Category: Gun Rights

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.

The Center for Biological Diversity are trying to ban ammunition, and end the shooting sports as we know it, once again. The EPA turned down their previous petition for rule making. If you think Obama will hold the EPA dogs off us if he gets re-elected, there’s a bridge I can sell you. This is something they could do without action from Congress.

Take a look at what I had to say a week or so ago about restoring the non-delegation doctrine to its rightful place as a check against Congress abrogating its power to the executive branch. This is really one of those cases, if Congress wants to ban lead ammunition, it ought to have to pass a law. As it does, it probably does not.

Well, folks, the first Second Amendment legal textbook is finally out. Since it’s a textbook, it’s priced like one, but if you have an interest in Second Amendment law, this could very well be the definitive book. It’s co-written by Nicholas Johnson of Fordham Law School in New York, David Kopel of the Sturm College of Law at University of Denver, George Moscary of University of Connecticut School of Law, and Michael O’Shea of Oklahoma City University School of Law.

It wasn’t too long ago that many believed this stream of legal thought was an elaborate hoax, namely a bunch of  gun nutty lawyers tilting at windmills. Well, sometimes when you tilt at a windmill, you make the windmill fall over. That’s what’s happened here, and it’s not to be forgotten how many individuals and thousands and thousands of man hours of research helped get us here.

Looks like it’s being introduced by Begich (D-Alaska), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia). We will certainly be following this bill closely.

UPDATE: Someone was asking about a bill number. We don’t seem to have one yet, as best I can tell from searching on Thomas. There’s a lot of possibilities with this bill, but I would expect a few things to be true:

• This won’t be attached to a must pass bill. I think the Republicans will want send Obama a clean bill in order to bring forth a veto of a gun rights bill in an election year. But will he have the guts to veto it? It’ll be much harder for the left to claim a pro-gun-rights record if he vetoes a key piece of legislation.
• It will be very interesting to see what Harry Reid does. His political instinct should be to protect the White House in an election year, and just being recently re-elected, he has four more years for people’s memories to fade. Reid has generally been with gun owners, but he’s not always been reliable. If I were to wager, I’m going to bet Reid publicly supports the bill, but works behind the scenes to prevent it from getting scheduled. I would imagine the White House will put a lot of pressure on Reid to keep that bill off the President’s desk.
• The Senate is running its own bill because, in an election year, those Senators will want to get their names on it. They won’t want to vote for a House Bill that has other people’s names on it. This is good and bad. It’s good because the it’s a signal the politicians value gun owner votes. It’s bad because it means the differences will have to be worked out in conference. It would be simpler for the Senate to just pass HR822, but in politics, everyone want to take credit for a politically important bill, so you get what you get.
• UPDATE: It’ll also be interesting to see what Leahy will do to this, as it will get referred to the Judiciary Committee. Leahy hasn’t been a pro-gun stalwart, despite coming from Vermont. He voted “no” on the Thune Amendment in the 111th Congress in 2009.

UPDATE: From NRA.

Interesting study done, looks like by someone who is not reflexively anti-gun, that shows having a firearm won’t do you much good as protection against an attack by a brown bear. Interestingly enough, his study shows if you’re going to employ a gun, handguns are more effective than long guns, it’s believed because a handgun can be brought into action faster, and employed against an attacking bear in close quarters easier. The best defense against the brown bear is avoidance, much like it is with people.

You see less of this from the media these days, but it’s still happening sometimes:

I wish gun owners in Pennsylvania could get this fired up:

I dare say, we can probably thank Mayor Rahm for the success of this year’s Illinois Gun Owners Action Day. It must pain our opponents on this issue to see the pro-gun-rights side make such an effective use of their own tactics.

I think a big difference is that I-GOLD is organized by the grassroots. The Pennsylvania event has always struck me as a political rally. It’s not a bad idea, but the politicians need to be reminded of who we expect them to serve. Not the other way around.