Category: Gun Rights

Quite a counter protest was had in Maryland against Heeding God’s Call, Bryan Miller’s conjured up “faith group” that supports gun control. I thought the Armored Personnel Carrier was a nice touch. I know I’m normally perception sensitive, but sometimes you have to have some fun. As the photos show, as much as you might want folks to show up who don’t fit the stereotypes, a few will, and you can bet they are who the media is going to photograph.

Looks like doctors and police are lining up to ban military-issue guns in the home. The government, at this point, doesn’t want to do it. How long is that going to last? Police are a tough groups to lose, even more so than Doctors.

It’s worth noting that any time we’ve had the FOP come out against us, we’ve generally lost. Rightly or wrongly, politicians don’t want to stand on the opposite side of rank and file officers. Why? Because most people who are active in their local communities know their local cops, and all politics is local. In the comments a few days ago, we had some folks that were unhappy with Constitutional Carry in Arizona and Alaska, because it allows for officers to disarm people during a stop. My guess is this was in there to buy the silence of law enforcement. We need to keep the police on our side, and maintain the unspoken relationship. If we lose cops, we lose. This probably does not bode well for the Swiss militia system.

Chris, who recently visited, talks about firearm ownership in Guam, which is a US territory. I guess they are worried if there are too many guns on the island, it will tip over.

Many folks believe the current process is too difficult, and here you have more examples of what a gap there is between elite and ordinary opinion on self-defense:

During the final hour of a training class in November, the ears of the 16 permit-seekers perked up when an instructor started his lesson with the course’s most eagerly anticipated lecture: the use of deadly force. But many weren’t happy to learn they can’t use their weapons to stop a garage burglary, to scare off car thieves or even to frighten a trespasser.

“This don’t sit well with me,” said a retiree and military veteran after being told it isn’t legal to shoot through a closed door, even if he believes he’s defending himself.

“You don’t have to agree with it, (but) my job is to tell you the law,” the instructor said. “I’m not asking you to accept the law, I’m asking you to understand it.”

Because of the militia purpose outlined in the Second Amendment, I believe it’s within the states military powers to require firearms training (though not as a precondition for exercising the right), but if the state is going to require it, the state must pay for it. That’s not the case in Chicago, certainly. I can think of ways the city could structure its training requirement so that it would be constitutional, but its current method should not be declared so.

Joel Rosenberg seems to have gotten himself arrested for carrying in a courthouse complex. The Minnesota legislature was less than abundantly clear when it prohibited carry in courthouse complexes, but the case against Mr. Rosenberg is going to hinge on this:

Subd. 1g.Felony; possession in courthouse or certain state buildings.
(a) A person who commits either of the following acts is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both:

(1) possesses a dangerous weapon, ammunition, or explosives within any courthouse complex; or

(2) possesses a dangerous weapon, ammunition, or explosives in any state building within the Capitol Area described in chapter 15B, other than the National Guard Armory.

(b) Unless a person is otherwise prohibited or restricted by other law to possess a dangerous weapon, this subdivision does not apply to:

[…]

(2) persons who carry pistols according to the terms of a permit issued under section 624.714 and who so notify the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety, as appropriate;

There seems to be some dispute as to whether the office was notified. Rosenberg and his wife said they called. The warrant issued says there was never notification. If someone wanted to challenge this ordinance, the proper thing to do would have been to provide notice through certified mail, with return receipt, so there would be some means of proving in a court of law that you complied with the requirement. Never trust that the police are going to tell the truth! Now it’s going to be his word against the police that he complied with the statute. Who do you think the jury will believe? The courts, probably the same courts that issued the court order contrary to state law, will also get to decide what constitutes notification under the statute.

In short, I think Rosenberg is screwed. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong, but it does mean he wasn’t careful. I am not saying Rosenberg was wrong for challenging the law, nor am I saying he needs to lick the boots of the authorities, but if you’re going to set up to challenge a law, or unlawful court order, you need to line your ducks up very precisely, because failure to do so means court precedent the rest of us have to live with.

So I’m not going to jump on his bandwagon. He’s got guts, I’ll give him that, but so do protesters who light themselves on fire. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking the law is black and white. In most cases, it’s not. The law is what a court says the law is. Much like politics, this is a game, and also much like politics, if it is not played carefully, and with skill, everyone loses. I indeed hope Rosenberg has a good lawyer in this, because he’s going to need one. There’s probably no Second Amendment to appeal to either, because it’s a prohibition in court complexes, which would seem to easily pass Heller‘s “sensitive places,” language. It’s all pretty much going to hinge on that notice.

UPDATE: In the comments, it would seem that Mr. Rosenberg does have written evidence that the law was complied with. If he does, it will make his defense attorney’s job a lot easier.