Category Archives: Gun Rights

Strange mindset of the DC public servants

Posted on by

I just finished reading the DC response in the Heller case. The following sentence jumped out at me:

The Council concluded that concealable and lethal handguns are responsible for a disproportionately high number of violent crimes, accidents, and suicides, particularly in an exclusively urban jurisdiction.

Apparently “The Council” believes inanimate objects have volition and commit violent crimes, accidents, and suicides. Why suicides of handguns are a problem for them when “The Council” already bans them seems particularly odd but one cannot expect these type of people to be rational.

But what is even more odd to me is the mindset that in some jurisdictions the public servants apparently believe their masters to be morally and/or intellectually deficient. I’ve run into this before with people from the Chicago area. They will say something like, “Its okay for people in the country to have guns but the people in the inner cities just can’t be allowed to have guns–they will use them to commit crimes.” Realize what these people are saying. They are admitting to being bigots and frequently they are racist bigots. They don’t trust the inner city minorities to own firearms. In their view the inner city residents are inherently immoral and if allowed the tools to commit violent crimes they will do so.

Quote of the day–Peter J. Ferrara

Posted on by

Of course, we also urge the Court to reject the invitation of Petitioners to read a fundamental Constitutional right stated in plain English in the text out of the Constitution altogether. The American people can read, and they can see that unlike some of the other rights found by the Court on the basis of complex reasoning, the Constitutional text forthrightly promises that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” No amount of artful linguistic acrobatics or fanciful historical tales can rub those plain words out of the text. We respectfully submit that the rights clearly stated in The Bill of Rights should be read broadly and vigorously enforced, rather than minimized to suit a particular ideology.

Peter J. Ferrara
February 2008
Amicus curiae brief of the American Civil Rights Union in support of respondents.
[Only nine more days until oral arguments.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Jay Alan Sekulow

Posted on by

It is the cornerstone of American political philosophy that, as a human being, every individual possesses certain inalienable rights. Even a cursory glance at the text of the Founding documents reveals a recurrent intention to preserve these “endowed” human rights.

Jay Alan Sekulow
February 2008
Amicus Brief of the American Center for Law and Justice
[I find it very frustrating that many people believe governments grant rights. This leads to all kinds of kooky ideas such as people having a right to health care. Rights cannot be granted by a government–only infringed.–Joe]

Tam was so on target

Posted on by

Yesterday a friend (nameless to protect the guilty) and I were chatting over cups of hot beverages. He told me about ending up spending $1000* to save $100. He had purchased a noise suppressor for one of his toys and was going to save the $100 fee the suppressor manufacture charged to remove the “permanently attached” flash hider. After he and his grinding wheel were done he concluded it was less painful to purchase a new barrel than to submit the old mangled one for the installation. I think I managed to look sympathetic throughout the entire story even though I was thinking of Tam’s relevant post with a smirk struggling to burst out. When he finished his story he read my mind and said, “Tam’s post was so timely.”

Yup.

*The $1000 included some other stuff that was a side effect, not just the barrel replacement.

Something you should know

Posted on by

The President of the Brady Campaign is not anti-gun. He says so, so it must be true:

Helmke said he’s not pro-gun and he’s not anti-gun, but he is for establishing rules so that guns can be owned by responsible people.

I’ve said this before but it’s worth saying again. If someone walking unsupervised on our streets can’t be trusted with a gun then they can’t be trusted with a can of gasoline and a book of matches. Hence, the rule for gun ownership has already been established: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Wrong number

Posted on by

As reported by TFS Magnum (via Uncle) we are informed that a burglar had his lawsuit against the homeowner who shot him thrown out with these words from the judge:

“There is no doubt that the jury would find for the defendant,” Judge James Welker wrote in his memorandum decision. “In fact, it is likely that the jury would prefer the option of throwing the plaintiff down the steps of the courthouse.”

TFS concludes this is why we need Castle Doctrine laws but investigating further I respectfully disagree in this case. The homeowner used a gun that had the number “.380” on the side. A better result would likely have been reported had the number started with “.4” or “12”.

