Category Archives: Gun Rights

Add the U.K.

Posted on by

You can add the U.K. to my list of places I don’t want to visit until they start selling hunting tags for politicians and the police.

This is just too outrageous:

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for “doing his duty”. Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year’s imprisonment for handing in the weapon. In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: “I didn’t think for one moment I would be arrested. I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets.”

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden. In his statement, he said:

“I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.I didn’t know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him. At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall.”

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke’s garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours. He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included “reporting found firearms”.

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: “Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?” To which, Mr Garnett replied: “No, I don’t believe so.”

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a “strict liability” charge – therefore Mr Clarke’s allegedly honest intent was irrelevant. Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added. But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun. He said: “This is a very small case with a very big principle.

Bigotry against gun ownership gone wild.

Via Kevin.

NRA gives Univ. of Washington students a lesson

Posted on by

Some ignorant kids across the lake from me at the University of Washington stepped in it, big time, a week or so ago. A NRA instructor stepped in and has at least partially cleaned up the mess:

When he created a group on Facebook earlier this month with the aim of quelling crime around campus, University of Washington student Stanley Luong talked of forming a “vigilante” group to patrol the area.

The idea quickly drew attention — and criticism. Facebook, a social-networking Web site, removed the group from its site.

A member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) stepped in to offer a free training class on the legal ramifications of using deadly force. And a gun range in Kent supplied a room for the meeting Sunday.

…

Rick Walker, an Olympia-area NRA gun instructor, held a free training session to six members of the group on how to get out of a threatening situation without using a gun, and the legal ramifications of using a gun in self-defense.

“I told them the first thing they should do, if they can do so safely, is call 911,” Walker said. “It’s the smart thing to do.”

Guns are such a politically charged issue that talking to the press without having someone experienced in those matters can be a disaster. The Brady Campaign used this gaffe to further their agenda.

Please be careful out there. In more ways that one.

Supreme Court Brief in McDonald v. Chicago filed today

Posted on by

Brief is here. News release is here. Via blog post at Chicago Gun Case.

We are on a train to victory here.

Quote of the day–Kurt Hofmann

Posted on by

Pennington blames the Ft. Hood deaths on the lack of a whole laundry list of gun laws–despite the fact that implementing every one of them would not have served to stop the killing.  The only thing that would have stopped it would have been less restrictive gun regulation.

Kurt Hofmann
November 16, 2009
The Brady Campaign for defenseless soldiers

Open carry as a political statement

Posted on by

I’ve been pretty quiet on the big open carry debate that has finally cooled down some. I have open carried a few times and had a few things to say over the years but never took a really strong position:

I have done my blog research* on the topic and am finally ready to take a stand.

On the infighting between pro gun people on the topic I think, for the most part, it was a misunderstanding. If you read the words very literally (it’s difficult for me to do otherwise but I’m not normal in a lot of ways) I don’t find much disagreement in philosophy between the various camps. One side says it is legal, in most cases, as it should be but it’s easy to do something stupid which will make us all look bad and distract from more important matters. Another side says we need to use it or lose it but don’t be a dick about it. About the biggest real difference of opinion was that some said gun retention training might be a moral obligation and others said no it’s not.**

I didn’t read all the comments but I read enough that I’m pretty sure there isn’t very much disagreement at the fundamental levels.

My biggest problem with the entire issue is the infighting. We have external enemies that need to be fought and energy is better expended on them than on people who are really our allies. Agreed, we need to make sure we fight productively and that we don’t waste resources. And I think that is the crux of the matter.

How do we know what is the most effective expenditure of our resources? We can’t really know for certain. We could run a bunch of experiments with different types of political campaigns. But you can’t run an experiment in the same town on two different occasions with a different input variable because you changed the state of the population with the first run. If you run the experiment in two different towns you have the problem of the two different cultures and even individuals within those towns. What worked well in Virgina might very well turn out to be a disaster in nearby D.C. or Chicago. For the most part it’s going to boil down to educated guesses and opinions as to which is the best.

