This is an inalienable right that neither the federal government, nor any state government, may infringe upon. In addition, the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to protect us from states that infringe on our inalienable, constitutional rights.
By the way, these are the same gun-ban groups that don’t give any consideration to states’ rights when they lobby for sweeping federal gun bans, ammunition bans, and magazine bans.
I don’t think states have rights anyway. People have rights. States have powers which are delegated to it by the people. I’m glad he’s calling out the disingenuousness of our opponents when they hang their hat on the 10th Amendment. They weren’t so concerned about state-by-state policy when they were busy banning scary looking rifles as equally in Pennsylvania as they were in Montana.
I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The court got that quite wrong. Gun policy should be handled by legislatures and by states, not by federal judges appointed for life.
The Second Amendment is never really going to be safe until we stop hearing things like this from left-leaning judges. The only thing that’s going to save the Second Amendment is getting judges on the bench who are willing to uphold it.
It looks like this past week was a busy one for the gun control crowd, busy giving us insights into their thinking, and windows into their minds. Professor Adam Winkler has been on a book tour to promote “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” in which he brings up the subject of many early gun control efforts having racist roots. This infuriates Ladd Everitt, who confronts Professor Winkler at one of his events:
This is another example of the gun control crowd failing to understand our positions, or even really grasp the core of what we argue. I don’t think anyone who’s an opinion leader in this issue, that has discussed the racist roots of gun control, has suggested that Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the Brady Campaign, or any of its supporters, are pushing gun control because they are racist, or that their efforts are motivated by a desire to racially discriminate. All we’re suggesting is that the racist motivations of past gun control efforts should be acknowledged and openly talked about. That is the Professor’s position as well, and it is also mine.
But I will go slightly farther than perhaps Professor Winkler would be willing to go, and suggest that even today, gun control, in effect, can have racial consequences, even if it is not motivated by racial considerations per se. I will give you an example, in using the issue of “Florida Loophole,” in Pennsylvania. The City leaders have lamented that people in high-crime neighborhoods are being issued Florida licenses, presumably because they have been turned down for a license by the City of Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania law allows police to deny a license to “An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety,” which the City of Philadelphia has interpreted quite broadly, even going to far as to suggest unpaid parking tickets are sufficient to deny permits under this clause. Philadelphia will also deny your license if you have ever been arrested, even if the arrest was minor and long ago. There is an appeal process to contest a license revocation, but it costs time and money. A typical suburban resident has sufficient access to the legal system to be able to successfully challenge an unfair denial, so suburban jurisdictions, even ones who probably would not issue licenses at all if they had a choice, tend to use this criteria fairly. Philadelphia routinely gets away with unfair denials because its residents are poorer, and don’t have the same access to the legal system. A Florida license, for which Florida only counts convictions, rather than arrests, is a cheaper alternative for being able to legally carry for self-protection. But City officials have been champing at the bit to get the “Florida Loophole” closed, leaving those residents with no recourse.
It’s worth noting that suburban applicants are going to tend to overwhelmingly be white and middle or upper class. City applicants stand  better chance than not of being African-American, given they are the city’s predominate ethnic group. It is outrageous to me that some Americans have better access to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms than other Americans. I have no doubt the motivation to close the “Florida Loophole” is not racial. Indeed, many proponents of closing the loophole are African-American, including Mayor Nutter and Commissioner Ramsey. But the end of result of what they advocate is that African-Americans in Philadelphia, who live in high-crime areas and who may be lower-income, will have less access to their constitutional rights than the white folks in the suburbs. This is what I mean when I suggest the law has racial implications, even if it is not racist in its motivations. The implication should concern any American who believes in the Bill of Rights, and equal protection under the law.
Ladd Everitt proposes we airbrush this from the debate, probably because it makes him uncomfortable. To be sure, I don’t think Everitt is a racist; i’m sure he’d be happy to disarm both black and white equally. But we don’t live in a country where a gun ban is possible anymore. Given that, I think it’s important to ensure that all Americans, regardless of color or income, have the same access to exercise their rights as everyone else. The Florida issue has uncovered a fundamental unfairness in the way Pennsylvania law is written, and how it is being implemented. It should be fixed. I’m willing to talk about the Florida issue as part of that solution, but I am absolutely not willing to airbrush the racial implications of the current status-quo. All law-abiding Pennsylvanians should have equal access to their right to carry a firearm for self-protection. I would like to think that’s a base principle we could all get behind, and leave the disagreement limited to whether the standard needs to be tougher, more lenient, or just less subjective.
Professor Winkler and I may be at opposite sides of that particular debate, but his willingness to take our side seriously, and make serious arguments in return, is a breath of fresh air in an issue dominated by the Ladd Everitts, Joan Petersons, and Abby Spanglers of the world. And that’s not even speaking of the boneheads on our “side.”
