http://entry.boomershoot.org/#Main for pictures of the location. Assuming your fingers are fast enough you can sign up for this postion via the online entry webpage of the previous link.

Communism is at once a complete system of proletarian ideology and a new social system. It is different from any other ideological and social system, and is the most complete, progressive, revolutionary and rational system in human history. The ideological and social system of feudalism has a place only in the museum of history. The ideological and social system of capitalism has also become a museum piece in one part of the world (in the Soviet Union), while in other countries it resembles "a dying person who is sinking fast, like the sun setting beyond the western hills", and will soon be relegated to the museum. The communist ideological and social system alone is full of youth and vitality, sweeping the world with the momentum of an avalanche and the force of a thunderbolt.

Chairman Mao Tse-Tung
Little Red Book
"On New Democracy" (January 1940), Selected Works,  Vol. II, pp. 360-61.
[I ran across this book in the Paper Source store in Bellevue, Washington yesterday. A very weird place to find it. I was interested in reading it but didn't want to spend money that would benefit some communist so I found the book on-line. I need to read the Communist Manifesto sometime too. So much of Marx and other communist philosophy infiltrates our politics and even everyday thinking it would help to be able to identify it and point out the errors more readily. As you can see from the quote above their predictions and proclamations have less that stellar accuracy.--Joe]

I don't have the final information available yet but this is the premliminary report from the auction last night:

I'm not sure of the actual selling price, I thought it was $450 each but someone I spoke with said they went for $500 each.

Wow! $450 or $500 for participating in Boomershoot (and donating money to FONRA).

I gave them two positions but was asked to only mention there was one available. The plan was to auction off the one then offer the other position to the second place bidder for the same price.

I've been doing a little research into microstamping. High emotions on either side are not productive. I've tried to gather facts and sources for your own research.

This was instigated at the suggestion of Justthisguy in the comments.

First off I would like to point out there are two types of microstamping. Neither of which should be confused with "ballistic fingerprints".

The Technologies

Ballistic Fingerprints are Dead for Now

"Ballistics fingerprints" are a system where law enforcement obtains a bullet and cartridge casing from the manufacture for every new gun. Maryland and New York have passed laws requiring this and at last check not a single crime had been solved with this additional data and Maryland State Police were advising the money should be spent on something more effective.

Microstamping of Bullets

This concept is about putting matching serial numbers on the bullet, shell casing, and bullet box. Of course there would have to be a database that tracked the bullets from manufacture to the end user. It is impractical for many reasons.

I don't expect this to go anywhere in the immediate future.

Microstamping of Firearms

This is about putting unique codes (essentially a serial number) on the firing pin, breach face, ejector and extractor. Typically you will hear the example of the firing pin being marked but actually there will be markings in other places as well. Some people pretend it's a secret where these markings will be. Anyplace that strikes or presses against the shell casing is a potential location for imprinting the codes. This includes inside the chamber but those marking are at high risk of being sheared or smeared away in semi-autos during the extraction while there is still some pressure in the barrel and casing.

These codes will correspond to the serial number of the gun. The manufacture of the gun will be required to cooperate with law enforcement to find the distributor->retailer->initial buyer -- just like current firearm traces when law enforcement has the make, model, and serial number of a firearm.

This technology poses the greatest potential to be generally implemented and California passed such a law on October 13, 2007. This law mandates the technology be used on all new firearms sold in California beginning on January 1, 2010. It requires the microscopic codes be put in two or more places such they are transferred to the cartridge case.

For more information see Wikipedia on microstamping.

The Debate

Overview

The claimed benefit of the proposed technologies is the promise of making it easier to solve crimes committed with firearms.

The arguments against the use of the technology center on the ease of a criminal defeating the technology, the difficulty of manufacturers implementing it, the risk of innocent people being framed, and the increased costs to all gun owners.

Anti-gun advocates

Gun control advocate appear to be in favor of any restrictions on firearms and are in favor of all of the technologies. See also microstamping webpages for The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and their PowerPoint presentation.