We see people openly carrying and handling guns in a safe and lawful matter probably a 100 or 1000 times more often than the people we want to influence. That experience differential biases our opinions such that we probably have the least reliable opinion on the topic. The anti-gun people have an experience reference point that is closer to that of the population we wish to influence. They are more aware of potential fears and are in a better position to push the “fear buttons” than we are to assuage those fears.

Robb Allen demanded proof that open carry hurts our cause. Sebastian (in the comments) said he didn’t think any focus groups had been done on the topic . That isn’t true. I talked to someone that did a focus group study. I don’t think the results are going to be released. That sort of data is relatively expensive to obtain and can be used by the anti-gun people to fine tune their attacks against us.

I don’t have a lot of information on the study but the basic result was that people see openly carried guns as “deadly force” and threatening/fear-causing which makes it different than gays holding hands, interracial couples, or woman’s bare ankles being visible. Sure, some people are fearful of gay cooties, Jews controlling the world, and their daughter dating a black guy. But it’s pretty easy to point out the silliness of those types of fears. Openly carried guns are different. If they didn’t have at least some real fear inducing properties they wouldn’t be useful for self-defense and as a deterrent against attack. Apparently that fear inducing quality persists to some degree in most people even after repeated exposure with non-threatening people carrying the gun. It may not be rational but people are not rational. Expecting or insisting people be rational is irrational.

Obviously focus group studies weren’t done in every political jurisdiction in the country. It may be that in some locations that is the best expenditure of resources. Virginia Citizens Defense League has had wonderful results. And it was in Virginia the one time I open carried in a public place with many people around for a couple hours.

So, it comes down to sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.

This gets us to the question of how we might determine when it might work or how to best make it work. The following needs to be backed up with focus group studies but I think it probably is a pretty good start.

It is my hypothesis that certain conditions enhance the probability open carry will work as a political statement. Below is an enumeration, elaboration, and enhancement of the “don’t be stupid” and “don’t be a dick” suggestions put forth by others. Most of the following apply even if you are just carrying as you go about your everyday business. Whether you intend to or not, in the eyes of much of the public, you are representing all gun owners when you open carry.

  • Open carry at a public demonstration the main topic should be gun rights. Guns at a health-care/abortion/taxes/etc. demonstration is likely to confuse the issue and allow the other side to spin it as intimidation
  • Never allow quick to anger or violence prone people to be associated with your group
  • Vulnerable looking women with children who open carry is better than large, scruffy, young men
  • Save open carry for the “end game” in locations with well established gun rights rather than your “opening move” in hostile territories
  • Small quiet groups with a mix of genders and races are better than large, noisy, homogeneous groups or loners with obscure and/or vaguely threatening signs
  • Desensitization of highly sensitive people requires small levels of exposure–the butt of a gun casually exposed in an IWB holster is less fear inducing than a thigh holster or a rifle in hand
  • Associate the open carry event with activities that give other people lots of “space”–road side litter pickup is not going to be as threatening as picketing a restaurant that prohibits guns on their premises, walking through an empty parking lot is not as threatening as a doing the same thing at a public meeting on a highly volatile issue
  • High quality clothing and gear enhances your image and decreases the fear
  • Consult with a lawyer prior to your event
  • Never risk a “contempt of cop” charge–your interaction with them should be such they can “save face” during the public event
  • You may tell the cops your lawyer is of the opinion the activity is legal but don’t repeat it again and again–let your lawyer convince the judge to give the cops the lecture they so richly deserve
  • Unless you have the full cooperation of your lawyer (such as if you are trying to get arrested) if the cops suggest it would be best for you to leave then politely collect their identifying information, exact words, and accept their invitation to go home without a pavement tasting party
  • Physically cooperate with the police even if you know they are wrong
  • As in all politically/media sensitive situations have a few experienced media people designated to represent your group–less experienced people should refer the media to the more experienced spokesmen

Even if you adhere to all of the above and more you still could mess up the politics. As much as I like to think of myself as an expert on gun rights I’m always amazed at how much I don’t know when I talk to a true professional in the field. I strongly advise you to at least talk to your local gun rights organization to get their opinion on whatever great idea you have for “making a difference”. If they are any good at their job they will be able to explain why something does or doesn’t work and improve your approach.

