In South Africa you must apply for a license to own a gun:

…one must pass a written “competency test.” The South African constitution recognizes 11 official languages, but the test is only given in two of them, Afrikaans and English. Imagine if your gun ownership rights depended on passing a written test in a language you could not read!

And people wonder why we resist such things in this country.

It gets worse:

Applicants are not issued licenses if they are deemed to be at risk of becoming violent. As enforced in South Africa, this could simply mean that a person was divorced, separated or fired within the past two years.

Processing of applications is very slow. For example, of the applications submitted in 2006, only about a quarter have been fully processed.

Licenses are valid for two, five or 10 years, depending on the legal category of the license, so keeping a gun can mean staying on a near-constant treadmill of paperwork, fees and uncertainty. The majority of the 2005 applicants, who are supposed to renew in 2010, are still waiting for a decision on their 2005 applications.

Women are particularly hard hit (pun intended):

Married women who want guns for protection are told that their husbands will protect them—as if South African woman should behave like Taliban wives, and never leave the home except with their husbands. People who live in high crime areas are told that the police will protect them—except that the police obviously don’t, as South Africa is one of the most crime-ridden countries in the world.

Of course such high restrictions has created a black market with the attendant crime and corruption. It’s no different than the prohibitions in this country against recreational drugs and alcohol in the last century.

Once we have our rights well secured in this country we should start putting pressure on other countries to recognize the natural right to keep and bear arms.

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women.

Original version here.

I view this sort of like the Berlin Wall coming down. A friend that visited Berlin a few months after it came down said that 24 x 7 if you were within a 1/4 mile of the wall you could here the “dink, dink, dink” of hammers pounding away at the wall. As you approached you saw hundreds of people of people either with hammers or waiting to pick up one after the person ahead of him or her finished. Everyone was getting a piece of the wall.

In this case Dave Hardy put it as follows:

Defendant was charged with possession of a handgun by a minor. The court, in an extremely thoughtful ruling (citing Joyce Malcolm, Eugene Volokh, William van Alstyne and others) rules that the 14th Amendment due process clause incorporates the right to arms and makes it binding on the States, then remands for a determination as to whether the law passes muster (which was barely briefed). The dissent argues there is no need for remand, because strict scrutiny applies and the law fails that test. The dissent has interesting references to teenager possessing arms, and serving in the military, throughout American history.

The D.C. laws against firearms ownership were struck down and with that crack in the wall more and more of the wall is falling. When McDonald v. Chicago is decided the ground is going to start shaking as that wall of 20,000 oppressive gun laws collapses into a pile of rubble.

See Notes on Lethal Logic for links to all my posts on Dennis Henigan’s book Lethal Logic.

Chapter 2 of Lethal Logic is titled: “When Guns Are Outlawed Only Outlaws Will Have Guns.“

In response to this “bumper-sticker” Henigan, page 38, claims this:

… seems unresponsive to most proposals for strengthening our guns laws that have dominated the gun debate for at least the last two decades. Instead, the argument often functions as a classic “red herring”.

The basis for this claim is there is virtually no support in public polls or the legislatures of the states or the Federal government for a ban on handguns. But notice, pages 37 and 38, how he words this in terms of handguns. Then he goes on to day (page 38), “This is not to say that the proposal to ban handguns, or even all guns, is not worthy of public debate.”

What about “assault weapons” Mr. Henigan? Or “.50 caliber sniper rifles?” Or “Saturday Night Specials”? Or the support for banning the future sale of guns which don’t met their criteria for safety? Or depriving people of their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms without due process (they call it the “Terror Gap“)? And don’t forget their support the the “safe handgun lists” of California and Massachusetts. And furthermore he doesn’t mention the Brady Campaign supported the D.C. ban on handguns. With all the bans which he and his organization do support it can hardly be considered a “red herring”. How many guns types would have to be remaining before it would stop being a “red herring”?

It stops being a red herring the instant he proposes the banning of just one gun. And we are way past that threshold. Yet he words things very carefully to try and make it sound as if his claim is still valid. He says the following in discussing the Heller decision (page 40):

If a handgun ban is “off the table,” this may make it more difficult for the pro-gun advocate to change the subject when the issue is reasonable gun laws, like background checks at gun shows, that fall far short of a handgun ban. How can the gun lobby argue as if the issue is whether to allow guns for self-defense, if the issue now cannot be whether to allow guns for self-defense? If the argument is, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” now a new response is possible: “Not only are we not talking about outlawing guns, but guns cannot be outlawed. So let’s talk about ways of strengthening our laws to keep guns out of the wrong hands, while abiding by the new Constitutional right created in Heller.”

When all the anti-gun organizations give up bans of all types of guns, and making law abiding people jump through oppressive registration, licensing, and training requirements then we can talk about dropping the “When Guns Are Outlawed Only Outlaws Will Have Guns” slogan.