DC vs Heller briefs commentary

Posted on by

Dave Young has a web page with critical commentary on the pro-DC historical briefs.

Quote of the day–Jack Brian McGee

Posted on by

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, not a single American political theorist or legal commentator on the Constitution ever suggested a collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. Joel Barlow, for example, writing in 1792, argued that in a democracy “the people will be universally armed: they will assume these weapons for security, which the art of war has invented for destruction”. Only tyrants, he wrote, “disarmed their people”; “[a] republican society”, he argued, “needed armed citizens”.

Jack Brian McGee
Brief of the Alaska Outdoor Council, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund, Sitka Sportsman’s Assoc., Juneau Rifle and Pistol Club, Juneau Gun Club, and Alaska Territorial Sportsmen, inc. as amici curiae.
[Only tyrants disarm their people. Remember that.

Only 11 more days until the oral arguments.–Joe]

Quote of the day–David T. Hardy

Posted on by

The Second Amendment did not erupt in a philosophical vacuum. The Amendment, like the remainder of the Bill of Rights, arose from widely shared judgments regarding citizenry, government, and the distribution of power. Three of these judgments are particularly relevant here.

Private possession of arms is not merely acceptable, but virtuous.

[…]

There is a natural right to arms, linked to that of self-defense.

[…]

A militia composed of all freeholders and voters is the only safe and effective defense of a republic.

David T. Hardy
Brief of amicus curiae, Academics for the Second Amendment
[Remember that. It is not merely acceptable, but virtuous! Don’t let the bigots try to shame you.

Only 12 more days until the oral arguments.–Joe]

STI gun now have .22 caliber conversion kits available

Posted on by

News from STI:

.22 Caliber Conversion Kit

STI international, Inc has joined with Bob Marvel to bring you the finest .22 conversion kits available anywhere. With these conversion kits, you can easily swap out your top end to go from one caliber to another- it’s like getting a second pistol for less than half the price. This will allow shooters to increase their trigger time while decreasing the cost of good training.

The improved Bob Marvel design locks the barrel in place for improved reliability and accuracy. The conversion kit may be purchased for either the 1911 (single stack) platform or the world famous 2011 (double stack) platform. The kit comes complete with adjustable sights, lock back on last round (single stack), an excellent extended 10 round magazine, complete cleaning kit, magazine loading tool, and a custom fitted hard case. The top end works on either 1911 or 2011 frames with only the magazine to replace if the shooter wishes to change frames. Extra magazines for the 1911 and/or 2011 are available.

It’s an extra $35.00 for the 2011 frame over the 1911 frame but that is a small price to pay if you don’t have the 1911 frame to put it on.

In competition I shoot a STI gun, I carry a STI gun and you should too.

NRA web page on Heller

Posted on by

The Apex of the Triangle of Death has a good web page up on the Heller case. It has all the briefs in one convenient location.

I like this

Posted on by

I can’t really claim credit for creating the concept but I have been a big proponent of it for a long time. It’s nice to see others adopting the language such that anti-gunners are openly called out as bigots.

Quote of the day–Richard E. Gardiner

Posted on by

Whether one examines the District’s murder rates relative to other large US cities, the neighboring states of Maryland and Virginia, or relative to the US as a whole there is no evidence that the ban reduced the District’s relative murder rate. Indeed, if anything, the evidence points to the opposite conclusion. The District’s rising murder rate cannot be explained as a result of the crack cocaine epidemic during the late 1980s because this increase started occurring right after the ban was instituted, long before crack cocaine became an issue.

Everyone wants to disarm criminals. However, the problem with bans is who is most likely to obey them. If the ban primarily disarms lawabiding citizens and not criminals, the ban can have the opposite effect of what was intended.

Richard E. Gardiner
February 2007
BRIEF OF ACADEMICS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
[I really liked reading this one. The comparision data was represented as ratios between D.C. and other areas (such as large cities, nearby states, etc.) over time. Usually I see the data represented as absolute numbers. The ratio representation is a good tool.–Joe]

Government created crime

Posted on by

As I have said before, a lot of crime is created by the government. Here is a great article with the details of one such area.

