More on Obama Attorney General Eric Holder

UPDATE: I just read via the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) that Holder was a signer on an Amicus brief in DC v Heller that was in favor of upholding the city's total ban on handguns and functional firearms. Read the brief here. So much for "respecting the Second Amendment". This is the kind of common sense we are in for... Epic fail...

More details are coming out about Eric Holder and his view on the 2nd Amendment - or to clarify, his view on dismantling it. Since Mr. Holder served as Deputy Attorney General for President Clinton many of his statements are on the official record, and it may come as no surprise that he supported Clinton's attacks on gun rights and it takes only a little extrapolation to foresee that these measure will be put forth as "common sense" approaches to gun control. Here are DAG Holder's comments directly from the Justice department's archives:

We know that there is not one simple answer, and we know that there is nothing we can do that will prevent every single crime or act of violence. But we also know that there are some common-sense things that we can do and that we must do. And so I want to add my voice to those who are calling on Congress to finally -- to finally -- pass these very common-sense gun measures:

• First, to require child safety locks for all handguns that are sold.
• Second, to ban violent juveniles from ever having the ability to own guns.
• Third, to pass the president's handgun licensing proposal, which requires safety certification for all handgun purchasers.
• Fourth, to support research in smart gun technology which can limit a gun's use to its authorized owner.

And finally, to close the gun show loophole by requiring a background check for all gun purchases at gun shows.

Full transcript here. Also, keep in mind that at the time of this press conference the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban was in full effect. So you can add that to the list of common sense initiatives that will most likely come out of his office. But don't worry, Mr. Holder has decided that the ban didn't really have an impact on your rights:

The world has not fundamentally changed for the law- abiding citizen who wants to own a gun, despite all the things that we have passed since 1993. And the arguments, the fear that the gun lobby uses to try to block these measures I think should finally crumble in the face of the facts.

I try not to get into other realms of politics on this site, but this sounds an awful lot like the Bush Administration's arguments for warrantless wiretapping, email surveillance, laptop content searches, and DHS proof of citizenship checkpoints...hooray for Change!?

A Letter to the President and Vice President-Elect

Recently on President-Elect Obama's transition website, an agenda was posted that detailed the goals of his administration. Buried under the "Urban Policy" section was Mr. Obama's true intent when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Outlined was a four step plan to chip away at the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. The steps include making the Clinton-era assault weapons ban permanent, repealing the Tiahrt Amendment (which prevents reckless lawsuits against the firearms industry by preventing fishing in gun trace data), closing the so-called gun show loophole, and the vague but dangerous idea of making all firearms "childproof". I am a member of a Seattle-area group devoted to protecting the 2nd Amendment (Seattle Citizens for the 2nd Amendment) and I submitted a letter to Mr's. Obama and Biden on the group's behalf. The letter appears below. I believe that it is a civil and respectful correspondence and I offer it up as a form that can be used to contact the administration in the future, an action that I encourage all who cherish gun rights to do in the coming months.

Dr Mr.'s President-Elect and Vice President-Elect,

I have written to you as an individual citizen, and now I write to you on behalf of a civil rights organization of which I am a member - Citizens For The 2nd Amendment, Seattle, WA (CFT2A). We at CFT2A would like to share with you our vision for this great country, as well as voice a few concerns. Your message of changing Washington has captivated many in our nation, as well as a number of our members. Our greatest hope is that you defend the Constitution, our freedoms, and rise above the common tactics of politicians who so frequently disappoint us.

That being said, we are very disappointed that you have already proven your detractors correct when it comes to your support of the 2nd Amendment. Buried within the "urban policies" section of your agenda, you offer the same lip service to supporting gun rights that you did on the trail - while at the same time advocating feel-good legislation that has been proven time and again to reduce only our freedoms and not crime rates.

In closing, we the members of CFT2A must urge you to rethink your positions on gun rights and PROVE that you support the 2nd Amendment:
- NO to the disingenuous and ineffective assault weapons ban
- NO to closing the so-called "gun show loophole", it restricts our rights and has little to no effect on crime
- NO to repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, it will not prevent crime and will be used to try to bankrupt the lawful firearms industry. Look to the FOP and their statement against repealing.
- NO to forcing gun manufacturers to make their products 'child-proof'. Look to the NSSF and their voluntary educational and free gun lock program for inspiration.

Our hope lies in freedom belonging to the people and not the government. The members of our group and other lawful gun owners are the people we have been waiting for. Please take these comments into deep consideration. In the meantime we will have to consider making our next votes via our checkbooks, and payment will be remitted to the National Rifle Association.

We truly do wish you the best of luck in your administration.
------------------------
Citizens For The 2nd Amendment
Seattle, WA
Michael Cheney, President
c/o: author

Gun Banning Clinton Official for Obama's AG?

Drudge is currently running a news article that President-elect Obama is trying to gauge if he will have enough Senate confirmation votes to successfully nominate Eric Holder, former Clinton administration Deputy AG. Holder was one of Clinton's enforcers when it came to firearms policy, and while Obama says his administration will choose to focus on other things than guns, it is hard to see someone like Holder not pushing more restrictions with both houses of congress currently held by the Democrats.

Check out the transcript of a press conference headed by Holder during the Clinton era that was focusing on ending the so-called "gun show loophole". In it he says that no reasonable person could oppose private firearms transactions and takes a potshot at the NRA (garnering laughter from a friendly press corps):

Q: Is the NRA opposition waning a bit to all of this?
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER: I wouldn't want to be a spokesman for the NRA, I simply don't know what their position would be on this. But it would seem to me that any reasonable person who would look at what are very reasonable --
Q: We're not talking about reasonable people. We're talking about the NRA.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER: Well, that was your characterization. (Laughter.)

I am sure that this would just be the beginning of the "common sense" legislation that Obama has stated he supports. Of course, if we want to use actual common sense, it would be difficult to justify the use of high level government officials to waste time and political capital restricting the rights of law abiding citizens on a law that would have little to no measurable effect on crime. And that is according to multiple sources including the New York Times, the NRA, and the very Clinton Justice department that Holder worked for. Even democratic strategist (and Ragin' Cajun) James Carville looked at these stats and argued that the left needs to do a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to this initiative.

I will give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt for the time being, but nominating Holder seems pretty far from the President-elect's promise of bringing in a broad coalition to his cabinet. Especially when you add in former Clinton official Rham Emmanuel, whose record on firearms issues stands firmly in the "anti" camp with an "F" from the NRA. Let's not even mention the rumors floating around about Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Or the short lived agenda that appeared on Obama's transition website where he outlined his true agenda for the second amendment. I'll have more on that one later....

Getting in Obama's Face on the 2nd Amendment

Obama's recent comments about "getting in the face of" and "arguing" with friends and neighbors who disagree with the Senator are making the rounds across the internet. Here are the exact words from his address to a crowd of about 1500 in Elko, NV:

I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face. And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' ...You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case.

Spokesmen from his Minnesota Sportsmen's chapter are already taking the offensive, as seen by this statement:

Tell me where Senator Obama says `I want stricter controls on who can hunt and when' or 'I want to ban shotguns and rifles' Where has he said that? He hasn't.