And what is this about “the new Constitutional right created in Heller”? We have quotes, papers, and even state constitutions that go back to the founding of this republic all saying it was the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. It was just in the last few decades that some people started claiming it was a “collective right”. We have been telling them all this time it was an individual right. Now that all nine justices on the Supreme Court agreed with us they act as if it’s a surprise to them.

Even ignoring outright bans Henigan acknowledges the slogan has wider application (page 41):

The core of the argument is that because gun control laws, by their very nature, are obeyed only by the law abiding, they cannot possibly be effective in curbing violent behavior by criminals. “Criminals will always break the law and obtain firearms illegally,” says NRA President Sandra Froman.

…

The success of gun control laws in curbing access to guns by dangerous people is not at all dependent on the willingness of hardened criminals to obey them.

…

Were it not for gun control laws barring gun possession by certain categories of high-risk people, the police would not have this enforcement tool at their disposal.

What it boils down to is that Henigan is a proponent of creating numerous victim-less crimes that can be used by the police to arrest and prosecute people. Usefulness to the police is not a criteria that should be entertained when we are speaking of a specific enumerated right. Do we want to create categories of “high-risk people” that should be denied access to religious materials? Or certain categories of “high-risk people” who do not enjoy a right to trial by jury, or the right not to incriminate themselves? Wouldn’t those too be useful law enforcement tools?

I don’t have the time to go through all the half-truths and mistaken conclusions and proposed violations of an inalienable right in this chapter but here is a slightly expanded version of my notes on the chapter

Page 45. Figure 2.1 baseline is not 0.

Time to crime is greater than zero.

By using a baseline very close to the average value changes that small effects appear to be amplified. The effect he exaggerates is the drop in crime rates after passage of the Brady Act. The same Brady Act that the CDC says insufficient evidence exists to credit it with a drop in crime. Furthermore the “time to crime” for a gun is greater than zero but his graph shows a drop nearly exactly coincident with the Brady Act. And even that is misleading because the crime rate actually started dropping in 1992 before the Brady Act was passed. If there was a correlation between the crime rate and the Brady Act any causation must be that the crime rate caused the Brady Act rather than the other way around.

Page 46. Iron Pipeline.
Strong gun law states will probably have their laws thrown out. Strong law argument can be used against cell phones and cars.

The laws against gun ownership/recreational-drugs/alcohol/pornography/whatever create black markets. The just because a black market exists does not mean it is in the best interest of society to expand those bans. There would exist a black market in cars and cell phones if some states made it expensive and/or difficult to acquire those tools. Cars and cell phones are used in crimes all the time too but that doesn’t mean they should be banned or heavily restricted.

One gun a month requires some sort of registration.

Page 52. Registration fails The Jews in the Attic Test. People will not register. 100s of millions unregistered in Europe and Canada.

Page 58. Machine guns legal.

Henigan claims the low use of machine guns in violent crime shows that strict registration and licensing work. No. His base assumption that machine guns give “an enormous advantage in a gunfight with police” is wrong. I’ve fired machine guns, I’ve seen other people fire machine guns. When it comes to putting rounds on a few targets quickly a semi-auto is a far better tool. Even Jeff Cooper said, “As I have often stated, if someone wants to shoot at me, I sure hope he does it on full-auto.” (Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries Vol. 1, No. 9 October 1993). If criminals have any gun experience at all they will arrive at the same conclusion and realize that there are no advantages for the types of uses they have for firearms and don’t bother to acquire one. Even the police who have legal access to full auto firearms do not carry them on a regular basis and do not have much, if any, training with them. The absence of full auto firearms in crime does not mean the highly restrictive laws reduced violent crime or had any other benefit to society.

Page 63. Suicide reduced by waiting periods.
A right delayed is a right denied. How many lives lost because of waiting periods and storage laws?

Page 65. Accidental shooting data is old.

He does not use data past 2000. The accidental shooting rate continued to drop despite vastly more guns being in circulation.

Page 68. Ten states. Six states.

By “cherry picking” his data (ten states the highest rates of death by gunshot versus the six with the lowest rate of death gunshot) he skews things to support his conclusions. Furthermore this measure “death by gunshot” is of little interest to people like me who care more about “violent crime”. By choosing the metric he did he can ignore things like the high violent crime rates in jurisdictions where people do not have ready access to guns to defend themselves. It also lumps justified and praiseworthy homicide where the good guy used a gun in with criminal homicide with a gun. He may be giving accurate numbers but he is very selective in how he present them such that he can conclude “gun restrictions are good”.

Regardless of which point Henigan attempts to make he completely fails to “explode the myth”. The best that can be said about Henigan in this chapter is that figures don’t lie but this liar does know how to figure.

