August 2009 – Page 8 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Doing the Right Thing

A guy with a pistol in his car is involved in an accident where he had to go to a hospital turns his gun over to police for safekeeping.Â Most of us agree it’s the right thing to do if your car is going to be towed, and sitting on a lot god knows where, likely with shattered windows.Â Guy goes back a few days later to get his gun, and he’s told he can’t have it until the police finish running ballistics test on it, to make sure it hasn’t been used in a crime.

What message does that send to the next guy?Â We’re constantly harped on by the anti-gun people about being responsible, and when we are, we get kicked in the teeth for it.Â No doubt the gun control groups would argue “the responsible thing is leaving your gun at home, neanderthal!” but they’ve lost that argument.Â The Fayetteville Police are insuring the next person to come along won’t do the right thing, and we’ll risk having a gun stolen and ending up on the streets.

I’m Just Another Guy With an Opinion

I’ve been rather surprised by some of the reaction to my commentary over the past few days, with several commenters seeming to suggest that I just want to shut people up, and it’s my way or the highway.Â Perhaps I need to reconsider how I approach topics, and how I communicate.Â But I do want to make one thing clear to everyone.Â All I am is a dude with a blog.Â I can’t stop someone from doing the kind of activism they feel good about doing, even if I wanted to.Â I don’t presume to exercise control over anyone.

But I do have strong opinions on what kind of tactics work and what kind of tactics don’t, and what kind of organization promotes success, and what kind or organization is doomed to failure.Â As a community of people who share goals and interests, it’s important to have those kinds of conversations without having folks take it personally, or feeling that my disagreement about the effectiveness over their preferred tactic is meant to be personal.Â It’s not.

Tactical disagreements are always going to be ambiguous, because each side in the disagreement is essentially arguing that they are able to analyze a complex and changing system to such a degree that the outcome is clear.Â I think in this past example, no one would have predicted the Obama White House would come out and endorse armed protesters.Â I certainly did not predict it, and that was probably the major factor that made this incident turn out well for us in the end.

I don’t ask that everyone agree with me, but I do ask that people argue with me on the same terms that I would argue with them.Â I would also ask that there be no dogma, or sacred cows in this issue.Â This reminds me of something I recently read in “Rules for Radicals,” in Alinsky’s description of the qualities of an effective organizer:

To the questioner, nothing is sacred.Â He detests dogma, defines any finite definition of morality, rebels against any repression of a free, open search for ideas no matter where they may lead. He is challenging, insulting, agitating, discrediting.Â He stirs unrest. As with all life, this is a paradox, for his irreverence is rooted in a deep reverence for the enigma of life, and an incessant search for its meaning.

Maybe we could all take a lesson from that, and agree that though we may sometimes piss each other off, none of us really has all the answers.

Constitutionality of Presidential Protection

Seems like a slow news day, so I thought I’d throw a little constitutional mind teaser out there.Â The Secret Service is charged by Title 18 Section 3056 with presidential protection, which includes keeping people who haven’t been screened beyond a security perimeter that’s established by the Secret Service.Â Now, in the District of Columbia, or on federal property, the Congressional power to authorize this is abundantly clear.Â But by what power does Congress authorize the Secret Service to establish a security zone around the President?

I think a case can be made, but I’m curious what other people think.Â Does the power to establish a security zone around the President extend to creating Free Speech Zones?Â Such as the one at the Democratic Convention in Boston in 2004.Â Have your say in the comments.Â I’ll update the post later with my view on the constitutionality of Presidential, and other dignitary protection.

UPDATE: I think the power can be derived from the Necessary and Proper clause.Â In order to carry out the executive functions authorized by Congress under its Article I powers, your Chief Executive has to be alive.Â One could argue then that it’s Necessary and Proper for the Congress to authorize the Secret Service to create a security perimeter around the President, and those close to the Presidency.Â I also believe, but am not certain, that the Secret Service is authorized by Congress to seek voluntary, compensated cooperation with the local authorities, who can erect cordons using the state police powers to effect the same thing.Â Â At least that’s my take on the constitutionality of it.Â I have no idea whether there are any court cases on the matter, but I think it’s pretty clear it would be a proper use of the Necessary and Proper clause.

UPDATE: The Neccessary and Proper rationale becomes a lot murkier when you’re talking candidates for office.Â The public may be horrified by the idea of another RFK, but a candidate is not an organ of government.Â But the Secret Service can still request that the local authorities exercise their police powers to accomplish the same thing.

All Your Presidents Are Belong to Us

The Bradys seem to be relatively pissed at Robert Gibbs:

Hearing this from someone who speaks daily from the podium in the James S. Brady White House Briefing Room – named after a press secretary seriously injured in an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan – is bizarre.

I agree it’s bizarre.Â I sure wasn’t expecting those words to come out of Gibbs’ mouth.

Robert Gibbs’ cavalier response to protesters carrying guns to presidential events was tone-deaf. This isn’t a political issue and it isn’t about the Second Amendment. It’s about open and honest debate, using common sense and protecting the president of United States.

