Sebastian – Page 628 – Shall Not Be Questioned

How We Catch Terrorists

A lot of folks on the Internets aren’t too happy with how the FBI is catching terrorists these days, by seemingly manufacturing them. I can’t say it’s a perfect method for catching terrorists, but I’m not sure what they are doing isn’t the least evil of the options available. First off, suggesting that the FBI is manufacturing terrorists is probably a bit of a hyperbole. Generally speaking, what constitutes entrapment is pretty well defined, and if the FBI wants to have a case, they will be careful to avoid it. So what are the elements of entrapment?

The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

If this turns out to be entrapment, I’ll jump on board in criticizing the FBI’s methods. But I don’t really like the idea of violent jihadisÂ wandering around the United States, with only a lack of materials standing between themselves and the next Oklahoma City. If you think about it, the alternatives are probably worse than what the FBI is doing. What alternatives would there be?

More controls over explosives and explosive precursors. Given how many chemicals are explosive precursors, this method doesn’t enthuse me. Plus, much like gun control, it’s not going to stop someone determined. But it will definitely be annoying for people who lawfully use explosives or their precursors.
More domestic spying. If you’re going to keep close enough eye on them to catch them when they finally do hook up with Ahmed the Truck Bomb Maker, you’ll need to keep a close watch on them and anyone they associate with. Without thinking about the manpower issues involved here, it’ll be a big problem if one of these jihadists manage to slip away from his FBI watchers after securing an uncomfortable amount of Semtex.
Widen the GWOT to ensure terrorists have no places to train, hide, or get radicalized. This would be my preferred option, but it’s not politically or economically feasible. You’d have to send troops into Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, and Yemen. The only way we’re paying for such an expansion of military action is either through massive tax hikes or adding even more to our deficit. That still doesn’t stop the problem of people who are already over here and already radicalized.
Doing nothing as long as terrorism is a low level problem. I’d probably be OK with this too, but the first time one of these guys manages to get his hands on something and executes another Oklahoma City, I can promise you there will be all kinds of restrictions put on not only explosives and precursors, but many civil liberties.
Institute extreme violations of civil liberties for Muslim Americans. I don’t find this option to be remotely acceptable, and don’t think anyone else should either.

So as much as it might feel better if we catch terrorists just before they are about to trigger the detonator on the truck bomb Ahmed built, setting the bar at that height seems to have an awful potential for someone actually pulling it off before agents can intervene. You can’t just think of what your reaction would be to a potential truck bombing. You have to think of what the now frightened population is going to let the civil servants get away with, and it can be guaranteed they will try to get away with as much as they can. Last time we went through this, our wonderful civil servants almost ended model rockery as a hobby in the United States, among other things.

So for now, provided the FBI isn’t unlawfully entrapping people, I’m fine with the FBI hooking up people who have the will to commit violent jihad with what they think is the means, and then busting them. It’s probably the lesser of available evils at the moment. It’s not the explosives that are dangerous, but the jihadist who has no issues murdering men, women and children as they go about their daily lives that’s dangerous. That’s generally been our philosophy when arguing against gun control right?

Rule 6: Never Give a Monkey a Gun

I think this is a rule we can all agree on.

Ohio Court Finds 2A Rights for Misdemeanants

The Ohio legislature is looking to fix this issue as we speak, but an Ohio Court of Common Pleas has found that non-violent misdemeanants, in this case people who have had a misdemeanor drug conviction in their past, can’t be stripped of Second Amendment rights. It’s interesting that the holding is limited to self-defense. Does that mean if he had firearms for hunting that might be a problem? That sure seems to turn the “sporting purposes” language in the federal gun control act on its head, doesn’t it?

Daley Annoyed

Apparently his gun registry system, meant to tell first responders how many guns are in any given house, isn’t operational and he’s pissed. It’s a well known fact, after all, that armed robbers, violent gang members, and drug dealers register their firearms with police. All this is going to do is get innocent gun owners killed when the police feel the need to send in an armed SWAT team with itchy trigger fingers because Joe Gun Owner, who has an “arsenal” of a few pistols and a shotgun, ended up with a warrant out on him because of a traffic summons he forgot about a few years ago.

Cutting the Cord

I was intrigued by this article on the return of rabbit ears. Glenn Reynolds says “It really is the 1970s all over again.“Â I’ve decided it’s finally time to stop paying wildly inflated prices for 500 channels and nothing on. Who needs it when there’s Netflix and Hulu Plus?

Bloomberg Looking to Run?