Ultimately we want carry of all types completely legal and a non-issue in all jurisdictions. As long as it is done safely it should be a personal choice. I don’t know of any gun rights activists who disagrees with that goal. It’s simply a question of how or if we can get to that point.

We can attack the problem in a brute force manner or with a more sophisticated approach that arrives at the solution quicker and with less expenditure of resources. Let’s not be so stupid as to think the same solution is appropriate for every situation.

*Some of the blog posts and podcasts relevant to open carry which I have read:

** I have taken Handgun Retention & Disarming and highly recommend it. But as open carry advocates have pointed out data indicating private citizens are at risk of having their gun snatched is non-existent. If nothing else the class will give you the skills to take a gun from someone that is threatening innocent life with it. Good guys seldom threaten in the same way as bad guys. Either you draw and shoot or you draw and the bad guy withdraws. Hence disarming training is probably more important than rentention training.

If you take such a class bring gloves to protect your hands and wrists. Bring lotion to lubricate and soothe roughed up skin.

And your point is?

Posted on by

ATF says E. Washington source of Mexico guns:

Agent Steve Foreman told a forum Thursday in Yakima that gun shows in Eastern Washington are the main problem because unlicensed dealers avoid making background checks on the buyers.

Foreman said the investigation into one drug cartel shootout in Tijuana traced 15 pistols and rifles back to the Tri-Cities.

Notice they didn’t say the 15 guns were sold at gun shows. But they worded it in such a way that it leads one to believe that.

And 15 guns? What’s your point? Most of the gun owners I know have more guns than that. I know a guy in the Tri-Cities that had that many guns stolen from his home.

Are they attempting to justify a law that will interfere with a specific enumerated right exercised by millions of people yet can be circumvented by stealing the guns found in just one home?

Go away and come back again when someone finds your brain for you.

Update: The complete story is here. I see nothing in the story to change my opinion stated above.

Interfering with the free market

Posted on by

Sebastian points out the Washington Post reported yesterday:

A binational task force on U.S.-Mexico border issues will call Friday on the Obama administration and Congress to reinstate an expired ban on assault weapons and for Mexico to overhaul its frontier police and customs agencies to mirror the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

I just have to shake my head. These people just don’t get it.

First off by announcing this they just further cemented the fact that “assault weapons” of the type banned in 1994 will become even more common in the U.S. The sales and backlog had almost returned to normal and now this is going to create a fresh round of buying. If it hadn’t happened already the current administration, with their promises (so far unfulfilled) to ban “assault weapons” ensured they can never be banned. Why? Because in D.C. v. Heller the court decided the types of firearms protected are those “common use”. See pages 2, 55, and 58 of the decision.

The types of guns in highest demand just after Obama was elected were those most likely to be banned. There are now many millions of those guns in the hands of ordinary people and there will be hundreds of thousands more before the politicians could ever get something through congress. And then the inevitable court challenge will almost have to conclude that the guns are in “common use” and therefore cannot be banned. Not only is Obama the greatest gun salesman this country has ever known but he also may have driven the last “coffin nail” into the pointless “assault weapon” bans making them forever a dead issue–except for repeal of the existing ones in the various states after the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Chicago Gun Case.

And the Brady Campaign endorsed Obama for President. How’s that working out for you guys?

My second point is really the main issue. The problem is most people don’t really understand the big picture. Mexico is being destroyed by the same type of stupidity. People are trying to interfere with the free market and this can’t really be done. The free market can be pushed in different directions but it can’t really be fully suppresed.

There is a large market for guns and recreational drugs. Governments can’t really “ban” them. They can only raise the price. The price increase may include the risk of spending time in jail but the government passing a law making them illegal does not remove their existence from the planet or even the political jurisdiction of the government. When the price goes up it increases the profits. When the profit potential goes up more people are willing to risk going to jail in the process of getting a share of that profit. In the case of recreational drugs the profit is so great the people profiting from the drug trade has, essentially, brought down the Mexican government. I believe the only way order can be restored in Mexico is for recreational drugs to be made legal in both the U.S. and Mexico.