Pro-gun advocates

This report on a paper from UC Davis provides some support for the case against microstamping of firearms but probably made a lot of errors and should not be considered strong evidence for the case against microstamping.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. has a document on microstamping that outlines the problems from the manufacturer's viewpoint and the Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners, and that it will not reduce crime. Other documents I found on the NSSF site probably have serious flaws and shouldn't be used as reference material.

Technology advocates

Todd Lizotte is a co-inventor of firearms microstamping. Here is a video of him describing and demonstrating the technology. He also commented on David E. Petzal's Field and Stream blog. I have extracted his comments from this blog and uploaded them here. One of his arguments is the following (a copy and paste with typos intact):

I am not sure a defensive strategy to protecting rights has ever worked. A proactive stretgy always keeps the fight off in the distance. Microstamping does not change the status quo, all data is at the manufacturer. No registration, no licensing and no imaging.

What many people are not aware of is there is a new 3D mapping imaging system being produced. We helped successfully defeat ballistic imaging for new firearms, however the ATF and its vendor are not giving up, the ATF has a $500 Million system in place for linking current ballistic imaging data from crime labs. The company who built that system, located in Quebec, needs to expand its market, it needs to capture the new firearm market.

The old system they built can not accurately imaging new firearms, however it is possible for the new 3D system to work at a much larger expense.

Microstamping neutralizes the need for imaging all togther.

In the end I am for being proactive, instead of being reactive.

If you want to see how bad it could really get, google 3D ballistic imaging and see how costly that system will be, since that system will require all info on the pruchaser and firearm to be entered into a government controlled criminal database.

I am not sure most people understand this fact.

Microstamping is a perfect technology --- completely benign and all data remains at the firearm manufacturer.

In essence of what he is saying is the alternative to microstamping the firearm is a much more expensive version of the "ballistic fingerprint" system implemented with better technology and the associated additional databases.

Conclusions

Because no new database is required, only an additional entry in the manufacturer's database with the serial number, firearm microstamping gets around a number of the arguments against "ballistics fingerprints" and bullet/casing microstamping. For this reason I expect the anti-gun people to push this technology the hardest and have the most success with it.

The best argument against microstamping of firearms is the manufacturing process does not lend itself to serialization of multiple parts. The firing pins are made by some supplier, the extractors, ejectors, and slides by other companies. The manufacture of the gun itself may just assemble the pieces. Each of the serialized parts must be matched with the frame that has the actual official firearm serial number. The code on these serialized parts are not visible without a microscope and all would have to be verified and recorded in database during the assembly process. This will make it expensive and error prone. This argument will not gain much traction with the anti-gun people because increasing the expense of firearms is not regarded as a problem.

The next best argument is probably that criminals can easily defeat the technology. This seems indisputable. Changing of firing pins, extractors, ejectors, and barrels is commonplace in the gun community. A few minutes with an grinding stone on a Dremel tool will obliterate the laser etching without affecting the functioning of the firearm. The counter arguments are somewhat weak; 1) Criminals aren't very smart; and 2) There are redundant markings.

The framing of innocent people is probably the weakest of the arguments against firearm microstamping. The powder residue and other forensic evidence will eliminate most planted shell casing from the real shell cases involved in the crime. Multiple stampings from reloaded shell cases also are probably easily eliminated with the available forensic evidence. It will slow down the process however, but probably no more than it would if they were to do it with existing forensic technology and this appears to be a non-problem. Of course this assumes the prosecutors and law enforcement are forthright and trustworthy in dealing with the evidence. I am inclined to believe this is generally the case but the actual instances of unethical actions of our government officials is much higher than I am comfortable with.

Pretty Pictures

The following pictures are from Forensic Technology and show the level of detail possible with modern microscopes.

