The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
This is a handy reference to show just how far we’ve come in two short years. I always love it when our opponents build great tools to helps us show how much progress we’re really making. 99 Laws rolling back gun control? Sounds like we could make a song out of that:
99 gun control acts in the law, 99 gun control acts
Take one down, pass it around, 98 gun control acts in the law …
Yeah, and we’re gonna keep going. Thanks Mother Jones.
A major tactic of our opponents is to dig through papers finding horror stories involving people misusing guns and pointing to the article, then pointing to us, and shaming us publicly, like we had something to do with it. “If only those crazy gun nut extremists would just support reasonable gun laws, like they have in Europe, these kinds of things wouldn’t happen,” they say. It’s a pretty good sign they are running out of arguments, and it looks like they’ve run out of that argument too.
… we value free speech a bit much. Personally, this article greatly offends me. Perhaps if we showed our displeasure by rioting and violence, we’d have grounds to ban it by the Professor’s own standard? What good is free speech if you can ban any speech which might offend deeply enough to cause disorder? Under that standard, wouldn’t it have been in the interest of public order to silence Martin Luther King? Malcolm X?
Despite its 18th-century constitutional provenance, the First Amendment did not play a significant role in U.S. law until the second half of the 20th century. The First Amendment did not protect anarchists, socialists, Communists, pacifists, and various other dissenters when the U.S. government cracked down on them, as it regularly did during times of war and stress.
I do not care to repeat the mistakes of the 18th and 19th centuries. One problem I’ve always had with originalism is that perhaps free speech always meant what it’s come to mean in this century, but that the Courts just didn’t take it seriously enough before. There are a lot of things in that old document that judges have been saying “Surely they couldn’t have meant that,” to through the whole history of the republic.
From Misfires and Light Strikes:
The Gun Culture 1.0 broke down for a number of reasons, including the urbanization of the U.S. and single-parent families becoming the norm, and Gun Culture 2.0 reflects that fact, as well as the fact that in today’s media environment, the deer now have guns.
The deer in this case being us, and the hunters being the media. Bitter grew up in Gun Culture 1.0 in Oklahoma, where they didn’t teach the girls the ways of the gun culture. She was brought into GC 2.0 in Massachusetts by a friend from Colorado, who was also raised in GC 1.0, except she was taught to hunt, and is still primarily a hunter. I’m not entirely certain GC 1.0 vs. GC 2.0 really has to do with how you shoot, or what you shoot (be they pepper poppers or Bambi), so much as your attitudes, and how you understand it and relate to the gun culture. I’ve met people who primarily hunt that I would say are thoroughly GC 2.0, and people who primarily shoot who are thoroughly GC 1.0. I think we need to be very careful about taking attitudes like, “Oh, hunting.. that’s so Gun Culture 1.0” and “Bullseye shooting? That’s so 1970s man. Get with the times!” The biggest drivers of the change involve attitudes, not what you shoot, or what sports you participate in. Much of this cultural shift has come from the concealed carry revolution, which has necessarily come with a whole host of new attitudes, beliefs, and new shooting sports.
For instance, there are often different ideas about gun safety between GC 1.0 and 2.0. GC 1.0 folks are more inclined to believe drawing from holster or moving with a firearm is an activity that is inherently dangerous. This is particularly funny in Pennsylvania, where we’ve had concealed carry for a while, and you hear this attitude from GC 1.0 people who have LTCs and carry! Let me express my GC 2.0 attitude and exclaim, “Dear god, if you ever need your pistol, how the hell do you plan to employ it without blowing a hole in your ass?” Also, again expressing 2.0 sentiments, and having attended both 1.0 and 2.0 matches, I’ve been corrected for minor safety issues at 2.0 matches that no 1.0 match would ever bat an eye over. The 2.0 culture accommodates the fact that they do engage in riskier activities by having absolutely zero tolerance for unsafe gun handling.
There is also a difference in how the two cultures approach their right to keep and bear arms. In GC 1.0 people either gave it little or no thought, or more heavily emphasized resistance to tyrannical government as the primary purpose for keeping and bearing arms. I think they were right. It’s pretty clear from the early debates on the Second Amendment that keeping the people empowered to resist tyranny was its primary purpose. Gun Culture 2.0 tends to focus more on the self-defense aspects of the Second Amendment, or tends to view resistance to tyranny as a subset of the overriding self-defense purpose. While the resistance to tyranny aspect may have been more what was on the founder’s minds, the self-defense aspects resonates more broadly with a modern and more urbanized audience, and particularly resonates much more strongly with women.