But people just don’t get it. Somehow they believe something that mostly works on the scale of an individual home when you remove medicines from the reach of small children can work at the larger scale of an entire continent or even the planet. It doesn’t and it can’t. You can only increase the price.

Our country learned this in the 1920s with prohibition and we now raise the price on the dangerous recreational drug ethanol via a tax rather than attempting a ban. If the governments of the U.S. and Mexico really wanted to solve the problem that is bringing down the Mexican government and resulting in the deaths of thousands in the “drug wars” they could turn the drug trade into a huge source of tax revenue. Instead of spending billions on trying to raise the price via jail terms and attempted “interdiction” they could raise the price via a tax and bring in billions of dollars.

But I don’t have any hope of a sudden attack of rationality striking people. Unjustified and demonstrably false faith in the power of government to successfully interfere with the free market has existed for hundreds of years and it’s not going away anytime soon. Expecting people to be rational is irrational.

Quote of the day–Ben Franklin

Posted on by

Never confuse motion with action.

Ben Franklin
[I believe many of the anti-gun people make this mistake. “We have to do something!” they say. No. We don’t.

Even with a system optimally configured it’s possible for something bad to happen. There are many, many trade-offs in life. We could reduce traffic fatalities to zero if we banned cars or made the speed limit 5 MPH. But the trade-off just isn’t worth it.

And so it is with firearms. Even without a constitutional guarantee it would be wrong to remove the most effective defensive tool ever made from the hands of the people that might need them. Sure, make training easily available and affordable. Punish people who allow their dangerous objects (not just guns but gasoline, matches, and sharp knives) to get into the hands of small children or the mentally incompetent who hurt themselves or others.

But just because something bad happened doesn’t mean that doing something won’t make the totality of the situation worse or just rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic. You have to look at the downside of whatever action you demand to be taken instead of just the potential upside.–Joe]

Government forcing freedom

Posted on by

Doug Pennington who is the Assistant Director of Communications at the Brady Campaign writes:

[I]sn’t it ironic how some libertarians want government to stay out of their lives, yet have no problem with forcing other people to live with loaded, concealed weapons everywhere they turn?  The grocery store; the park; the school; the airport.  Apparently, we have the “freedom” to live with what these so-called libertarians tell us to live with.  After all, they have the guns, right?

I heard sort of argument in the context of concealed carry of guns at least 15 years ago. It was some radio talk show host in San Francisco who asked why she didn’t have the right to walk down the street without people having guns hidden. I suspect this sort of argument resonates with a lot of people.

The thing is people use the same sort of argument with free speech and religious freedom. They ask why do we have to tolerate neo-Nazi’s parading down the street? Or why do we have to tolerate atheists, Muslims, or Jews in our neighborhoods and schools?

If that doesn’t bring my point home try using the argument to support segregation.

Governments don’t force freedom on their citizens. Governments can only infringe freedoms of their subjects.

Wednesday night Barb and I had dinner with Mike Brown of the Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance and his wife. His wife, a big Ayn Rand fan, encapsulated a point in a very compelling way. She said under a free, capitalist, system people are able to create their own little socialist or communist utopia societies and share according to need and take according to their abilities. Or they can give up all “evil” modern technology such as the Amish communities do. Free societies allow such communities to successfully co-exist just fine. If you can own property you can do pretty much whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else or their property. The government still demands taxes but you don’t have to tolerate other religions, free speech, or people with guns on your property. The same isn’t true under a communist or totalitarian government.

But despite the clear problems of “government forcing freedom” there have been entire books written on the topic. Last year daughter Kim reported her economics class had The Shock Doctrine as required reading. One of the thesis’s of the book is that advocates (such as certain people within the U.S. government) of Milton Friedman are forcing (including using torture) free market economics on people. Kim was pissed and had trouble reading the book because of the anger it invoked. How does a government “force a free market”? A free market is one free of government interference! Force is required to have anything other than a free market.