Update: The following pictures are from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's PowerPoint presentation:

Primer after 2500 rounds through a Thompson SMG.
Glock firing pin after 1400 rounds (image reversed).
Primer from a Glock after 1400 rounds.

Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) image from Glock showing smearing of the primer.

You may in vain mention to them the duties upon tea, etc. These things, they will say, do not affect them. But tell them of the robbery of the magazine, and that the next step will be to disarm them, and they will be ready to fly to arms to defend themselves.

Patrick Henry
William Wirt Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence, and Speeches (Sprinkle Publications, Harrisonburg, Va. 1993), p. 279.
[If only it were true now.--Joe]

Silent, deadly, and never needing to be reloaded, these implements of destruction were designed for just one thing--rapidly cutting through flesh and bone. How many more must die before our government wakes up and bans these deadly weapons?

A Queens man with a history of mental problems was arrested Saturday in the vicious slaying of a psychologist attacked in her office with a meat cleaver, police said.

David Tarloff, 39, was taken into custody in the morning after investigators matched him with three palm prints found at the bloody crime scene, said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

[H/T to Rob for the email.]

[A handloader acquaintance who lives in Washington state was anticipating the extra hassles threatened by this microstamping bill (HB 3359). My comments are below.]

Don’t worry about it right now. From Joe Waldron’s GOAL Post 2008-4 email sent to wa-guns@yahoogroups.com last Saturday:

HB 3359 was assigned to House Judiciary for action. It was introduced just after the policy committee cut-off (Judiciary’s last hearing before cut-off was held on 5 February), so theoretically the bill will not be acted on. As noted above, cut-off dates are set by the legislature, and bills can be pulled from committee directly to the chamber floor.

There isn’t enough room in the GOAL Post to cover all the flaws in HB 3359! The bottom line is, as written, the bill would have a major impact on consumer ammunition costs AND on state bureaucracy, requiring significant staff expansion to meet record-keeping requirements.

(The anti-self defense lobby – the gun control lobby – is promoting so-called “microstamping” bills in eight states this year (most in the Northeast) and versions have been filed in Congress. While HB 3359 is unlikely to go anywhere this year, don’t expect it to just fade away. California passed – and Schwarzneggar signed – a bullet encoding bill last year.)

That said, if it passes you are still screwed because it explicitly includes bullets used for handloading (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/3359.pdf):

"Pistol ammunition" means all ammunition principally for use
11 in pistols, notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in
12 other firearms, including bullets used for reloading or handloading
13 pistol ammunition.

And it’s not just sold in state it’s imported as well:

Beginning January 1, 2010, all pistol ammunition manufactured in
8 the state, imported into the state, or kept or offered for sale, sold,
9 or transferred in the state, must be coded ammunition as defined in RCW
10 9.41.010.

I hope you didn’t miss this part:

(18) "Coded ammunition" means ammunition that carries a unique
32 alphanumeric identifier that has been applied by etching onto the base
33 of the bullet projectile and the inside of the cartridge casing and
34 that meets the following requirements:
35 (a) The base of the bullet and the inside of the cartridge casing
36 of each round in a box of ammunition are encoded with the same unique
37 alphanumeric identifier;

I wonder if Dillon and other makers of reloading gear have the special attachments to engrave the appropriate alphanumeric identifiers. And the more interesting question to me is how the equipment will prevent you from duplicating the identifiers of ammunition used by the police…

From the "Gun Guys":

Yeah, I know I'm different. I'm not "normal". But what I want explained to me is why, when a bunch of helpless people were slaughtered, is it an appropriate response to huddle in a crowd with their heads down? They are emulating prey. And they are demanding that even more people be made defenseless as well. They are acting like stupid grass-eaters. Do they think this will somehow make it less likely for the predators to attack them?

I think it is just the opposite. I think the predators at a very primitive level, if not with total cerebrum awareness, recognize they are stupid and may even think they deserve to be preyed upon. What would the predators think if the response were for the gun stores shelves to be emptied and the ranges filled with people being trained and practicing?