I almost feel sorry for them.Â They were handed a good issue on a silver platter, and the Obama Administration basically snatched their toy away from them just as they were figuring out how to play with it.Â All will be sacrificed for the sake of the failing health care agenda!Â There’s good company under the Obama bus, Brady folks.Â Don’t fret too much.Â Just remember that the bus does have a reverse gear.

More Media Focus on the Bloomberg Group

At least one Reuters Columnist is setting this up as a clash of the Titans.

Dueling Returns to Politics in Ohio?

Apparently an candidate for Akron City Council must have insulted the honor of another candidate for the same office, or something like that, because the race nearly erupted into gun play.Â If there’s anything these two can learn from our founding fathers is that they should settle the dispute like gentlemen.

MSNBC Busted

Look how MSNBC snow jobs the guy who showed up with the gun, and try to make it a race issue against Obama.Â This is really really sleazy journalism:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scE-VrpnU9M[/youtube]

I think Tam said it best in regards to this video:

Listen, you broadcast dinosaurs: You don’t control the horizontal or the vertical anymore, got it? We can adjust our sets any time we want to. We have our own cameras these days. The whole world is watching now.

Dave Kopel on the Armed Protests

Patrik Jonsson of the Christian Science Monitor (remember him?) has written an article on the armed protester phenomena where he quotes Dave Kopel:

“This is really a form of expressive speech, and I think the fact that the Secret Service … hasn’t gotten particularly upset shows good judgement on their part,” he says.

Still, the man didn’t necessarily do the Second Amendment cause any favors, Kopel says.

“While I think it’s really paranoid for some of the media to falsely characterize this as people trying to threaten the president, I think it shows bad judgement to carry [guns] near a presidential speech,” he says. Protesters are “trying to make a statement about Second Amendment rights, but they’re doing it in a way that probably sets back that cause.”

I agree on it being a form of expressive speech, and on the latter part.Â I support people’s legal right to open carry, but if open carry folks want people to get used to the sight of guns, and think “no big deal” then you have to act in a manner that makes it no big deal.Â Last I checked, it was a big deal to end up on national television.

This is What Happens with Licensing

Kiwi gun owners are up in arms over changes to the licensing rules for semi-automatic rifles.

Many gun owners are angry at the changes, with some taking official steps to try to stop them. One has applied for a judicial review of the police decision, while a group has complained to the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

Compared to most of the world, New Zealand has traditionally had relatively sane gun laws, which is a bit like saying compared to Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia wasn’t such a bad place.Â The problem for the Kiwis is they acquiesced to licensing.Â We have avoided that in this country, even though for a lot of things licensing could make life easier.Â But it’s a road to disaster.Â It’s bad enough we have a licensing system to carry concealed, that creates a patchwork of different regulations from state-t0-state on where and whether you can carry.Â We can’t really ever acquiesce to licensing for purchase or possession, unless we want to end up like the Kiwis, or, you know, New Jersey.

UPDATE: Looking at the Kiwi laws on the matter, it would seem the change is that you need a C (Collector) or (E) (Shooter) endorsement on you’re license.Â Seems if you have a C endorsement, you aren’t allowed to fire the gun without an E endorsement.Â With the exception of the B (Pistol) endorsement, which is common, the other two never applied to anything other than machine guns, so police in New Zealand often won’t issue C and E endorsements at all.Â The Kiwi law is also very strict in it’s definition, and would include M1 Garands and the Marlin Model 60.

This would be roughly analagous to having a much stricter assault weapons ban here, where they were made to follow the same NFA rules that would apply to a machine gun.Â A shame for the Kiwis.

Rules for Radicals

I went to the bookstore tonight and picked up a copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” which is the handbook for political action of the American left. Â I’m about halfway through now, and plan to write a review of it, and provide some choice quotes.Â So far I’m actually enjoying the book quite a bit, and despite the fact that I disagree with Alinsky’s politics, it’s a very insightful handbook for political action in general, and the lessons taught are not at all limited to action on behalf of left wing causes.Â Take this bit from the preface:

In the midst of the gassing and violence by the Chicago Police and National Guard during the 1968 Democratic Convention, many students asked me “Do you still believe we should try to work inside our system?”

These were students who had been with Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire and followed him across the country.Â Some had been with Robert Kennedy when he was killed in Los Angeles.Â Many of the tears that were shed in Chicago were not from gas. “Mr. Alinsky, we fought in primary after primary and the people voted no on Vietnam.Â Look at that convention.Â They’re not paying any attention to the vote.Â Look at your police and the Army.Â You still want us to work in the system?”

It hurt me to see the American Army with drawn bayonets advancing on American boys and girls. But the answer I gave the young radicals seemed to me the only realistic one: “Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for youselves.Â Two, go psycho and start bombing — but this will only swing people to the right.Â Three, learn a lesson.Â Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates.”

The book is littered with quotes and wisdom that are just as relevant to Second Amendment rights as they are to left wing causes, and as much as this book may be a considered a tome of the left, I think it’s something anyone who wants to make a difference should read.