And so it is with “forcing free speech”, “forcing religious tolerance”, and “forcing other people to live with loaded, concealed weapons everywhere they turn”. Pennington is telling us the true beliefs of his organization and the utopia they would like to create–freedom is slavery.

Update: I apparently got their attention. The post now has this tagged on to the end:

UPDATE: For readers referred from Joe Huffman, guns are not speech.

No one said it was free speech. But both free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are specific enumerated rights protected from infringement by the Bill of Rights. Hence the comparison is valid. For the Brady Campaign to claim a freedom from other people bearing arms is the constitutional equivalent of claiming the freedom from the speech of others. Of course it’s not the physical equivalent. But it is the legal equivalent.

Digressing a little bit I will admit that we probably will not ever have a constitutionally guaranteed right to carry concealed guns in public everywhere. If the Brady Campaign were to explicitly state it is only the carrying of concealed guns they get all uptight about but open carry is okay then I would be much more muted in my criticism of them. The carry of firearms in some form is probably going to be eventually upheld by the courts. Either the politicians have to make concealed carry permits “shall issue” and relatively quick and painless to obtain or they will have probably have to allow open carry without a permit. If some sort of carry for self defense in public is not allowed then the “bear” part of keep and bear arms will be infringed. I’m pretty sure the Brady people see that writing on the wall and are just dragging their feet or in denial.

After thinking about it for a long time and reading nearly all the blog posts and podcasts about the big open carry debate in the last few weeks I’m going to have my say on the topic soon. Perhaps as soon as tomorrow. Brady and company just contributed to my post on the topic.

I wonder what this means

Posted on by

In the Chicago Gun Case (McDonald, et. al. v. City of Chicago) the Brady Campaign has announced they will be filing a brief in support of neither party.

I’m anxious to find out what that means. As much as I like to think of them as spoiled children asking the nanny (government) to make the bad boys to go away (people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms) I don’t think they are going to say anything close to “the case is irrelevent because Heller was decided incorrectly”.

It appears that whatever their position we will find out sometime on or after November 23rd.

Quote of the day–Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

We’ve had a very well-plotted-out legal strategy for years, leading up to this.

Alan Gottlieb
November 10, 2009
Barack & Load
Regarding the McDonald gun case out of Chicago that is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
[I recently talked with Alan and he is 100% convinced we are going to win this one.–Joe]

Question

Posted on by

What do you call a bunch of people, hated by our enemies, stuck in close quarters with no means of self defense?

Answer; “Fish in a barrel”.

“Target Rich Environment” comes to mind also.  This in response to that perpetual blithering idiot, Paul Helmke.  I don’t really even like talking about him, because in reality it’s probably a complete waste of time.  That and he’s getting, right here, far more attention than he deserves.  We should spend more time talking about good or interesting things, or ideas that can solve problems and he’s none of the above.  Flies, ants, hornets, and mosquitoes, do tend to get one’s attention though, even at the best of picnics.  If he can take credit for something, I suppose that’s it– being the annoying parasite at the gathering of minds.  Where’s my fly swatter?

Quote of the day–Chuck Baldwin

Posted on by

But that’s just the problem: the federal government has been ignoring the Constitution for decades—so much so that if there is going to be any restoration of genuine liberty in the country, the states are going to have to stand up to this out-of-control national leviathan and say, “No.“ And they are going to have to say it loudly enough for Washington to get the message. And I cannot think of a freedom issue that is better to “draw a line in the sand” for than the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2009
Another State Introduces Firearms Freedom Act
[My opinion is here on the Firearms Freedom Act as a gun rights tool. But I have to admit it has potential to further freedom on a broader scale. Because the recognition of the individual RKBA is so new case law is not that well developed. Because of that it may be possible to leverage FFA into something greater than what it appears on the face to be. I think it’s a long shot but imagine if three fourths of the states passed such laws. At that point a constitutional amendment is within striking distance. Either an interesting Amendment (I’d like to see legislators who voted for a law or the president who signed a law that was later declared unconstitutional to be automatically convicted of treason) or secession.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Gerard Valentino

Posted on by

As pro-gun advocates, we have an obligation to lay out our arguments in a calculating and logical manner. To do so isn’t easy. I fail to tolerate the simple minded nature of our anti-gun adversaries on a daily basis. Like most pro-gun advocates it is beyond my ability to comprehend that people still believe in the validity of gun-control after the mounds of evidence that has disproved it over the last thirty years. Even worse is trying to educate the establishment media on how much they don’t understand about guns. Anger is never the answer, however, since it only reinforces the idea that people who own guns can’t be trusted–an ironic twist since it is backward anti-gun ravings that should incur the scorn of every day Americans.