Obama's call to action and the statements of his campaign are tough talk, but it is talk that is skillfully crafted to avoid important specifics on what form the Senator's support for the 2nd Amendment takes. Obama's toothless belief in gun rights is well documented. His blanket claim of support is a deflection that avoids an issue where the Senator has an unusually long record of votes and statements.

The statement by the Minnesota Sportsment, if read closely, actually shines a light on how narrow his support of the 2nd amendment is. It is correct that Obama has not asked for stricter controls on who can hunt and when. But he HAS asked to make it virtually impossible to find a place to purchase a firearm. He has supported reckless lawsuits against the manufacturers of the firearms that hunters use. He has supported the ban of common types of rifles, shotguns, and standard hunting ammunition.

The sportsmen are also correct that Obama has not called for an all-out ban on shotguns and rifles. But as shown above, few would types would be legal if all of Obama's votes passed, and it would be costly, burdensome, and near impossible to purchase one. Also notice that the statement leaves out the words "handguns" or "pistols". This is because you can easily find documentation on Obama supporting a ban on all handguns. In addition, you can find statements by the Senator supporting actual operational handgun bans in places such as Chicago and DC.

Voters may support Barack Obama for any number of reasons. They may agree with him on healthcare, education, foreign policy, taxation, or simply on a message of hope. But they should not be duped into believing that he has ever supported the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution in any measurable fashion. I personally encourage any of my friends and neighbors that might identify me as a republican, independent, or libertarian to get in my face an argue with me. It is an argument that I am ready for, and there is not enough "Hope" in the world to supress the facts.

Update #3: House of Reps Passes Bill to Restore 2nd Amendment Rights to DC Residents

The 11th hour actions by the DC City Council yesterday to remove some of the more restrictive regulations on handgun ownership were not enough to stop the pro-gun House of Representatives from passing a law that exercises their authority over the District. The Second Amendment Enforcement Act, an amendment to The National Capital Security and Safety Act, revokes the authority of DC to restrict the private ownership and use of firearms. It specifically and formally repeals the semi-automatic ban, the registration requirement, and the penalty for possessing an unregistered firearm. In addition, it allows the purchase of firearms from neighboring Virgina and Maryland.

Naturally, the anti-gunners are livid. The Washington Post was quick to editorialize:

The House voted yesterday to adopt a measure that would gut the District's gun laws and that goes far beyond the Supreme Court's finding this summer of an individual right to bear arms. The bill would prohibit the District from requiring that weapons be registered -- the most reasonable and benign of measures. It would allow ownership of semiautomatic handguns and rifles and would place no age restriction on gun possession. And it would effectively strip the District of the ability to enact any regulations that could be seen as unduly burdening gun ownership. If even registration is seen as unduly burdensome, that leaves little room and little hope for other reasonable provisions.

Honestly, the wrath of the anti-gun editors should be aimed squarely at the officials running the District of Columbia. Instead of using this "common sense" that is so frequently thrown around, they denied Constitutional rights to their citizens for over 30 years, even when murder and high crime skyrocketed. They wasted the taxpayers money in a drawn out court case in a futile effort to save political face and forced the hand of the Supreme Court. When the decision came down against them, they clearly made a poor effort at compliance, especially in regards to the spirit of the ruling. They must have been attempting to draw another law suit, because that is precisely what happened. Only once the House looked ready to strike did they suddenly see the light and decide to relax their legislation. I implore the editors to examine the facts. The District clearly had opportunities to enact 'common sense' laws, but this was never their intent. The intent has always been prohibition to the fullest extent and maximum control at any cost. Well, they exerted maximum control, and now have paid the ultimate cost. And the dividends will go to the free and law-abiding citizens of our nation's capitol.

Update #2: DC Council Eases Handgun Restrictions

A recent update from the Washington Post reveals that the DC City Council has voted unanimously to ease some of the more burdensome restrictions of firearms ownership that have existed since June's Heller Decision. Mayor Fenty has signed the legislation, which takes effect immediately. This emergency measure by the council allows the possession of semi-automatic handguns, removes the mandatory ballistics test by the DCPD, and removes the safe-storage law that made it mandatory to keep the firearm locked and unloaded when not in immediate danger. It is amazing what a little Supreme Court affirmation of our natural rights can do! Of course, looming lawsuits and an approaching rebuke from the House of Representatives might have had a lot to do with the relatively quick compliance. Your NRA dollars were at work on both of those fronts, and are not to be overlooked either.

"I implore the Congress to give this body, this mayor and this city an opportunity to find a solution," said D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D), moments before the council voted without debate to end storage requirements for firearms and permit ownership of semiautomatic handguns.

"There's every reason to believe we're moving in the direction of a responsible solution," Gray declared.

It is equally amazing to hear anti-gun democrats in perhaps the least gun-friendly city in America talking about commonsense solutions to firearms issues - and those solutions are about more freedom and not more restrictions! It seems as though regardless of these positive steps, the House could still pass legislation stripping the District of their ability to regulate firearms in any manner. Measures in the House bill that the City Council did not address include allowing DC residents to purchase handguns from neighboring Virginia and Maryland as well as allowing the ownership of semi-automatic rifles.

Aside: I was reading the coverage of this story on Reason.com as well, and the reader comments show an interesting point of view not covered in any of the MSM articles. The idea is that DC is doing this to placate the House, and once the issue is forgotten and/or the makeup of Congress changes, they will simply re-instate the restrictions.

Update: DC Starts to Cave Under Pressure from Congress to Repeal their Gun Laws

It looks like Mayor Fenty and the DC City Council are looking to avoid an embarrassing rebuke from the House of Representatives while maintaining some sort of control over their ability to legislate firearms. One of the council's chairmen, Phil Mendelson, said:

I think we're addressing the Supreme Court ruling and, coincidentally, addressing Congress's concern...

The severity of the District's previous bans and current onerous restrictions makes me think that they are less concerned with compliance and more concerned with 1) the lost face of being stripped of a piece of Home Rule and 2) losing another costly court battle. Regardless, the fact that the Mayor and the Council are considering removing more of these restrictions without going through the long and losing fight is another high water mark in this sea change of firearms politics (not to mix metaphors). Combine this with the fact that Nancy Pelosi was willing to play ball with the House Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats and put forth a compromise bill that loosens the District's gun laws and you are looking at quite a coup. So much so, that is looks like the people over at the Brady Campaign have run out of steam on the issue:

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he was "a little concerned" about the District possibly eliminating safe-storage requirements for firearms, but he voiced no objection to other aspects of the council's legislation.

The proposed updates to the emergency legislation include allowing the registration of semi-automatic handguns (with a maximum 10 round magazine) and removing the safe storage and ballistic test requirements. More as this story develops...

DC Goes Down Kicking and Screaming When it Comes to Supreme Court Compliance

I have been busy lately, so I will let one of my favorite websites - Reason.com - do the heavy lifting for me. The short version goes like this: The House of Representatives are considering passing a bill that would put Washington DC in full compliance with the Heller decision without the need for costly and drawn out legal battles. By exercising their right over the District, Congress would remove the burdensome registration process and remove semi-auto handguns and rifles from their current disingenuous classification as "machine guns."