See also On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs, Quote of the Day--Virgil, and Quote of the Day--Greg Hamilton.

The media figured out long ago that it’s a bad idea to show streakers and unruly fans at football and baseball games. When some idiot runs out onto the field in his birthday suit the cameras cut away and the announcers just comment that there’s an idiot screwing up the game. They never publicize the moron’s name or discuss his actions because they know that the publicity will just encourage some other moron to play copy-cat. For some reason they can’t maintain that kind of standard when mass murder is involved. They seek out the murderer’s family and friends, they publish their rants and photo’s and they give the bastards exactly what they want – fame.

I’m just a little-bitty corner of the media; a small voice crying out in the wilderness, but I will never again name a murderer or play a role in keeping his memory alive. I hope that others in the media will grow a conscience and do likewise. I don’t expect it, but I will continue to hope.

Jeff Knox
February 15, 2008
Copy Cats
The Firearms Coalition

This seems like it is a tremendous over-reaction. This week I’ve seen prayers on campus and kids afraid to go on campus. If he violated a campus gun policy, I’m not opposed to the college putting him through their standards. But as a Marietta College graduate, I’m offended that they would ban him from the school so quickly. It doesn’t sound like he had due process. It seems the college and the students think that if you have guns, you are inherently dangerous. But there are those of us who carry guns and who are not dangerous.

Bill Burton
Sheriff: Student a gun enthusiast
[Regarding a student that was suspended from college and charged with a crime after having some guns and ammunition in his vehicle. IMHO the campus officials that did this to him should be charged with a felony. H/T to SayUncle for the pointer.--Joe]

When will they ever learn that gun free zones weren't, aren't, and can't be? How many people must die before they let the victims fight back? It happened again:

A gunman killed five students and wounded 16 others in a Northern Illinois University lecture hall on Thursday afternoon in DeKalb before killing himself, according to university and police officials.

While I applaud this ruling I can't help but be cynical:

Houston's adult bookstore backers Wednesday hailed a federal court's decision to overturn a 35-year-old state law that banned promotion or sale of sex toys. But the decision won't go into effect until the court issues its mandate in early March — long after the industry's lucrative pre-Valentine's Day season.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violates the privacy protections of the 14th Amendment.

"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its law to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct," the judges wrote in the 2-1 ruling. "This case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of of consensual private intimate conduct."

The judges alluded to Lawrence v. Texas, a Houston case that resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the state's sodomy law in 2003.

So tell me why this same reasoning doesn't result in the overturning of laws restricting recreational drugs, prostitution, gambling, and firearms? I can only conclude the judges rule however they want to rule then find a reason to justify themselves afterward.

People die every day. I'm used to it. I live in D.C.

Wanda Hill
17 years old
Tackling Gun Violence And the Scars It Leaves
[It's time to eliminate the criminal protection zones in this country and prosecute the criminal politicians that created them and the law enforcement people that enforce them.--Joe]

Boomershoot Precision Rifle Instructor Gene Econ reports:

I can take four more guys for coaching on each day and a good twenty more for field fire.

Sign up here.

This clinic is such a great value that people have come in from out of state just to attend the clinic and don't bother to stay for Boomershoot the next day.

If you do sign up for the clinic and don't have a position in Boomershoot but would like to participate let me know and I'll try to find a place for you. Depending on the weather some of the places that can be a swamp are dry and usable. It all depends on the ratio of rain to sun in the previous week or so.

Kevin puts the pieces together. It works for me.

Both SayUncle and Sebastian are feeling happy to see "Obama Slaps Hillary Silly in VA" but note that rationally that feeling doesn't make much sense.

Admittedly, even if you drop the title of "The First Woman President of the United States of America" this image is pretty frightening:

But which would you rather have in office? Someone who 40% of the population thought was a power mad megalomaniac without morals or someone who would attempt to implement the same laws and tyranny but 80% of the population thought was, deep down, a "nice guy"?