As street values rise, gun thieves get bolder

Most of us know the gun debate as a war of words – a battle of sound bites between this side and that.

The real front lines are on the streets, where good guns try to hold back the bad ones, and no one takes the time to hold rallies, give speeches or argue about the Second Amendment.

There, the struggle is as intense as ever.

“In so many murders and robberies, the weapon of choice is a gun,” said Norfolk Police Chief Bruce P. Marquis. “Millions are being manufactured every year, and we know a lot of them end up in criminals’ hands. We put a higher priority on taking guns off the streets than we do drugs.”

But clamping down on firearms can have an unintended effect.

“You create a market when you tighten things up,” Garfield Headlam said.

He should know. Headlam is serving a 10-year prison sentence for operating a gun-running ring out of Norfolk in the late 1990s. His customers lived in Washington, D.C., where handguns have been outlawed for more than 30 years. Saturday night specials were Headlam’s bread and butter.

“You could make a 300 percent profit on those,” he said. “Buy ’em from the gun shop for $89 to $150. Cheap quality. That’s what they wanted up there.”

Money like that has made gun runners bold. Fourteen Virginia gun shops were burglarized last year, including six in Hampton Roads. In two of the cases, thieves sawed a hole in the roof and used ropes to drop inside. In another, armed men forced a clerk to the floor and walked out with 75 handguns.

Naive people

Posted on by

An ATF whistle blower got demoted and had other problems:

Edgar A. Domenech says he thought Justice Department officials would welcome information about mismanagement at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Instead, the 23-year ATF veteran says, Justice officials ignored his complaints and later retaliated against him by demoting him, denying him a bonus and attempting to give him a poor job review.

“I realized I was committing career suicide at the time, but I felt I had a moral obligation as the deputy director to protect the agency and the men and women of the agency,” Domenech said in an interview yesterday. “In retrospect, I was naive to believe that the department would welcome my honesty.”

Domenech filed a 13-page complaint yesterday with the Office of Special Counsel, saying that ATF and the Justice Department punished him for raising questions about the performance of former ATF director Carl J. Truscott, who resigned in August 2006 while under investigation for alleged financial mismanagement.

I know from personal experience that people in power do not follow the rules and will find a way to harm you if they decide that is what they want to do. We do not have a “Justice System”. We have “Legal System”. It will not protect you. At best it will give you an opportunity to compensate you for your losses.

In larger terms what this means is that abuse of power is seldom prevented by the legal system. Only when it becomes egregious and a large majority of people demand the abuse stop will it actually take place. Case in point is the ATF and their abuse of firearms owners and dealers. ATF Special Agents who read Brady scripts to the press should be prosecuted for violation of 18 USC 242 but what Federal Prosecutor is going to take on that case? The prosecutor who should be building a case to put the agent in jail is a work associate of of the ATF agent. It’s no different than law enforcement and prosecutors not caring if a few blacks get lynched every once in a while. It may be against the law but, basically, their reasoning will go, the people that did it are “good people” and don’t deserve to have their careers ruined over something like that. “It just doesn’t matter, it’s only about about 10%” (inside “joke” for people that know my sociopathic ex-friend Walter).

In most cases law enforcement will not protect you from government abuse of power. Only you can protect yourself. Naive people believe we have a system of laws that will protect us. But the examples of this not being true are too numerous to even attempt to count.

That is why we have the 2nd Amendment. It is the last ditch guardian of inalienable rights.

Quote of the day–Michael B. Minton

Posted on by

Even in their homes, LGBT individuals are at risk of murder, aggravated assault and other forms of hate violence because of their sexual orientation. In fact, the home is the most common site of anti-gay violence. Thus, for certain LGBT individuals, the possession of firearms in the home is essential for a sense of personal security — a fact generally lost in the majoritarian debate about restricting individual’s access to, and use of, firearms. As shown below, not only do members of the LGBT community have a heightened need to possess firearms for self-protection in their homes, the Second Amendment clearly guarantees this most basic right. This Court should not permit the democratic majority to deprive LGBT individuals of their essential and constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in their own homes.