Naturally, the rabid anti-gun forces in DC are throwing a fit complete with the frequent lies and mistruths needed to scare citizens into strict gun regulation. From the Reason article:

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) argues that the bill would allow people to carry "loaded AK-47s or .50-caliber sniper assault weapons openly in cars or in person," which would pose a "palpable risk...to the public safety of our residents" and create a challenge for "federal law enforcement and security officials in this city, where two presidents have been killed with handguns." D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier warns, "In attempted and successful assassinations around the world, the first step in attacking a motorcade is frequently to take out the security detail with semiautomatic and automatic firearms."

I'm not sure where to begin. The only provision of the bill that deals with carrying weapons applies in the gun owner's "dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by that person." There's nothing about carrying loaded guns in public. AK-47s and all other "automatic firearms" would remain prohibited in any case. The two assassinated presidents to whom Norton refers are Abraham Lincoln, who was killed with a single-shot derringer, and James Garfield, who was killed with a revolver. (John Hinckley also used a revolver when he tried to kill Ronald Reagan.) Both are types of weapons that would remain legal in Washington no matter what Congress does.

I am glad to see that this bill has such a good chance of passing, and I wonder if the pro-gun votes of the Blue Dog Democrats have the old Democratic guard second guessing the success of the 2006 revolution they had in Congress. When Nancy Pelosi is offering a compromise bill that still relaxes some measures of DC gun control you know the times, they are a-changin'.

Daley Might Drop Gun Ban But Paves the Way for Onerous Restrictions

The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that Mayor Daley might be starting to listen to a few people other than his cadre of anti-gun big city mayors and Chicagoan sycophants when it comes to the city's handgun ban. As newspaper editors warn him not to waste city money on legal fees for a losing position, Daley is starting to hint that it might be time to comply with the Heller ruling. It was only a week ago that he was stating that he was essentially above the law when it came to compliance with a decision contrary to his politics:

I don't look at this lightly [and say], 'Oh, because the Supreme Court [overturned Washington's handgun ban], we're just gonna dismiss it and, all the sudden, people can arm themselves.'

Forgive me, Mr. Mayor, but that is precisely what the ruling means! Though he might be starting to budge on the issue, any changes are likely to come with DC-style restrictions, outlandish classifications of standard handguns, and endless layers of bureaucracy. Daley was pretty clear in his ranting as to what could be subject to continued restriction:

How many guns do you have -- 50, 60? Can they have a .357 Magnum? Can they have ammunition that will go through a wall? What is the liability of the owners? ... Do you have to have insurance if you have a gun? How much ammunition can you have if there's a fire?

He also uses the safety of first responders as cheap plea to protect the safety of his draconian laws:

We're talking about putting first-responders in a very, very delicate position of people being armed without being notified how many guns they have in their homes," Daley said. "We have to be able to fashion a law that truly protects first-responders and protects the citizens.

Firearms in the hands of honest citizens does not all of a sudden put Chicago first responders in some sort of new and unmitigated dangers. I sometimes tire of sounding like a broken record, and I am sure many other gun advocates do as well, but here it goes one more time: The people in Chicago that put police and firefighters in danger have no regard for the law. They will possess and carry firearms in spite of the law, and will not succumb to any sort of registration or regulation that the city may impose. Of course, Mayor Daley has no qualms about sounding like a broken record when he reiterates the empty scare tactics that the anti-gun crowd has been spewing for the last 30 years:

Daley called it a "frightening" ruling that hearkens "back to the Old West."

Every time a law is passed that errs on the side of individual gun rights, no matter how sweeping nor how minute, the Old West blood-on-the-streets image in invoked. Unfortunately for Mayor Daley and all Chicagoans, the nearest place playing out like the Old West is gang-controlled South Chicago - a problem which handgun prohibition has patently ineffective at containing. In his tenure as mayor, Daley has done a terrible job of keeping citizens and first responders out of harm's way. By continuing to keep law abiding citizens disarmed, he has defied the will of the majority of the population, disregarded the opinions of rank-and-file police organizations across the country, and ignored the lessons learned by almost every state in the union.

Anti-gun Mayor says Supreme Court "in alliance with the gangbangers"

The ripple effect of the DC v Heller ruling is just starting to truly show itself. The next series of law suits have already been filed, and the main target is the city of Chicago and its surrounding suburbs. Once known for having the second most restrictive gun laws in the country, these communities are now number one...uh...without a bullet. These handgun bans are clearly not in compliance with Heller, and mixed reactions are to be expected. While some of the towns and villages are pro-actively repealing their bans in and attempt to stay legal and avoid costly and futile defenses of their bans, others are defining 'reactionary' by lashing out at the judges' decision. What does Tom Barwin, the responsible and upstanding manager of the villiage of Oak Park have to say?

It's just completely befuddling that our Supreme Court would be in alliance with the gangbangers,"

I wonder if Barwin speaks with similar outrage whenever a drug dealer or gangbanger is turned loose on a loophole or a technicality. I wonder if he is incensed every time an arrest is thrown out because of an illegal search. The lesson is that even if one criminal walks, the Constitutional rights of every citizen is protected. The difference in the Heller case is that it was not a gang member or a mafioso that was claiming 2nd amendment protections to avoid a conviction, it was law abiding citizens that wanted the ability to exercise their pre-exisiting rights. This weekend, in an interview with Heller lawyer Alan Gura, the Wall Street Journal shed light on the build up to the case:

Virtually all the decisions that addressed the Second Amendment were styled United States v. Somebody, Somebody' was a crack dealer, a bank robber -- some lowlife who had made a spurious Second Amendment claim as part of a package of desperate appeals. . . We consciously wanted to have plaintiffs from across the demographic spectrum in Washington, D.C. We wanted all manner of diversity, because it's important -- people want to see that you are arguing for a right that is held by ordinary people.

This is what Tom Barwin fails to realize. The people writing him letters and phoning him about wanting to register a gun are not gangbangers - they are regular citizens willing to be fingerprinted and registered (albiet begrudgingly in some cases). If we apply his logic, then the city of Chicago is already "in alliance with the gangbangers." It has passed draconian laws that do little more than prop up the image of a liberal cosmopolitan uptopia. But the paint on the facade is chipping. Chicago's image has become that of a corrupt and dangerous city where the gangs are armed and the people are defenseless. It is time that people like Tom Barwin woke up to that fact and focus their rage on politicians who want to further themselves by destroying our rights.

Heller Tries to Register Gun, DC fails to comply with SCOTUS Ruling

Other 2nd amendment and gun rights sights are covering this story, but I feel like I need to add my thoughts as well. Today is the first day of firearms registration in Washington, DC. The plaintiff (and victor) in DC v Heller, Dick Heller, was the first person to arrive at DC police headquarters to attempt to register his weapons. The result? His application was rejected on two technicalities.

To be fair, it should be noted that though Heller arrived with a lawyer in tow, he did not bring the firearms with him as required. He feared retribution from the city, and wanted express written or recorded verbal consent that actually bringing firearms in from outside the city, even for registration purposes, would not get him arrested. Heller has been storing two firearms he owns with a friend in neighboring Maryland and did not want to fall victim to any legal loopholes in the District's emergency legislation that might make him an accidental felon.