But if there’s one trait I would hope for in Gun Culture 2.0 people, it’s tolerance. We define ourselves, I think, by tolerance to people who haven’t traditionally participated in the gun culture, namely women and minorities, but I would also hope for a different kind of tolerance, and that is for people who participate in GC 1.0, and who reciprocate that tolerance to us. Whether you’re 1.0 or 2.0, you’re doing the entire issue a grave disservice if you’re taking a divisive and intolerant attitude towards the people in the other camp. I’ve met plenty of GC 1.0 who think IDPA is recklessly dangerous, and plenty of GC 2.0 people who think hunting is for “Fudds”, and sports like Bullseye shooting is for grouchy old men clinging to the past. I think both 1.0 and 2.0, along with their favored sports and favored guns, can both survive and move forward together into the a new gun culture, let’s call it 3.0, who’s overriding value is tolerance for all things shooty, and that is intolerant only of intolerance.
The local San Francisco CBS affiliate has an article on the failure of the bill to greatly expand California’s Assault Weapons ban. Interesting that the Attorney General thinks the regulation that allows for “Bullet Buttons” is bad, but isn’t willing to take any action on the matter. Any change that makes the bullet button illegal is likely going to be challenged in court, and perhaps the AG just doesn’t feel the office has money to spend.
Back at Jacobsen’s factory, he said, “It’s creating a lot of back orders for us. It drives a lot of business our way.â€
We asked the Attorney General about that. Her response, “We would like to hope that these manufacturers would stop trying to get around the intention of the law. We would like to believe that people wouldn’t purchase products from manufacturers that are obviously trying to get around the intention of the law, unfortunately that is not happening.â€
There’s something to be said for pissing off the right people. I guess she really doesn’t like people, you know, complying with the law.
… DC is trying to ease up a bit on its gun hating ways, but elements of their political culture just don’t want to see it happen. Phil Mendelson held a meeting to discuss making violating D.C.’s gun laws for non-residents a simple fine. But D.C. Attorney General will have none of it:
“We are opposed because we think it’s unwise to start down a slope where gun offenses and therefore perhaps others wind up on that sort of process,†says Andrew Fois, assistant D.C. attorney general.
Mr. Fois claims that prosecutors can exercise discretion. Does that practically happen? I guess maybe when your case attracts enough press attention. We should be honest about what’s motivating DC on this issue — fear of repercussions from Congress. Congress is already itching to preempt DC City Council on the subject of guns entirely, and the District is trying to avoid that prospect. Problem? We can’t get any such preemption bill through the Senate or White House. At least not easily.
Gun ownership has been expanding in Australia as well as here. Enough that there’s starting to be movement to loosen their gun laws. This has gun control groups in Australia concerned. But that’s not all who’s concerned. Michelle Sandstrom represents Pistol Shooting Queensland, which has Olympic shooters as members:
MICHELLE SANDSTROM, PISTOL SHOOTING QUEENSLAND: I was concerned when I saw the panel. We don’t really see that there’s a great need to make it easier to own a firearm in our discipline and in our sport category.
PETER McCUTCHEON: Michelle Sandstrom is the President of Pistol Shooting Queensland, a competition focussed sporting group which has Olympians as members. While some in the firearm community complain about undergoing a policeman checks before even joining a club like this, Michelle Sandstrom isn’t fussed.
(PETER McCUTCHEON SPEAKS WITH MICHELLE SANDSTROM)
PETER McCUTCHEON: So red tape isn’t always necessarily bad?
MICHELLE SANDSTROM: No it’s not always bad at all; it can actually work in your favour to be honest.
Just like it worked in favor of Olympic shooters in Britain, who now can’t legally train in their own country? Is Ms. Sandstrom sure she’s not another mass shooting away from having to train in New Zealand? This group sounds to me like it’s filled with people who want to feel like a privileged elite, and view the regulations as a means to keep undesirable riffraff out of their sport. You’ll find the same attitude here too, but in general, one of the keys to our success here in the US has come about by enforcing a strict orthodoxy on those who claim to be part of the community.
Most of these organizations are dependent on people joining and donating money to support them. If this had been USA Shooting, you’d see calls for boycotts. You’d see people refusing to give them money or support. They’d be ostracized from the greater shooting community. We’d also, no doubt, have many Olympic shooters condemning the organization for that position, and who would apply pressure within. In short, we’d circle the wagons and eradicate the cancer, not all the dissimilar to what we did with Smith & Wesson back when they cut a deal with the Clinton Administration, or more recently with Recoil Magazine. If Aussies really want this to keep going forward, the first thing you need to do is put pressure on organizations like Pistol Shooting Queensland to get in line.
Unlike the reserved approach to politics that the traditional firearms lobby has taken, the new generation is outspoken, unashamed and willing to fight for what they believe. They are educated on the origins of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right to be free. They do not advocate for the Second Amendment as a right to hunt, rather they perceive it as a guaranteed ability to resist an oppressive government.