If those were the only two choices I had I would vote for the megalomaniac because it would be easier to motivate the opposition and throw them and their collaborators out the next election. And if the next elections "didn't happen" a lot more people would have been preparing for the revolution.

Basically its a choice between being forced to distribute either a poison that tastes sweet or one that tastes extremely bitter. Go with the bitter tasting because fewer people will take a lethal dose.

And it may not come to one of them being elected. As some have said, we want Hillary to win the nomination because she has less chance of being elected than Obama. Go Hillary! Then get lost.

Some people should be rented out by the minute by their cellmates to the bidder of the most cigarettes. My number one nominees at this time are these criminals. This should continue for the rest of their lives--no sleep allowed.

A woman in New York state sold a young girl to her landlord for sex to cover her overdue rent, federal authorities said.

Linda O'Connor, 46, also sold the girl to strangers twice at a hotel in 2006 and 2007, authorities said. The girl was 12 and 13 at the time of the alleged rapes.

O'Connor, who lives in the upstate New York town of Norwich, was arrested Sunday on federal charges of selling a child and other pornography counts. Assistant U.S. Attorney Miroslav Lovric said she could face up to life in prison.

O'Connor's former landlord, Dean Sacco, 49, of New Jersey, was also charged with having sex with the girl, crossing state lines to have sex with a minor and various pornography charges.

The girl told authorities that O'Connor and Sacco photographed the assaults. Now 14 and in foster care, she told police she faced homelessness and that Sacco threatened to kill her if she did not comply.

The girl told investigators Sacco had sex with her at least five times and that O'Connor took her to a hotel in December 2006 to have sex with a 40-year-old man for $150 while O'Connor watched. O'Connor later took her back to the hotel again to have sex with a second man, the girl said. After the second encounter, O'Connor took the girl Christmas shopping.

In the end, the only statistic that matters in Second Amendment discussions is that at least sixty million (and perhaps over one hundred million) people were murdered by their own governments during the twentieth century. Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Fifth Auxiliary Right, 104 Yale L.J. 995, 1025 (1995) (book review). In America today, the necessity of exercising the last resort of revolution appears remote. But a Constitution is not for the moment – it is for the ages. The people’s right to alter or abolish a despotic government is fundamental to their sovereignty. The means to exercise that right should not be entrusted to an exclusive military class, any more than the freedom of speech should be entrusted only to government spokespersons.

Jeffrey B. Teichert
February 12, 2008
District of Columbia, et al., v. Dick Anthony Heller
Page 21.
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF ORGANIZATIONS AND SCHOLARS CORRECTING MYTHS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS COMMONLY DEPLOYED BY OPPONENTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL-RIGHTS-BASED INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT

This came via another email from Joe Waldron. I haven't been able to find the brief on the CCRKBA website but I did find it here.

CCRKBA FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN D.C. GUN BAN CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has filed an amicus curiae brief in District of Columbia v Heller, in the appeal of the historic case that overturned the district’s 31-year-old handgun ban because it violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms affirmed by the Second Amendment.

Written by Bellingham, Wash. attorney Jeffrey B. Teichert, the brief was filed in cooperation with the Evergreen Freedom Foundation and several university scholars. It carefully details the history of the Second Amendment, and dismantles arguments by the District of Columbia that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms was written only to protect some mythical state’s right to organize and maintain a militia.

“Our 53-page brief is tightly written, and it refutes contentions by the District and anti-gun rights organizations that the Second Amendment is exclusively written for the common defense, and only applies to military service,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “The brief, which can be read on our website at www.ccrkba.org, goes right to the heart of this case, and essentially dismantles every specious claim by anti-gunners about the intent of this Amendment.”

CCRKBA’s brief also properly labels arguments by the Brady Campaign that the English Bill of Rights only provided for arms for the military as “patent nonsense.” Likewise, the brief notes that the District of Columbia’s argument would deny the sovereignty of the people by falsely claiming that the Second Amendment permits them to be disarmed in favor of an exclusive military class.