After Assistant Police Chief Peter J. Newsham promised Heller in front of a dozen reporters and news cameras that he would "absolutely not" get in trouble for bringing a revolver into the city, von Breichenruchardt said Heller would do so another day.

While this part of the story may seem fair, things take a bit of a turn when it comes to Heller's other firearm: a .45 caliber semi-auto pistol. Though DC is now allowing the legal registration of handguns, the restrictions are still draconian. Guns must still be unloaded and disassembled, trigger-locked, or be kept in a locked safe - you may not load and assemble the arm until there is "threat of immediate harm to a person." Most egregiously, the city will not allow registration of semi-automatic firearms that can be used with a clip that holds more than 12 rounds, a rule which encompasses 100% of semi-automatic handguns. Do these regulations and restrictions honor in good faith the Supreme Court ruling? Would they pass legal muster? Let's take a look at some excerpts from the majority opinion to get an idea:

Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun.

Scalia also speaks directly about what sort weapons can be banned and what are protected:

Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Semi-automatic pistols make up approximately 3/4 of all handgun sales in the United States, which I think would qualify them as "in common use." In addition, .45 automatic pistols have been issued to the military as a standard sidearm since 1911. It appears that even though Mayor Fenty went on air after the Heller ruling and urged a quick solution to comply with the Supreme Court's decision, this was only lip service. He and the DC city council appear to be adamant about skirting the law and wasting taxpayer money in more legal action that will surely end in defeat for the city.

In response to Heller's failed attempt at registration, Asst. Chief Newsham said:

Firearms registration is a pretty complicated set of rules and regulations, and they can be interpreted by reasonable people in different ways...

The real question is, does it have to be? Does registration need to be so complicated that two reasonable parties can interpret it in different way? Let me submit a piece of anecdotal evidence for a frame of reference. In my home state of Washington, there is no such thing as firearms registration, not for long guns or handguns. Our two largest cities, Seattle and Spokane, have a murder rate below the national average. Washington, DC's murder rate? 5.75 times the average. Food for thought...

A Reasonable Looks at Guns and Suicide

Reason Magazine, as per its name, lends some reason on the subject of firearms and suicide in what is part II of our look at statistics and hysterics in the post-Heller media.

With the subhead "Why buying a gun is not a suicidal act", Reason editor and Chicago Tribune contributor Steve Chapman is clearly prepared to take anti-gun 'experts' to task and ask two very relevant questions:

1. Does access to firearms increase the suicide rate?
2. When it comes to gun control policy, does it even matter?

Naturally, Chapman is not afraid to address the questions that the media is too afraid to ask. Perhaps they are too complacent to do the research. Perhaps they are too complicit and don't want to reveal facts contrary to their presuppositions. Thankfully, Reason is there to pick up the slack:

People who use guns are generally hellbent on ending their lives. So deprived of a sidearm, they will no doubt find another reliable method—rather than swallow a dozen aspirin and wake up in the emergency room. Banning guns is no more likely to reduce suicides than banning ice cream is to curb obesity.

Chapman's ideas are not based on presupposition. He informs us that a National Academy of Sciences report noted that any link between firearms and suicides "is not found in comparisons across countries." In addition, our old friend Gary Kleck (criminologist from FSU) has noted that 13 published studies also have found no meaningful connection between rate of firearms ownership and suicide rate. If this debate were about another bitterly debated topic, such as global warming, the media would be leaping upon anyone who dared question the National Academy and supporting peer-reviewed materials.

With the now-dubios assurances that owning a gun will put your family in imenent danger exposed, Chapman moves to question number 2. Even if all of the hysterics and scare tactics were completely accurate, would that be enough reason to regulate personal safety over personal choices and constitutional rights?

But let's suppose science could establish that people who obtain firearms do indeed increase their death rate...from suicide. So what? Buying a car may shorten your lifespan, since traffic accidents are a major killer. Building a backyard swimming pool creates a potential fatal hazard to you and your loved ones. But nobody says the government should interfere with such decisions.

His tone may sound callous, but the debate is about freedoms and logic, not about feelings and emotions.

Statistic to Counter the Media's Heller Hysteria

Syndicated columnist Larry Elder wrote some insightful commentary this week that provided a much needed counter to the hysterics that the mainstream media has been perpetuating since the DC v Heller ruling.

From Justice Breyer's dissent to the New York Times editorial page, it seems as though the perceived impacts of the ruling are more important than the historical and textual facts of the law. In an amazing but predictable turn of events, the liberal interests in the media suddenly favor security over the individual rights enumerated in the Constitution. While arguing the against the ruling, the number of gun deaths in America is repeated over and over. This is a very clear attempt to stress the potentially detrimental outcomes of affirming the right while diverting attention away from history, state constitutions, natural law, and precedent (note: I recognize that in recent years a number of courts have recognized a 'collective right', but this is a modern anomaly).

Mr. Elder, after observing this phenomenon, fired back with some statistics and observations of his own. He asks the follow-up and clarification questions that temper the scary statistic of 30,000 gun deaths per year:

The 30,000 number includes 17,000 suicides. But a person intent on suicide finds a way — gun or no gun...The hand-wringing New York Times editorial fails to ask the following questions: How many Americans use guns to defend themselves?

The number of deaths are not trivial, nor are they insignificant. But the question at hand is about the restriction and prohibition of a fundamental right in the name of the public good. In the instance of every other right, the left and the media take pride in not budging an inch (see the ACLU). Elder goes on to show us the research of Kopel, Kleck, and the Clinton-era DOJ National Institute of Justice on defensive firearms use that is so often overlooked by the media.

...2.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes each year. One in six of that number, or 400,000, believe someone would have been dead but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms. Kleck points out that if only one-tenth of the people are right about saving a life, the number of people saved annually by guns would still be 40,000.

Elder also responds to the stern paternal warnings on the editorial pages that your new found right is more likely to injure you or your family members than to do any good:

"When a robbery victim does not defend himself," former assistant district attorney and firearms expert David Kopel writes, "the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery — from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing — produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success."

Two weeks before the Heller decision, the SCOTUS ruled on giving habeas corpus rights to detainees at Gitmo. In his dissent, Justice Scalia said that the ruling will "almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed," and he was taken to task by the media for fear mongering in a case that erred on the side of individual rights. In the case of Heller, the dissenters relied on fear mongering and their desired outcome to vote against an individual right and they were lauded for their temperance and insight. It would be funny how fickle 'objective' journalism if it were not our rights that were on the chopping block.

So, will the introduction of 2nd amendment rights actually make DC a more dangerous place? Elder leaves us with the words of former DC mayor Marion Barry, who was once asked if the gun ban worked:

Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.

ACLU Shoots Itself in the Foot with Heller Response

A little over a week ago I commented on the ACLU's then-current position on the 2nd amendment. This analysis pointed to the single page buried on their website where they address gun rights, or in this instance the lack thereof. I also posed a challenge - and a hope - that if the Heller case landed on the side of individual rights the ACLU would drop their current position and defend this right with equal rigor.

Since last week's historic 5-4 decision upholding an individual's right to keep and bear arms, the ACLU has been mostly silent. There is a short post on their blog that states their current and mostly unaltered view of the 2nd amendment:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.