I generally agree that there’s a Gun Culture 1.0 and a Gun Culture 2.0, but there’s a lot of minor revisions in the middle. In terms of people who are “outspoken, unashamed and willing to fight for what they believe,” I’ve found that to be more true of retirees than young people. Young people are far less likely to get involved, in my experience, than older folks. They are less likely to join pro-gun organizations, and less likely to participate in other civic aspects of gun ownership, like joining clubs, or moving in political circles to try to advocate their point of view on the Second Amendment.
I think for many in Gun Culture 2.0, guns are a lifestyle product that money can buy. If there’s troves young people who are really interested in the civic aspects of gun ownership, I haven’t seen it. Any time I’ve ever been to rallies, or had people volunteer, they’ve usually not been people we would classify as Gun Culture 2.0. In fact, I think how to get Gun Culture 2.0 folks involved in the civic aspects of gun ownership is going to be one of our biggest challenges going forward. GC 2.0 was built on top of the foundation laid by folks who were 1.0 shooters, and it’s not very hard to start going backwards if people don’t get involved.
There’s a lot of folks who seem to think this is gun control, because it changes:
Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.
to:
Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.
A bit further down on the original link above:
For a “Right†to “not be infringed†there can be NO “restriction†placed on it whatsoever. NONE. Privileges can have restrictions placed on them. “Rightsâ€, as defined in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 cannot be “restricted†in any manner, as they are “unalienable,†which means not ‘alienable’….not able to be taken away, transferred or RESTRICTED…!!
This was a fear of mine, that the uninitiated would have no idea what strict scrutiny meant, legally. Now we have that, and people latching onto the word “restricted,” and interpreting this provision as some form of gun control. Nothing could be farther from the truth. By demanding strict scrutiny in the constitutional provision, it is a detailed, specific instruction to the courts to give the right the highest protection the courts currently offer when considering the scope of fundamental rights. To date, most courts have adopted intermediate scrutiny so that they may engage in balancing tests to justify numerous restrictions on the right, and the Louisiana Supreme Court effectively gutted their RKBA constitution guarantee back in 2001:
“The State of Louisiana is entitled to restrict that right for legitimate state purposes, such as public health and safety.” State v. Blanchard, 776 So.2d 1165, 1168 (La. 2001).*
So really, this is a choice between any restriction the state wants to place, which is the current status quo, or any restrictions being subject to a very high level of scrutiny by the courts. Clearly the latter here would be far better. I really hope that people will spread the word and help relieve the ignorance at work here, especially if you know folks in Louisiana, or see people spreading this.
Unfortunately, the unscrupulous among us will also see a fundraising opportunity here, and will likely play on this ignorance to drum up support for their organization. But it’s very important that this get passed, both for the sake of Louisiana, and to send a message to the federal courts about how Americans expect their rights to be treated. If this ballot measure goes down in a sea of ignorance on the part of gun owners, the other side will be guaranteed to spin this as Americans believing that harsh restrictions on state power to regulate guns is just peachy.
* Source: Defend Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Louisiana–Vote “YES†on 2!
Spent most of today in the office today rearranging things to take this all into the final stretch, assuming we find some real-estate soon to put all this stuff. I felt bad ignoring the blog, but it didn’t take long to realize there was nothing to blog about anyway. Got caught up with other blogs pretty quickly, and looks like no one else has much to blog about either. It’s a real problem when you write about RKBA when no one is talking about it in public life. Let me rummage through and see what I have here.
I generally try not to pay great attention to polling numbers, because I think there’s a lot of tea leaf reading that goes on here on all sides. I’m skeptical they are rigged, however. I think there’s literally nothing to see here. I’d bet this is a fundraising scheme. If the person had been there, at the end they would have patched you through to someone who asked you to make a donation. If you answered Obama, or just stood there with a dumb look on your face, they probably would have dropped you eventually.
Speaking of polls, and why they aren’t to be trusted, we have this poll, which says 66% of Americans believe everyone should be required to pay some amount of income tax. From a post by Ilya Somin, we have a poll which shoes that 66% of Americans believe no one should pay more than 19%, and a whopping 88% believe no one should pay more than 29%. Now, if you think about cutting taxes on the wealthy to 29%, and especially 19%, while simultaneously raising taxes on the poor some modest amount, and how politically viable that is, you’ll understand why the gun control crowd’s reliance on polls to show their views are uncontroversial doesn’t hold any water with politicians who know better. People will tell pollsters anything. What matters is what happens when it’s time to make policy, and both sides rally, and the media prints and broadcasts, the bloggers blog, the forums forum, the pundits pundit, etc, etc. A poll on specific gun policy or tax policy doesn’t mean crap. Most people know next to nothing about both, including people who own guns and pay taxes.