Michael B. Minton
Brief of Pink Pistols and gays and lesbians for individual liberty as amici curiae in support of respondent.
[As suggested by Kevin I downloaded the entire set of Heller briefs from Constitution Arms and found it quite useful.

One of the points made in the Pink Pistols brief is that majority rule without the minority right to self-defense leads to physical abuse and even death of those minorities. The essence of the way I see it is the minority individual has a much easier time defending themselves in court against a prosecution than being protected from the initial attack by an uncaring or hostile police force. Think of it in terms of what is required for successful prosecution versus a successful unlawful attack on the minority individual. Or, if you want, use the old standby, “It’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.”–Joe]

What if the 1st Amendment were treated like the 2nd?

Posted on by

Since the Federal government has a huge regulatory agency charged with the regulation and taxing of a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment why not expand it or create a new agency charged with regulation and taxing of the 1st Amendment? It seems entirely in line with those that admit we have an individual right to own firearms but claim that right can be restricted. Those same type of regulations should be considered “reasonable” when applied to the 1st Amendment, right?

Doesn’t having to get a license involving fingerprints and a background check before you can attend church sound like a good idea? Opening a new church would, of course, require a license, an environment impact statement, and noise abatement plans. And no churches could be located within five miles of a school or public park.

You should fill out the equivalent of a 4473 and get a NICS check before you can write a letter to the editor. And of course there would be a government mandated 10 business day waiting period before it could be published.

All the complaints about the lies by the media would all be solved if we just had better government regulation. Reporters and editors of all media types would be required to keep meticulous records in bound books showing they had properly researched each story. The books could be viewed by government inspectors anytime there was a claim of a falsehood in a story. The entire news organization would have all their computers, printing presses, and printed material seized before they even heard the specifics of the “Federal Press Laws Violations” let alone had their day in court.

“Free-Speech Free Zones” would extend for 1000 feet around schools and in our National Parks. Anyone with a pamphlet, newspaper, magazine, voice or music projection device, Bible, or any other religious printed matter or symbols within ready access of an occupant of a vehicle could be charged with a crime.

That’s just a very, very small sample of what would be possible if the analogs of the laws and regulations imposed on the 2nd Amendment were imposed on the 1st Amendment.

Remember what Alan Dershowitz had to say:

Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture.  They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.

Alan Dershowitz
Quoted in Dan Gifford
The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason
62 TENN. L. REV. 759 (1995)

Quote of the day–Alan Gura, Robert A. Levy, Clark M. Neily III

Posted on by

Demoting the Second Amendment to some lower tier of enumerated rights is unwarranted. The Second Amendment has the distinction of securing the most fundamental rights of all—enabling the preservation of one’s life and guaranteeing our liberty. These are not second-class concerns. Yet preservation of human life is also the government’s chief regulatory interest in arms. Constitutional review of gun laws thus finds both individual and governmental interests at their zenith.

Alan Gura
Robert A. Levy
Clark M. Neily III
February 24, 2008
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF
On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit
[I find this last sentence a very interesting point. It explains why, obvious in hindsight, the 2nd Amendment has come under such vicious attack and those attacks have been tolerated so well by the courts and the people. It is much more difficult to justify similar attacks on the 1st Amendment and it has flourished. And a similar analysis explains why we don’t have much of our 4th Amendment rights honored as well.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Herbert W. Titus

Posted on by

In short, the argument that “the right of the people” is subject to reasonable regulation and restriction tramples on the very words of the Second Amendment, reading the phrase — “shall not be infringed” — as if it read “shall be subject only to reasonable regulation to achieve public safety.”

Herbert W. Titus
February 11, 2008
Gun Owners of America
Brief amicus curiae in D.C. v. Heller
[I’m tempted to quote nothing but amicus curiae briefs until March 18th.–Joe]