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is missing on the point on the proliferation of 3D printing and Computer Aided Manufacturing equipment like CNC milling machines. It’s becoming ubiquitous technology. Mr. Completely, who lives on an island in the Puget Sound, managed to find himself a large and capable specimen. My friend Jason’s CNC mill is desktop sized, as is his 3D printer. Ladd’s ridiculous notion that those of us interested in these machines are “traitors to our government” aside, the inescapable conclusion has to be that if these technologies are available to us, they’re equally available to criminals. The point is, a world where guns can be rolled out on CNC machines and 3D printers that fit on a workbench is a world you will not be able to effectively ban guns. Pretty clearly that possibility is not one Ladd Everett wants to face, being a true believer and all, but it’s the truth. Gun control is increasingly being rendered an obsolete and outmoded concept by technological progress.
I’ve always wanted to have one of these in my collection. I think there’s a knockoff being made these days, but the real McCoy has always been what’s appealed to me. I don’t think many fully functional STG 44s made it over there though. This was the first assault rifle put into active use in war. If you want to see an excellent video of this gun, head over to the American Rifleman.
Our Favorite Brady Board member continues to be a window into the minds of our opponents, and I continue to be struck by the contrast in the different ways we think, and the different ways we perceive the world. This incident is such an example. On the surface, I agree with Joan’s questioning of whether this incident was the wisest of actions, which I think it wasn’t. You certainly won’t see me chasing down armed robbers. Once the immediate danger has passed, he’s a problem for the police. But I’m shocked by this from Joan:
Do you shoot to kill at someone who has just robbed a person and injured them while you were watching? The woman in question did not receive serious injuries.
From the article:
 According to police, a caller to 911 said a woman had just been robbed at gunpoint of her purse and pistol-whipped in the parking lot of the Cub Foods.
Emphasis in both quotes are mine. These two highlighted portions are generally mutually incompatible. I don’t know what Joan thinks a pistol whipping is, but it’s not any different than assaulting someone with a club. That the woman was not seriously injured it just an incredible bit a luck. Pistol whipping someone is quite likely to fracture a jaw, break teeth, and is not unlikely to result in brain trauma or death depending on where the blow occurs.
Now the question is, given that there’s a dead criminal, what is justice? That depends highly on the facts and circumstances. While I don’t think chasing down a criminal to recover property is wise, it’s not illegal. You’re permitted to use force to recover property. In many states, you’re permitted to use force to stop someone who’s committed a felony. If the robber escalated the incident to one of a deadly force encounter, that’s entirely on the fault, both morally and legally, of the robber. If I’m on a jury in this case, and the woman agrees the corpse is the guy that robbed her, I’m going to be very inclined to interpret the facts and circumstances in the citizen’s favor, even if I don’t think what he did was all that prudent.
I think the difference between Joan and I is that I don’t think a man who pistol whips a woman because he wants her purse is worthy to enjoy the same benefits of society as the person outraged enough by the idea to do something about it. Granted, I prefer to see the robber rot in prison after a trial before a fair and impartial jury, but things don’t always work out as cleanly as we would like in life. Unless someone can present some evidence that the citizen chased down the armed robber down and executed him, I’m going to vote to let him walk. The life of an armed robber isn’t worth the risk of sending someone to prison who was trying to do the right thing, and who is otherwise law-abiding.
I have to wonder how much our disagreement is that our opponents believe that all men are equal, whereas the traditional view is that all men are created equal. Actions matter, and when you think it’s OK to beat a woman in the face with a deadly instrument for her purse, pardon me if I decide your actions don’t give your life equal weight to the freedom of someone who is essentially a good, if imprudent person.
The Record-Courier reports Justin Lew Harris of Gardnerville carried his 56-year-old mother out of the church Monday as she loudly objected to the ceremony.
All, OK, so far. Generally speaking, you can use force to remove trespassers, right?
Harris, 35, faces disorderly conduct and coercion charges. He was released from the Douglas County Jail on his own recognizance Wednesday.
Because these charges are related to a domestic violence incident, if he’s convicted, he’ll be prohibited under the Lautenberg Amendment. Clearly by carrying mom out of the church, he’s a dangerous wife beater deserving of losing a fundamental constitutional right. At least that’s what our opponents think.
The disorderly conduct charge ordinarily would be very minor, and I think even in this situation would not be disabling in regards to Lautenberg. But the coercion charge involves an element of physical force, which qualifies, and we’re talking about his mother, which makes it domestic. Our dishonest and unsavory opponents want you think about wife beaters, but the domestic violence ban just as surely covers this conduct as it does someone who slaps his wife.
And why this guy is facing charges at all is a whole different discussion that really speaks to state overreach.
Or did they just take Oceana is a blueprint for a just society? Because I can’t imagine anyone who’s a student of Orwell could possibly produce something like this and not be completely freaked out:
For more background, see this article. What are they teaching in schools today? Another irony, which I’m sure is completely lost on the Occupy Charlotte folks trying to drive out their founder, is that they would overlay the music of a Polish Nationalist, who had to flee his native country that was brutally attacked by the Russian Bear. If you’re looking for music to go with a purge, I have a better suggestion than the use of Chopin.