They go on to say that because of some unanswered questions about the text of the ruling and how it will affect current legislation, its meaning is obfuscated. Regardless of how broad or narrow the ruling is, the ACLU's failure to recognize and defend this right puts their entire mission in jeopardy. To selectively interpret sections of the Bill of Rights and allow them to be gutted at will, even by democratic majorities, clearly reveals them as a partisan establishment.

There is also a certain bit of irony that I want to point out. The ACLU blog's tag line is "Because Freedom Can't Blog Itself." I suppose they are correct. For this freedom, the blogging will need to be done by myself and other Constitutional rights advocates

note: It looks like some of my fellow 2nd bloggers have tackled this very same topic. Here it is on 'Of Arms and the Law', The Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web, and World Net Daily writes about how the ACLU blog is being hammered with repudiating comments.

On Huffington and Heller

Jackson Williams reacted swiftly after the DC vs Heller decision was handed down. He quickly moved to his keyboard and submitted an article to the Huffington Post that was...wait for it...measured, logical, and honest? I was a bit surprised myself. Unlike many of the slanted diatribes that I have read on the Post, Williams does not hesitate to praise Scalia (in this instance), and put the screws to people like Keith Olberman:

The logic of a "living Constitution" can't apply to some amendments, such as the First and the Fourth, yet not to the ones I don't care for or find problematic. Such an approach courts disaster by encouraging others to use the same means in purging the parts of the document they don't care for....It sounds like Keith stands foursquare with George W. Bush when it comes to constitutional analysis.

Williams then stands up to be counted with other liberal scholars, who in recent years have admitted openly that they believe the 2nd amendment confers an individual constitutional right to bear arms. He goes on to say that this right, similar to free speech, is not absolute and can be sensibly regulated. Jackson goes on to name a number of methods of limitation that are popular to gun-control advocates. Some of these restriction border on stifling, and I don't think that the types of limitations that he proposes would pass a litmus test for any other enumerated right. That being said, he is still willing to abandon the hard line stance that many of his colleagues have not been so brave to do and I think this in itself is a triumph. Hopefully, as the debate about the legality of certain gun control methods is renewed, bright people like Williams will continue to operate on logic and not emotion - and realize that gun control they still push for serves only to restrict rights and does little to stem crime.

Yesterday on Reason.com, Radley Balko brought some of us down from our week long post-Heller high, and reminded us that attempts at restrictive gun control are far from over. While the decision affirmed what many of us already knew about the right to keep and bear arms, Scalia also left the door open for many future and existing state restrictions that fall short of total prohibition. The case against Washington DC was intentionally narrow to ensure a favorable ruling, but that means the decision is also narrow. Questions about constitutional incorporation still loom, as well as what is the test for a reasonable restriction based on the majority opinion. The upcoming cases against Chicago and San Francisco's various handgun prohibitions might shed some light on the situation, but the fight at the state level has only just begun.

Reason.tv on What Heller Means for the Future of Gun Rights

Reason's Senior Editor Brian Doherty speaks on Reason.tv about what the Heller decision means for the future of your 2nd Amendment rights. He covers the basics of the case, the implications it has for strict gun control in the states, and how gun control groups are going to react.

Watch the whole thing here.

YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT IS OFFICIALLY YOURS!

On Thursday, June 26th, 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States officially and definitively declared what all gun owners have known in their hearts for years - the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution recognizes and grants an individual right. From the majority opinion:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the second amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

The NRA is moving swiftly to file suit in overly restrictive jurisdictions such as Illinois and California.

I could not be more pleased about this historic decision, and I look forward to bringing more news and commentary on future victories on the state and federal level.

Will Heller Make a Hypocrite of the ACLU?

I have always been at odds with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and their position on gun control. Buried within the 'police practices' section of their website is a solitary page that states their opinion on firearms ownership as a civil liberty, or lack of recognition of such. The ACLU is known as a staunch defender of the all civil liberties: those found in the explicitly in the Bill of Rights, determined by state and federal courts, and found in common law and practice. If public opinion sways against them or a Circuit Court ruling comes down in favor of the limitation of a right, the actions and positions of the ACLU are undeterred...except when that right in question is not politically favorable to their donation base.

While the ACLU position page notes that the issue has "not been ignored" by the organization, it plainly admits that is has been cast aside. The national board has reportedly held debates on the 2nd amendment and interpreted it for you. Where did they end up? That this one section of the Bill of Rights, which explicitly contains the words "the right of the people", exists mainly as a collective right. A few reasons are given, but the usual rigor of debate and thoroughness of the research that the ACLU is known for is markedly absent.

In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

A few items in that short paragraph should throw up question marks to gun owners and gun rights advocates. The basic tool and standard arm of a soldier has been and always will be the rifle, and while design has evolved, the power of the round has changed little in over 100 years. The handgun holds its place in history as well, and remains the standard sidearm of almost every army worldwide. Furthermore, while they talk about supporting "reasonable" restrictions on arms, they are nowhere to be found in places with unreasonable prohibitions like DC and Chicago. The only evidence I can find of the ACLU defending gun rights goes their Texas branch, and this was only because the particular law in question allowed for arbitrary arrests and prosecution.

On what rationale and judicial precedent does the ACLU stake out their position?

The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

Miller is a hotly contested ruling that is quoted by both sides of the gun control debate. While the court did in fact rule against Miller in this case, there is much more to the story. The case did not involve a total prohibition on handguns for functional firearms - it was hinged on the possession of a sawed-off shotgun, which violated the National Firearms Act. The lower court had ruled in favor of Miller and the individual nature of the 2nd amendment, it was the then hostile federal government that had to appeal the ruling. Miller's attorney for this battle was court-appointed and uncompensated, given only two weeks to prepare a brief, and unable to travel to DC to give oral arguments. At trial the only arguments heard were from the US government. When the ruling was handed down the opinion was narrowly focused on the specificity of the firearm and not the nature of the right itself:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun ... has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

The Miller case has enough caveats in its ruling and holes in its legislative process to encompass an entire post in itself (as a matter of fact, the Washington Times covered it comprehensively this week, and NPR recognized a few of these facts on today's Talk of the Nation), so why does the ACLU rest its entire opinion on this single piece of precedent? More importantly, how will the ACLU react if DC v Heller is found to recognize an individual right? Will they come clean and admit their bias, or will they take the high road and fold this right into the portfolio of those they vehemently defend? I hope that for the sake of all American civil liberties that they choose the latter.

NY State Wants the NRA to Train Gun Owners - Sort of

The new Governor of New York, David Patterson, wants the NRA to be the agency responsible for training gun owners in the Empire State. Though Patterson is recognizing the NRA's history and reputation as the gold standard in firearms training and safety, the request is buried within a bill that would further restrict the rights of the state's constituents.

Paterson is proposing a gun safety bill that, in part, requires buyers of guns to first take a firearms safety course...Ironically, the NRA opposes the overall Paterson bill, saying it imposes too many financial and regulatory burdens on the industry.