Gerard Valentino
November 7, 2009
The Good Fight Against the Anti Gun MindSet
[I  spent a good part of my day yesterday being anger over a stupid anti-gun comment by someone. I decided to reload a bunch of ammo rather than make a blog post although the rant I had formulated probably would have released the anger more rapidly.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Paul Helmke

Posted on by

This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
November 7, 2009
Rampage forces review of security policies on Army bases worldwide
[Only if you ignore the facts Paul. Only if you ignore the facts.

The fact is the victims were disarmed–just as they have been in nearly every other mass shooting.

But of course Helmke’s organization success is dependent on the ignorance of people. That ignorance is rapidly becoming a thing of the past and is probably the primary reason he and his organization of bigots are becoming as irrelevant as the KKK.–Joe]

ATF gets slapped down

Posted on by

I don’t think the ATF gets their wrists slapped often enough for thuggish behavior but it’s always a pleasure when it does happen:

A judge found the actions of federal agents who refused to show Zanesville residents a warrant when asked are “completely unreasonable and unjustified.”

…

At the suppression hearing in July, Marbley made it clear to agents with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and Assistant U.S. Attorney David Bosley, that he was unhappy with the way agents handled the search June 18 at the Thompson home on Kopchak Road.

…

Marian Thompson said even though she repeatedly asked for a warrant, none was ever supplied.

Marbley stated in his ruling that “one of the purposes served by the warrant requirement is informing citizens that the executing agents are acting under proper authorization when they invade the sanctity of a citizen’s home.”

Marian Thompson testified she was fearful when the agents confronted her and without a search warrant, wasn’t sure if they truly were agents.

She said she was made to sit outside the home, with only a shirt on, for hours. She was nude when agents came in, she testified, but they did allow her to put a shirt on.

Marbley said nothing indicated that Marian Thompson was uncooperative or in any way jeopardized the search and rather than quickly allaying her fears, her doubt was prolonged for several hours.

Marbley also said not only not showing Marian Thompson the warrant at the onset of the search led to his decision, but because she was forced to partially dress in plain view of 14 officers with guns pointed at her rather than being allowed to dress behind a counter, then made to sit outside in the heat for five hours, went without food or water and never shown any identification of the officers was also in violation of her Fourth Amendment Right.

I think the thugs should be prosecuted under 18 USC 242 and forever barred from a government job. But that’s not going to happen. And as long as it doesn’t incidents like the above will continue.

The Tenth Amendment is for cowards

Posted on by

Wow! It’s almost surreal reading this:

I’ll say the last refuge of cowards in the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth has been invoked a lot lately. The Tenth has been mentioned as the reason health-care reform is unconstitutional. It’s the way the Speaker of the Tennessee State House says his state can circumvent federal gun laws. It’s the states’ rights argument carried to the extreme.

The amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

What that says, in other words, is that if a power is unclaimed by the federal government — or if that power is not denied to the states — then the states have it. The intent is to clarify the basic point that if the feds aren’t in charge, the states are.

It’s a truism, not a grant of power.

Soon after the framers wrote the original document, it was obvious states couldn’t act independently. When the Constitution was written, there wasn’t much interstate commerce at all. Going from one end of the country to the other end didn’t take five hours — it took five months. So the federal government claimed some powers to tie up loose ends.

If states acted on their own when it came to matters of interstate commerce, it would be to easy for states to grant monopolies to business, and too easy for large businesses to fix prices and destroy smaller competition.

…

Everyone learns at some point in life that there are three remedies to a negative situation: avoid, alter or accept it. Those against health-care legislation or gun-control laws don’t need to accept what they see as bad policy. They should try alter the policy in all the accepted ways.