“The District of Columbia cannot abolish a fundamental constitutional right anymore than Congress can,” Gottlieb said. “Furthermore, neither the District, nor its anti-gun-rights supporters, can be allowed to transform a civil right into a privilege, as they seek to do by regulating the Second Amendment into irrelevancy.”

“For the past several months anti-gun extremists have been beating drums about the downfall of civilization if the high court correctly upholds the Second Amendment as protective of an individual civil right,” Gottlieb stated. “That argument amounts to hysteria. The Second Amendment is the cornerstone of liberty and public safety in this country, whether the District or its supporters like it or not. Our brief to the Supreme Court clearly explains this.”

Another wheelbarrow full of cash just showed up at my bunker from the Apex of the Triangle of Death. They just put a news release on their website about the state attorney generals signing on to the pro-individual rights amicus brief in D.C. v. Heller.

I like this part:

This brief by the state Attorneys General comes on the heels of last week’s congressional brief, having the largest number of co-signers of a congressional amicus brief in American history, with 250 House Members, 55 Senators and the Vice President of the United States, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate.

I'm betting the decision in this case will be delayed compared to most. Lots and lots for the Justices to read and ponder.

Mike Brown and I have been talking about this bill for months. He wrote it and I helped with the website and blog. Last week it was introduced. It appears we have got someone's attention.

From the University of Idaho:

---

From: asui@uidaho.edu
To: students-list@uidaho.edu
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:24:23 -0800
Subject: Senate Bill 1381 Allowing students with concealed weapons permits to campus

Dear Vandal,

In case you have not heard, the Idaho State Senate is considering Senate
Bill 1381.  If this bill passes, it will allow individuals with concealed
weapons permits to carry their firearms on campus after notifying proper
university authorities.  Because this bill has the potential to affect every
student at the university the ASUI has decided to put together a discussion
panel where students can learn more, ask questions, and state their stance
on this piece of legislation.  This is a great opportunity to engage in the
political process.  After the panel, you will have an opportunity to write
letters to state legislators supporting or opposing SB 1381.

Here is a link to the actual bill text:
http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/S1381.html

What: Senate Bill 1381 Allowing students with concealed weapons permits to
carry firearms on campus
Where: Renfrew Hall Room 111
When: Wed. Feb 13th, 2008 from 4:00-5:30 PM

 

 

ASUI and the ASUI Center for Volunteerism and Social Action

This fall the Gun Rights Policy Conference will be in Phoenix. Give serious consideration to attending.

I was a speaker at the 1999 and 2000 events. I'm hoping to at least attend this year. It is a tremendously inspiring event.

Via another email from Joe Waldron:

SAF FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN D.C. GUN BAN CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus curiae brief in District of Columbia v Heller, the appeal of the landmark case that overturned the district’s handgun ban on the grounds that it unconstitutionally violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Written by attorney Nelson Lund at the George Mason University School of Law, the brief has already earned praise of veteran Second Amendment authority David Kopel, who noted in remarks on a popular Second Amendment website, “If you want to read a model Supreme Court brief, this is the brief to read.”

In the brief, Lund notes that the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms would remain even if the militia were disbanded.

“Our 48-page brief is tightly written, and it refutes the contentions by anti-gunners that the Second Amendment only protects some right of the states to maintain militias,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “The brief, which can be read on our website at www.saf.org <http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/saf.heller.amicus.brief.pdf>, gets right to the heart of this case. We also note that the opposition arguments are absurd, and explain why.”

SAF’s brief further reminds the court that “In liberal theory, the most fundamental of all rights is the right of self defense.” It also notes that ‘the people’ referred to in the Second Amendment “has always been a much larger body of individuals than the militia.”

“Congress cannot abolish this constitutional right of the people by abolishing the militia,” notes Lund in the brief. “Neither can the right be limited to contexts in which its exercise contributes to the functioning of an organized militia that Congress is not even required to maintain.”