While a mandatory safety class is an undue burden on owners, it should be of some solace that the reactive anti-gun politicians of NY state at least agree that the NRA is best equipped to handle the training, right? Wrong - it turns out that many are furious that the Association is even mentioned in the bill:

While the NRA training program is well-regarded, its inclusion in the bill has angered a number of legislative Democrats and anti-gun activists. Jackie Hilly, executive director of New Yorkers Against Violence, said the inclusion of the NRA in the legislation gives the group state-sanctioned support.

To add a little insult to injury, the story in the NY Daily News adds some editorializing right off the bat to scoff at the NRA being a group responsible for safety:

Gov. Paterson wants to give the National Rifle Association - of all people - a state-sanctioned role in training would-be gun owners in New York.

Acknowledging that the NRA is one of the largest and most successful educators in firearms operation (over 50,000 NRA certified trainers in the US) and children's safety is a compromise that the Daily News and many NY politicians are not willing make. Doing so would hurt their ability to demonize the organization and its members whenever a bill is proposed to further restrict people's rights in the name of public safety.

Emotions Against Open Carry

James Carroll over at the Boston globe has contributed an op-ed piece in response to last week's open carry news article that made its way across the wire. Not surprisingly, he takes a tone that has become commonplace for the Globe when it comes to firearms and gun rights: reactive, emotional, and afraid. Carroll opens with a tale of a pre-pubescent encounter with his FBI agent father's gun, and the taboo pseudo-sexual feelings that it brought up within him.

Awe. Trembling. That the gun was my father's was a first clue to potency. Hidden away, yet the gun sent a pulse through the whole apartment, a psychological electromagnet around which my awareness swirled. Long before I tasted the temptations of sex, I yielded to an irresistible prurience by opening that drawer.

Despite Carroll's recognition that his exposure to firearms is linked to national identity, and an at-least begrudging acceptance of the 2nd amendment, he fails to recognize a legitimate need or use of ownership. He naively represents anti-gun bills in congress as being designed to reduce violence (which they have been proven not to) and blames the "all powerful lobbying of the National Rifle Association" for killing them - an implication that they are responsible for the gun death in the States.

Carroll's solution to the problem of gun violence in America? Attack the open-carry movement that exists in states with more liberal (in a classical sense) gun laws.

"Open carry" aims to remove such visceral negativity, though the taboo amounts, in fact, to last ditch gun control. The "normalizing" of guns will inevitably normalize their use....And who, pray tell, will bear, not the arms, but the consequences?

He misses a few key points here that are important to the argument. The first, which is repeated regularly in my posts, is that gun violence exists regardless of the laws in place. It exists when open carry is forbidden. It exists with assault weapons bans. It exists in horrific numbers in places like DC and Chicago where handgun bans have been implemented for years. What Carroll also fails to recognize is that there was a time when guns were not buried away and demonized by society. They were sold in hardware stores and mail order catalogs. .22 rifles were slung over the shoulders of high school shooting club members when riding the New York subways. He suggests that America needs more shame in its attitude towards guns, not less. But attempts at shaming gun ownership and wishing them away has only produced more pain. Legalized open carry allows people to recognize that law-abiding citizens can and do utilize firearms in a responsible manner. A healthy exposure to firearms develops respect and understanding for the weapon, not a crazed desire to misuse it. But all of this is lost on Carroll. When you disregard science, logic, and history; and operate purely on visceral emotion "Shame is the children's last protection."

Brady and the Media Try to Turn a Loss into a Victory

ABC News has a report that the Brady Campaign is bracing itself for a loss in DC v Heller - the DC handgun ban challenge that the Supreme Court will decide on by the end of this month. Furthermore, Brady President Paul Helmke has conceded that his people have "lost the battle on what the second amendment means":

Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically.

While this concession should be viewed as a tremendous defeat for the Brady group, Helmke, with the help of ABC, insinuates that they could somehow turn it into a political victory. The idea is that once the 2nd amendment is indisputably declared an individual right, it will take the teeth out of the NRA and make it hard to motivate their base. The LA Times joins in this commentary by spinning the potential gun rights victory with the headline "NRA's political clout is waning". They go on to say:

Congress hasn't passed major legislation to restrict gun use in 14 years. Democrats -- scarred by past NRA campaigns -- almost never talk about the issue anymore.
And Americans now show little interest in gun control. Just half want tougher rules for gun sales, compared with nearly two-thirds in 2000.

Helmke and the Times seem to think that just because the NRA has won a victory on the federal level it means they will somehow fold up shop and allow states to slowly regulate firearms out of existence. In my last post I linked to an interview with DC v Heller lead lawyer Alan Gura, who warned of this "death by 1000 cuts" approach. What opponents seems to ignore is that while every four years the NRA has mobilized to ensure gun rights are upheld on the federal level, the majority of their work is done at the local level. The National Rifle Association is by its nature a grassroots organization. Most states have a local affiliate (in my home state of Washington we have the Washington State Rifle and Pistol Association and the Washington Arms Collectors) and national members receive via e-mail a weekly state roundup and local action alerts to let the rank-and-file know what the organization is doing to preserve gun rights in their area.

It may be true that the NRA might not be able to warn their members about federal registration and confiscation any longer if DC v Heller goes in their favor. That being said, they will have plenty to worry about, and infringements on the state level will be more than enough motivation. As groups like the Brady Campaign phase themselves out of Capitol Hill and into the state houses, the NRA will follow. The "1000 cuts" of microstamping, emergency confiscation, ammunition serialization, smart gun mandates, gun show background checks, affordable gun bans, expensive safety over-regulation, gun buybacks, cosmetic gun bans, and caliber-specific ammunition bans have constantly come from state, not federal legislators.

The NRA started as a way to ensure that Americans citizens would always be proficient with firearms if called during wartime. As anti-gun advocates gained power, the association morphed into one of the largest grassroots operations in Washington, and arguably one of most powerful lobbying groups. If the fight for gun rights moves solely to the state capitols, I have no doubt that they will be quick to move into that role. This is a role they have been largely successful in for decades - all while winning the war on the federal level.

Interview with DC v. Heller Lead Attorney Alan Gura

Reason.TV has posted a 9 minute interview with Alan Gura, the lead attorney in the DC v Heller case. Not surprisingly, due to the nature of this blog, Gura is the lawyer for Heller, who is fighting against the city's current gun ban. Lots of great things to be heard here directly from the man who is standing up for all of our rights. He makes a very astute point about how many politicians have learned not to talk about outright bans on gun ownership and the real danger of the "death by a thousand cuts" approach. This alternative approach slowly whittles away at gun rights until it is too difficult or outright impossible to own a firearm without violating some directive, law, or statue.

Entire interview can be seen here.

Some Good and Bad out of Seattle

On Sunday and Monday there was a decent amount of coverage on firearms in the Seattle newspapers.

First the good. On Sunday the Seattle Times posted an LA Times article on the subject of open carry. The article gives a fair report on the everyday people who have not only adopted concealed carry, but expanded to openly carrying a gun in public as well. Generally they are not depicted as crazy or out of the ordinary, but regular people who have made an informed and responsible decision to exercise their rights:

The Jensens are part of a fledgling movement to make a firearm as common an accessory as an iPod. Called open-carry by its supporters, the movement has attracted grandparents, graduate students and lifelong gun enthusiasts like the Jensens.