But reverting to the Tenth Amendment is avoidance. It’s the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. And these issues are too important to do that.

After invoking the Tenth Amendment he goes on (there is more than just that above) to justify the Interstate Commerce clause without even mentioning it as if it were the Tenth Amendment.

And did you notice all the errors in the passages above?

  • The first line says “…in the Tenth…” instead of “…is the Tenth…” but I figure that is just a typo and I give him a pass on that.
  • “It’s a truism, not a grant of power. “? It explicitly states that the Feds are not granted most powers and he turns it around to claim the states are not granted powers.
  • It took five months to travel from one end of the 13 colonies to the other? It’s only about 1500 miles so he is saying the average speed of travel was 10 miles per day. Even with a backpack on and walking on mountain trails I can do better than that.
  • The Tenth Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution and it’s pretty clear the original intent is being violated. Many other Federal laws have been struck down by the courts as violating various parts of the constitution, including the Tenth Amendment, so it’s entirely reasonable to quest whether this law is in violation.

 So it’s the author that is the coward avoiding the issue. He gets it exactly backward and calls people invoking the Tenth Amendment cowards. It’s called “projection” and it just goes to show he either has mental problems or has crap for brains.

The government is arming civilians

Posted on by

It’s rare that the government gives guns to civilians so they can defend themselves. But it’s apparently happening in Thailand:

At the local Buddhist temple at Trohgen village in Pattani province a class is being held for a group of mostly female community volunteers – but this is no religious ceremony.

“It’s getting more violent every day,” said Monthira Peng-Iad, a 40-year-old farmer.

“So many of my relatives have been shot and killed I feel bitter inside. I want to know how to shoot, so I can help people in the village.”


Monthira Peng-Iad

…

One human rights group says up to a hundred thousand civilian Buddhists and Muslims have been given guns to “protect” themselves in the three southern provinces of Thailand, but this is a figure the military denies.

This is a BBC report and it’s not surprising they put the word ‘protect’ in quotes. Would they do the same if they were talking about the police being given guns?

H/T to Ben K. for the link. Ben worked in Thailand for a while.

Quote of the day–Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan

Posted on by

What you’re going to see (Friday) in this report produced by the national firearms centre … is that the statistics I just gave you were not included. Whoever put it together didn’t put in there the information that only 2.4 per cent of those 3.5 million queries (to the registry) were actually related to information about a long-gun registration number or about a serial number of a gun.

That information was not put there by the people at the national firearms registry so you should ask them why that information wasn’t there.

Peter Van Loan
Public Safety Minister, Canada
Battle heats up over gun registry: Minister suggests staff of national database are hiding information to ensure its survival
[If the staff did this it certainly wouldn’t be the first time the anti-gun people told half-truths to justify infringing upon a natural right.–Joe]

Gearing up for battle

Posted on by

Seattle may become a very important battle ground with some heavy guns involved. SAF and NRA just filed a lawsuit against the city and I expected an easy win because the law is so clear. But it’s not always about truth and justice (some may even say it’s rare that truth and justice are the result). This may be one of those cases and it has national implications:

Stepping in to defend Nickels and the city in this confrontation at no charge is the Northwest office of an international law firm, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. This firm, according to its website, has 21 offices in Asia, Europe and North America. It has a history of providing pro bono legal representation to various causes.

Plaintiffs are represented by Seattle attorney Steve Fogg with the Seattle law firm of Corr, Cronin, Michelson, Baumgardner & Preece LLC. According to their website, the firm has been recognized for its litigation abilities.

…

So how does this case have possible national implications? If Seattle’s creative approach as a private property owner simply regulating conduct on its park properties is allowed to stand (that strategy failed in Ohio, where a parks ban imposed by the City of Clyde was struck down by that state’s Supreme Court), it is conceivable that other cities in other states, or even in the Evergreen State, will start pushing the envelope.

I doubled my payroll (and Microsoft matching) contributions to SAF for calendar year 2010. I hope a lot of other people contribute as well.