“While anti-gun extremists are beating drums about the downfall of civilization if the high court upholds the individual right,” Gottlieb stated, “we believe that the time has come for the Second Amendment to take its place as the Constitution’s insurance policy against tyranny and as our guardian against unjust laws that leave us defenseless against a growing criminal element.”

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Update 8:20 AM: As outspoken as I am, I still wouldn't have said this even though I think it is true (page 4):

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), suggests an interpretation that is different from petitioners’, and more facially plausible, namely that private citizens might have a right to possess weapons that are “part of the ordinary military equipment or [whose] use could contribute to the common defense.” Id. at 178. This test (which is not Miller’s holding) implies that American citizens have a right to possess at least those weapons that an unaided individual can “bear” and that “could contribute to the common defense.” Today this would include, at a minimum, the fully automatic rifles that are standard infantry issue, and probably also shoulder-fired rockets and grenades.

That should generate some PSH.

Update 8:40 AM: I like this (page 15):

The militia has always been a small subset of “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. James Madison, for example, estimated that the militia comprised about one-sixth of the population when the Constitution was adopted.

Most obviously, women were not part of the eighteenth century militia, nor are they included today (except for female volunteers in the National Guard). Women, however, have always been citizens and thus part of “the people.” See, e.g., Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165-70 (1874) (although women did not have voting privileges, they were part of “the people” who ordained and established the Constitution, and they have always been citizens). Just as women have always been covered by the First Amendment’s “right of the people” to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, and the Fourth Amendment’s “right of the people” to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, women have always had the same Second Amendment rights as men.

Women have rights? Who would have guessed? Certainly not the D.C. anti-gun bigots.

Update 8:50 AM: From page 17 and 18 we have another great point:

The opposite form of noncongruence was also significant. Those who were physically unable to perform militia duties, as well as those aged 45 and older, still had all their political rights, including the right to vote. Besides the numerous men in these categories, many other citizens were legally exempted from militia duties.28 Thus, many men with full political rights were not subject to militia obligations. The noncongruence of the militia and the people points to another fatal defect in petitioners’ interpretation of the Second Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution purports to forbid Congress from exempting everyone from militia duties, as this Court has recognized. 29 It would be absurd to conclude that if Congress effectively abolished the militia by enacting such a universal exemption, the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms would thereby vanish. Congress cannot abolish this constitutional right of the people by abolishing the militia. Neither can the right be limited to contexts in which its exercise contributes to the functioning of an organized militia that Congress is not even required to maintain.

Update 9:05 AM: One should not retain the impression that SAF is arguing for the private ownership and use of machine guns and RGPs. They say:

[A] significant gap has developed between civilian and military small arms. Eighteenth century Americans commonly used the same arms for civilian and military purposes, but today’s infantry and organized militia are equipped with an array of highly lethal weaponry that civilians do not employ for self defense or other important lawful purposes. The Constitution does not require this Court to blind itself to that post-Miller reality, or to hold that the civilian population has a right to keep every weapon that the militia can expect to find useful if called to active duty.

An email I received from Joe Waldron:

Oklahoma Republican Senator (and medical doctor) Tom Coburn is leading
the fight in the Senate to force the Dept of the Interior to open
National Parks to concealed carry. He's running a poll on his web site
to demonstrate support for the idea.

Recall back in the 90s, the Park Service decided to arm some of their
rangers. It wasn't because of the bears, it was because of the
two-legged predators who prey in our parks. Park Service rules should
be the same as National Forest rules: follow state law or simply allow
law-abiding citizens to carry.

V/R,
Joe Waldron

Middle of the page, lower center.

Should law abiding citizens be permitted to carry guns in national parks?

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/

Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed.

Benjamin Franklin

Via Sebastain we have this awesome picture. I love the balls of water suspended in the air. Today we can see things that a 100 years ago people probably didn't even imagine.