Now the bad. On Monday, anti-gun zealot and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels announced a ban on all guns from city facilities including parks, Seattle Center, and community centers. This executive order applies even to concealed carry permit holders (called a concealed pistol license in Washington State). Because of preemption, cities and municipalities in Washington State have no power to enact their own firearms laws. This means that the only offense for disobeying the order is to considered a trespasser and asked to leave the premises. Nickels correctly predicts the challenges that are sure to come from his illegal order:

"I would not be surprised if there is a challenge to our authority on this," Nickels said. He said a recent lawsuit involving the city of Sequim may give him authority to ban concealed weapons on city property.

Let us hope that this order, even though it creates no arrestable offense, is recognized for its abhorrence to state law and struck down. Nickels could learn much from the recent defeats that Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter suffered when he tried to defy state law and write the rules himself. Do the people of these fair cities not recognize the slippery slope that their executives are on when they start arbitrarily creating laws in defiance of other laws? There may be no outcry when they are in agreement with these tyrannical moves, but what happens when one of the rights they hold dear are randomly tossed aside? By then it will be too late to complain.

Wired Against the 2nd Amendment

Eliot Van Buskirk wrote a post on the "MP3s and Music Reviews" section of Wired's blog today. While it ostensibly is a review of Ted Nuget's fairly disappointing "I Am The NRA", Van Buskirk does not hesitate to take the same tired jab at the 2nd Amendment and its supporters. While he claims that he can "get down with Ted's...respect for the Constitution", he quickly belittles the meaning of the 2nd:

I can't remember the last time I saw a minuteman leap down his front steps to defend against the British, but maybe that's just me.

I don't know what version of the Bill of Rights Van Buskirk is reading, but the 2nd Amendment does not mention the British or minutemen. Though in the past there has been some debate about the exact punctuation of the actual words, and the nature of the prefatory clause referring to the militia, the amendment is plainly written as a right of the people to keep and bear arms. Just the other day author Stephen Halbrook wrote in the Roanoke Times about how plain the language and meaning become when referring to Noah Webster's dictionary available during that period of time.

Van Buskirk manages, in a pretty short post, to take another jab at both the meaning of the 2nd amendment and the NRA itself:

(The) new song out called "I Am The NRA"...magically equates political freedom with the right to own high-powered assault rifles and Teflon-coated bullets.

The words "high-powered assault rifle" should be a red flag to any supporter of the 2nd Amendment who lived through the Clinton ban. This phrase, and others similar to it, are frequently brought out to sound scary and frighten people into giving up their rights. When using this phrase there are often no ballistics brought up (such as velocity, rate of fire, effective range, capacity, etc), because their similarity to traditional hunting rounds and arms takes some teeth out of the argument. Also suspect is the reference to Teflon-coated bullets. This is frequently brought up in NRA hit-pieces for their fight against banning these rounds. What these articles, and fleeting references such as Van Buskirk's, fail to mention is that the bills written to ban these rounds would also have banned the majority of conventional hunting and rifle rounds. But let's not ever let the truth get in the way of a good argument.

Van Buskirk may only find Nugent's (and the NRA's) support of the 2nd Amendment "myopic and grating", I find his dangerously narrow interpretation of the Bill of Rights and reliance on media buzz words as scare tactics much more offensive.

NY Times on National Parks Carry Rule

This Friday the Grey Lady had a surprisingly even-handed look at the proposed rule change for concealed carry within US National Parks. The article lead with a link to the NRA and quotes from Chris Cox, their chief lobbyist. They also noted that the other large federal landlords are currently governed by state, not federal, law - a widely overlooked fact when this subject is debated.

Beyond this, I have a few small complaints. First, the article was preceded by a close up photo of a Bison and the description: Supporters of a plan to allow concealed weapons in parks say it would make people feel safe. But critics see danger to animals like bison in Yellowstone. I know the Bison is an iconic image of the Parks system, but I feel like this is meant to trigger the heartstrings and fears of opponents. The rule change is being proposed not to endanger animals, but to defer to state power and the rights of law-abiding citizens. Perhaps an image of two young women backpacking far from the protection of crowds and law enforcement rangers would have accurately framed the debate. Even if in the future a concealed carry permit-holder were to fire on an animal within a park, that unfortunate event would dwarf the number of animals that poachers, who ignore the current ban, take with all too much frequency.

Finally, the article ends with a pair of quotes from a supporter and an opponent of the ban. The opponent, Chris Bergquist, states:

It’s a bad idea. It’s more tempting to use it if you have it, on wildlife. They’ll think they’re far enough away no one will hear it and they can get away with it.

This sort of talk is very reminiscent of the "blood in the streets" and "Wild West shootout" lines that were throw about in every state when concealed carry was initiated. Again, fear and emotion trump logic. To believe this you must work under the false assumptions that 1) every concealed carry holder will become lawless once they possess a firearm outside the home, and 2) poachers and other criminals magically follow current bans.

Overall, kudos to a paper that is not know to be friendly to gun rights issues for showing both sides of the story. Let's hope that the logical side prevails.

A Dose of Reality for Toronto

The Canadian website the National Post had a heartening article yesterday challenging Toronto Mayor David Miller's absurd and ever-expanding anti-gun positions. The editors waste no time getting to the point in a cutting fashion:

He either completely misunderstands the causes of crime in his city --or, worse, he is cynically redirecting public anger from criminals to law-abiding gun collectors and target shooters. Whichever the case, Torontonians ought to be outraged.

The editors of the Post have a clear and sober view of the true causes of crime and the poor efficacy of gun control that is refreshing from a Canadian publication, even a conservative one. They go on to illustrate the failure of municipal gun bans:

Municipal gun control is useless. In cities where handguns are banned or severely restricted --Chicago, Washington, London, Tokyo and others -- gun crimes remain common. As they do in Toronto, criminals in these cities merely go underground, or to a neighbouring jurisdiction, and buy an illegal weapon.

Don't confuse that as a call for broader gun control initiatives. The post goes on to illustrate the faults and failures of nationwide bans as well:

Since then (the UK handgun ban), though, New Scotland Yard and the Home Office estimate that the inventory of illegal handguns in Britain has expanded by three million. Gun crime has nearly doubled. And many cities now have more gun crime than comparable U. S. cities.

The editors end with a level headed call for more intense policing of high crime areas, as seen in NYC. Increases in law enforcement and strict prosecution for gun crimes has been a rallying cry from the US gun-rights crowd for quite some time, but as the Post says, legal gun-owners have become "convenient whipping boys, knowing that in our urbanized culture most voters cannot understand the allure of shooting sports."

NRA Endorses Montana's Democratic Gov. Schweitzer

File this one under the rebuttals section of old "the NRA is a Republican party front group" argument. The NRA is endorsing the re-election bid of Montana's Governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA had this to say in a telephone press conference:

He's just done a great job defending the Second Amendment, hunting, fishing (and) access on the part of the public to public lands. He also had legislation that secured $10 million for public access. He ended the moratorium on the buffalo hunt after 16 years.

Schwietzer is a lifetime member of the NRA and has an "A" rating from the organization. His opponent, Roy Brown, is also an "A" rated lifetime member, but the NRA has a policy of supporting incumbents in circumstances such as these. Shouldn't this serve as a pretty solid evidence that the NRA is a gun-rights organization and not a right-wing organization?

