Month: March 2012

Gun owners tend to think favorably of the 5th Circuit, because it’s the circuit that Emerson came out of, but they’ve been on a roll lately with unfavorable decisions. This latest one they argue that the right to bear arms only covers arms in general, and not one specific firearm. What? So let me get this straight, the police can come into my house, take all my firearms, not charge me with anything, and that’s not a violation of my rights because I can always go buy new ones?

The right protected by the Second Amendment is not a property-like right to a specific firearm, but rather a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

I’d be curious to know what the case law is on something like this in a First Amendment context. Can the police seize a printing press from a newspaper, fail to file any charges, and keep the press? Would this create a viable First Amendment complaint?

Very interesting is that Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, the dissenting judge in this case, brings up, once again, Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent in the Heller II case in the D.C. Circuit. I may have more to say about this later. But I think Judge Kavanaugh was on to something when he penned that dissent.

Newtown Township, here in my County, has decided to follow state law. They are seeing the writing on the wall in regards to how we feel about preemption, and decided to take some preventative measures. This is a great development, considering the bill isn’t even law yet.

UPDATE: Greg notes in the comments that they are still requiring a permit for parks, meaning they still have some changing to do if they want to remain compliant with state law in regards to preemption since it’s not unlawful to openly carry in a park, according to state law.

I still stand by my statement yesterday that Zimmerman was out of line in confronting Martin, largely because, based on what we know, I think what got Zimmerman’s dander up was that a black kid with a hoodie was walking through his neighborhood. That’s what primed him for wanting to confront, and that’s a reprehensible motivation.

But given the statement that the confrontation happened between two rows of townhouses, let’s suppose for a moment that was trespass. If your neighbor confronted a kid walking through your side yard, the kid started a physical altercation, ended up bloodying your neighbor and slamming him to the ground, and the neighbor drew a pistol and shot the trespasser, would that not be legitimate self-defense? The trespasser, by his trespass, initiated the confrontation. I would confront kids if they cut through my property, as I think most people would. I wouldn’t shoot them, but I’m certainly not going to stand there and be a punching bag for a trespasser either.

I’m not saying these are the facts in this case, but just offering a way this could have gone down. The fact is that we will likely never know the facts surrounding the confrontation that lead to the initial shooting. There’s only two people who could know, and one of them is dead. Our legal system doesn’t allow putting people away on a hunch. It doesn’t allow putting people away because “we just know he’s guilty,” and it also doesn’t allow us to put people away because they are racist bastards. There has to be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction, and Florida requires probable cause to detain someone. Zimmerman was taken into custody and questioned, but in our system of “innocent until proven guilty,” there wasn’t probable cause to keep him in custody. He’s walking the streets now, yes, but that’s based on first principles of a free society, and I’d like to think that’s all something we ought to hold out as the standard, even if it’s not always lived up to by authorities who have learned justice favors those who can afford good lawyers.

I generally tend to be fairly pragmatic and circumspect when it comes to political matters, since even if reality sucks, it is what it is, and if you want to change anything you have to work with what is. But one still needs to keep a mind on where things should really be.

In that vein, it’s been very educational to watch the reaction to the Pennsylvania voter ID law (signed by Gov. Corbett tonight). It goes back to first principles. I agree with many of the arguments being used against this bill, and I’d be fine with saying you don’t need to have photo ID to vote. We ran a successful Republic long before Photo ID became ubiquitous in modern times. I’d be fine with agreeing you can vote without providing Photo ID, provided you also don’t need photo ID to buy a gun. Both are fundamental rights. But many of our opponents, both in the gun control movement and the left, are quite distraught over Pennsylvania’s photo ID bill for voting. They use the argument that is disenfranchises the poor, and disenfranchises minorities.

Yet these same people, who I might also add continue to deny that gun control is racist, don’t see a problem here with the dichotomy. Sorry, but gun control is still racist, if not in purpose, but in outcome. People in the gun control movement have continually thrown up barriers to exercising the right to keep and bear arms that present little obstacle for wealthy suburbanites, but who’s effect makes it difficult for poor inner city residents to do so. Even if this is not the intention, and that’s being charitable, this is the outcome. What I wonder is why that doesn’t concern more people, who claim to care so much about the rights of the poor and minorities.

If it’s a fundamental right, people should have equal access, and we accept the costs that come along with that, whether it be criminals buying guns, or criminals buying elections. You can’t have it both ways.