I have been negligent and I’ve been reminded of this in email from Mike:

Are you aware of any efforts to counter the Brady Starbucks petition? They claim to have 25k signatures. Money talks and bullshit walks, though. I think it would be a lot more effective than an online petition to designate a “Thank Starbucks Day”, where people would be encouraged to go into their local Starbucks, buy a coffee, and hand the manager a card thanking the company for their enlightened policies. Or send the CEO a photo of oneself holding a latte. Or ??? This might not be a bad idea to put into practice regularly with other companies. Why complain about bad policies? Let’s reward companies with good ones (and make a lot of noise doing it). What do you think?

“I’d like to thank Starbucks for standing up for the safety of its customers and allowing lawfully carried firearms in your retail establishments. Thank you for your wise decision and for helping us keep our families safe. I will be recommending your products to all my coffee drinking friends.”

Yes. This must be done.

Sebastian has more on the topic here and here. Send your email by following this link.

It is really, really important for the Brady Campaign to win something. They aren’t winning in the legislatures. They aren’t winning elections. They aren’t winning in the courts. They aren’t winning in the polls. They aren’t winning in donations. They aren’t winning in members. They have sunk to the level of doing battle with a few guys in their pajamas which they can’t win either.

Such a major losing streak can become a fatal downward spiral. It demoralizes them and their supporters. As Chris Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, said in regards to politicians, “They don’t fear me. They fear you.” If the Brady Campaign can only bring a small fraction of the people to the party that gun activists can they will be less influential. The less influence they have the less notice people will give them. The less notice the less influence.

It’s sort of like something barely floating on the surface of the ocean. As long as they are less dense than the water they float and are visible. The visibility changes day to day with the density. As long as they are visible they have influence and have hope of becoming more visible and influential the next day. But this is only true while their density is less than water. There is a threshold which cannot be crossed. Very shortly after their density increases just a very small amount above water they start their journey to the very bottom of the ocean. Their visibility while on the surface is a linear function of their density. But as soon as the density of water threshold is crossed it’s like a switch was turned off.

We know how dense they are. It won’t take much to get them started on their journey to oblivion. Send Starbucks your email and your business. Tell them when you buy your coffee (or pastries, tea, and hot chocolate for people like me) that you are a gun owner and you appreciate them not discriminating against people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Via Instapundit (via Sean):

FIRST THEY IGNORE YOU, then they laugh at you, then they smear you, then you win. An updated version for the 21st Century . . . .

UPDATE: Reader C.J. Burch writes: “And if they had simply stuck with the ignore you part they would have come out so much better. But then stupidity and evil have always been a noxious brew especially when it is topped off by arrogance.” Yeah, imagine how much less powerful Sarah Palin would be if they’d just given her the usual amount of attention received by losing VP candidates. But they just can’t help themselves.

In my scaled down version “they” becomes the Brady Campaign. See further elaboration on this line of thought by Greg.

Brady Campaign week continues here tomorrow with another chapter in Lethal Logic.

Via The Second Amendment Foundation press release:

A King County Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association, striking down a ban on guns in city parks because it violates Washington State’s long-standing preemption statute.

Judge Catherine Shaffer ruled from the bench that the gun ban, adopted under former Mayor Greg Nickels, violates Washington’s law, which placed sole authority for regulating firearms in the hands of the State Legislature. That law was adopted in 1983 and amended in 1985, and has served as a model for similar laws across the country.

SAF and NRA were joined in the lawsuit by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Washington Arms Collectors and five individual plaintiffs.

“This is a great victory for the rule of law and Washington citizens,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Greg Nickels was so blinded by his personal hatred for firearms owners and his own arrogance that he imagined the city under his control could simply ignore state law. That arrogance cost Nickels his job last year. We repeatedly warned him not to push a gun ban, but he refused to listen.

“It is also a victory for the Legislature,” he observed, “because this case affirms the intent of lawmakers in 1983 to prevent cities like Seattle from creating a nightmare patchwork of conflicting and confusing firearms regulations. The ruling solidifies the legislature’s authority and sends a message to city and county governments to stop meddling with the rights of Washington citizens.”

Gottlieb suggested a review of local ordinances may now be in order, so that city and county governments can be compelled to remove old gun regulations or face legal consequences.

“This ruling puts anti-gun local officials on notice that legally-armed citizens have rights, too,” Gottlieb stated.

See also:

• Judge’s ruling ends Seattle parks gun ban
• Judge: Seattle gun ban is illegal
• Judge in Seattle case: ‘Plaintiffs have right to carry under federal, state constitutions’ (the most and best details are in this article)
• UPDATE: Seattle Parks Gun ban vacated
• West Seattle Blog (includes link to the judges order here)

Gun carrying residents of Washington State are protected from discrimination by the counties and cities yet the Brady Campaign wants businesses to discriminate again them. That is going to be a losing battle too. It’s time for them face the music. They should quietly be sending out their resumes and preparing for the end. If they can’t find honest work there are probably a few more years left in the global warming hoax.