He’s certainly putting out messages that would indicate he’s thinking about it. The real question is who is he going to spoil? It’s possible the hope is he’ll pull away enough independent voters from the GOP to help out the Democrats in 2012. But polling has shown people don’t like Bloomberg all that much, and his close margin of victory for his third term runs shows even New Yorkers are tiring of him. The idea that he’s a serious contender is a non-starter, but that’s not to say he can’t be a spoiler. It’s worth nothing that Bill Clinton won two terms with a plurality.

Gun Rights Advances in Ohio

Looks like they managed a successful discharge petition in the Ohio house, advancing several pro-gun measures. But the Democratic Speaker, who is against these measures, may be able to thwart a vote.

Transparency, Government, and Gun Rights

Thanks to David Post for pointing to these excellent thoughts on the Wikileaks scandal, because I think it has a useful concept that also speaks to some recent happenings in the gun rights movement here in Pennsylvania:

On the other hand, human systems canâ€™t stand pure transparency. For negotiation to work, peopleâ€™s stated positions have to change, but change is seen, almost universally, as weakness. People trying to come to consensus must be able to privately voice opinions they would publicly abjure, and may later abandon. Wikileaks plainly damages those abilities. (If Aaron Badyâ€™s analysis is correct, it is the damage and not the oversight that Wikileaks is designed to create.*)

And so we have a tension between two requirements for democratic statecraft, one that canâ€™t be resolved, but can be brought to an acceptable equilibrium. Indeed, like the virtues of equality vs. liberty, or popular will vs. fundamental rights, it has to be brought into such an equilibrium for democratic statecraft not to be wrecked either by too much secrecy or too much transparency.

So how does this relate to the gun rights movement? Because it explains why it’s not really possible for NRA, or any other group that may be in a position to know legislatively sensitive information, to share that information with grassroots activists who aren’t made privy to it. I think the root of much of the tension is that negotiation and dealings happen behind closed doors, and there’s not enough trust that the people who are in the smoked filled room will do the right things.

There’s always the argument that perhaps there ought to be more transparency in the process, and I think there is merit to the argument that NRA hasn’t been transparent enough in what it’s doing when lobbying legislatures. But it can’t be perfectly transparent. There will be some point where John Hohenwarter goes into the smoke filled room, and you’re stuck having to live with whatever comes out of that process. There might be times when it’s someone else headed into the smoked filled room to negotiate on our behalf. But it’s going to be someone, and can’t be everyone. And that someone is going to keep his cards very close to his chest, if he or she is a smart negotiator.

That’s one reason I’m not sure what cooperation between pro-gun groups in Pennsylvania is really going to look like. Not all groups are going to be on equal footing in the minds of the elected officials who control access to the smoke filled room, which means not all groups will have the same information. Not all of that information will be of a nature that can be shared broadly without risking compromising the overall legislative agenda. If the first requirement for harmony is for everyone to be on equal footing, information and access wise, that’s a non-starter out of the gate.

So I suppose it comes down to who you trust? Do I trust John Hohenwarter of NRA? Do I trust Kim Stolfer of FOAC? Do I trust Dan Pehrson of PAFOA? I would trust any of them to do the best they could for gun owners behind closed doors, because I think they all sincerely care about the issue, and have the best interests of our movement at heart. That’s really all I can ask for. I don’t expect a poker player to win every hand at poker, and I don’t expect a lobbyist to win every vote in a legislative battle either. Obviously, someone visibly incompetent at playing would be another matter, but I don’t think we have anyone who fits that bill in Pennsylvania.

Assessing the Impact of Heller and McDonald

Ilya Somin agrees with Josh Blackman that the impact is going to be pretty limited. When looking short term, I tend to agree with that. I believe what will end up happening legally is that the status quo is largely frozen into place, with some of the very restrictive jurisdictions forced to relax their rules to a large degree. But in the end, I still think having a gun and carrying one in New York City will be more of a pain in the ass than doing the same in Phoenix. The judiciary will give them more leeway than we would like. However, the question becomes, if they can’t too seriously and substantively interfere with the right to the point of near destruction, will they bother? How will that alter the political dynamic? How will the next generation of federal judges look at the Second Amendment?

In the end, the Brady Campaign is right. It largely does take the extremes off the table. What they don’t realize is that’s far worse news for them than it is for us. It’s incumbent on us to expand the Heller majority. We’ve already missed two important opportunities for that. I agree with Professor Somin’s assessment that the two decisions we have speaks to the Heller/McDonald coalition of five justices to have breaking points.

Fred Madden Throws A Rotten Bone

You remember Fred Madden? The New Jersey State Senator who rolled over for Governor Corzine to bring one-gun-a-month to the Garden State? Well, apparently he’s come up with a considerably less than ideal solution that doesn’t even begin to make up for it. Fred Madden is up for re-election in 2011. Gun owners in New Jersey need to show they can target an unseat someone like Madden. You only need a few heads on a pike before the politicians there start listening.