AHSA in Kentucky: A Followup

On May 21st I wrote a post commenting on Tom Eblen's Kentucky.com's article which praised the American Hunters & Shooters Association for its willingness to compromise on gun rights and denouncing the NRA as shill of the Republican party. Since that time, Elbin has been peppered with e-mail from angry NRA members and gun rights supporters. They said, much as I did, that the AHSA was the real front organization - formed in recent years by supporters of gun control.

Elbin responded to these e-mails with a followup article, and I give him credit for recognizing that there was so much opposition to his article and for showing the other side of the argument. That being said, I did not see anything in his response that quelled the concerns that I personally had with his previous post. There is no mention of Gov. Richardson, Rep. Boren, Sen. Webb, or any of the other numerous Democrats who are rated highly and endorsed by the NRA. He does not address how the Democratic establishment's attempts at every type of gun control, registration, restriction, and confiscation alienated NRA members over the years and made them more sympathetic to the right. Although he recognizes that many gun-rights advocates claim the AHSA is a front group, he does not offer up any of the solid evidence that can easily be found with a cursory search of the internet.

Elbin continues to preach compromise on gun-rights issues, but offers no comparison to compromising on other rights - such as speech, religion, or search and seizure. He even goes as far to state that the NRA's staunch support of the 2nd amendment is the reason that some jurisdictions have become such blatant gun grabbers:

The no-compromise crowd has kept law enforcement agencies from having some tools they need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. And that has led to some over-reaching, such as when police in New Orleans illegally seized hundreds of guns after Hurricane Katrina.

This is total lunacy. As I stated in my previous post, the NRA has made great inroads in the past few decades of expanding gun-rights for the law abiding and protecting against overreaching cities and states that have had their eyes on gun confiscation long before Katrina. Contrary to Elbin's supposition, without the intervention of NRA lobbyists in Washington and the NRA legal defense fund in the courtroom, gun confiscation in places like New Orleans would have happened years earlier. The idea that somehow capitulating to every gun control proposal dreamt up by the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center (VPC) would somehow protect our gun rights and not embolden opponents is absurd.

To further illustrate this point, let's look at the afermath of Katrina. It was the NRA who fought to restore the rights and property of those citizens who had been stripped of their legally owned firearms. Not a peep was heard from Brady or the VPC to return these gun and sue the city. It was also the NRA that fought for a Federal law to prohibit the confiscation of legally owned arms in the event of a Federal disaster. Over 13 states have since followed suit.

Elbin is just another figure in long line of journalists and politicians preaching "common sense" solutions to gun control. The problem is that every compromise of our freedoms that they suggest will have no measurable effect on gun violence. Many of those who are asking for small pieces of our freedom have openly advocated total confiscation. Add that to the lessons learned from places like the UK and Austraila, where gun control progressed to registration and eventual confiscation and it is easy to see why 2nd amendment advocates are so passionate. According to Elbin, if we stand up for our Constitutional rights it is our own fault when opponents attempt full scale gun grabs such as in New Orleans. But history tells us if we do not stand up there will be nothing left to fight for. I will continue to take my chances standing tall.

Privileges vs Rights: A Primer

Today the Miami Herald printed a response letter from a reader who is clamoring for more gun control. Susan Walsh from Coral Springs, FL echos some familiar defenses for strict gun control:

Is your freedom to drive impinged upon by the state's licensing or automakers' safety codes? Do you want to be operated on by someone unlicensed to practice medicine because his ''freedom'' was violated at being regulated?

While this may seem like a logical argument, driving is only a privilege, not a right. Let's take a quick look to Wikipedia for the differences between the two:

A privilege...is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government...either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth.

That last line, "an inherent, irrevocable entitlement" is a pretty good illustration of the difference. The 2nd amendment should be compared to other rights when it comes to its restrictions, not to privileges. When the government attempts to stifle free speech, or skirt the law to tap into our phones and email data, the people react angrily. More importantly, whenever we have given the government the benefit of the doubt and surrendered a portion of our rights for the sake of security, the government has abused that authority. Let us also remember that the Bill of Rights does not technically grant the right to keep and bear arms, it recognizes and prohibits infringement of a right that existed even before the formation of our government.

Walsh goes on to diminish the self-defense purposes of private firearms ownership:

Please do spare me the rhetoric about predators and criminals. How fearful do we all have to be before the NRA is happy?

I would like to counter that argument with a question: How fearful do we need to be to give up our natural and civil rights? It smacks of hypocrisy to scare us into chipping away at the 2nd amendment while saying that the NRA will only be happy once we are afraid. Walsh also disregards statistics about defensive gun use in the United States. Estimates for this use in the United States ranges from 68,000 instances a year on the low end, to as high as 2.5 million, which is far from rhetoric.

I am sure that Walsh believes that strict gun control would be in the best interest of the country, but these sort of attacks cannot continue to go unanswered, even if they take place in the letters page of a newspaper. In reality, our country's best interests are served whenever we err on the side of freedoms and not feelings.

The Milwaukee Gun Show Shuffle

Lisa Kaiser of ExpressMilwaukee.com posted an article today focusing on the demographics of illegal gun use in the city. Unfortunately, her analysis is based on a number of assumptions and the focus of her ire meanders from gun shows to legal gun purchases. Throughout the piece she fails to offer any review of the criminal justice system in the city, county, or state - especially in regards to repeat offenders.

Kiaser tells us that 40% of guns recovered by the Milwaukee Police Department were found on underage offenders and felons. A shocking statistic surely, but would it somehow be better if these criminals with guns were first time offenders? If they were all senior citizens?

Her first conjecture as to where these criminals could have obtained their guns is at gun shows:

...since felons and juveniles aren’t able to legally purchase guns from a licensed dealer, they are doing so illegally on the secondary gun market—at a gun show

Kaiser suggests that if only background checks were required on all private transactions - like the small minority of those made at a gun show, we could stymie this problem. Of course, she does not address how this could destroy all legal transactions between friends and family with a cumbersome bureaucracy and licensing process. She also fails to point out that the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Department of Justice, found that only 2% of criminal guns come from gun show purchases.

Kaiser then moves to blame the legally run gun stores. She points out that 25% of the guns recovered originated from Badger Outdoors, a gun dealer in Western Milwaukee. While this may indeed be true, she does not point out the actual number - just the percentile. She also does not point out how many other gun dealers are in the immediate area, nor what their percentiles are (A cursory Google maps search reveals about 4 total dealers in the immediate area when removing supply stores and gunsmiths). This makes it difficult to obtain any frame of reference as to the severity of the problem. It serves only to demonize a local business for a problem that has deep socioeconomic and culture roots.

This brings us back to a few points that the NRA and gun rights supporters have been stressing for decades. If there is evidence that a gun dealer is committing a crime, prosecute. If criminals are caught with guns, punish them to the fullest extent of the law. If criminal associates are making 'straw purchases', prosecute them as well. But do not attempt to restrict the rights law abiding citizens and businesses for the crimes of others. Gun owners must remain vigilant at attempts like this to scare us into giving up our rights for feel-good legislation that will do little to stop the illegal use of firearms.

Entire article here.