An Anti-Gunner Comes Clean: 28th Amendment Only Way to Try to Curtail Gun Rights

Chico News and Review guest commentator Stephen W. King has guts. He also has a healthy respect for the Constitution. Yet I completely disagree with him. In his column, Mr. King cites a number of recent high profile shootings to make a case for increased gun control. But then he does what few anti-gunners have been able to do: admit that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, even outside of formal militia involvement. In doing so King plants the seed that the 2nd Amendment has outlived its usefulness, and much like the practice of only landed white men being able to vote, should be amended out of our Constitution:

...the Constitution does enshrine the “right to bear arms,” participation in a militia notwithstanding. The Constitution also asserted that only landed, white men could vote and has been amended 27 times. Would a 28th amendment dealing with guns be the end of American exceptionalism as we know it, or would it help us avert another million deaths, offer the world an example of America’s response to changed realities, and improve the lives of Americans?

Naturally, I have some qualms with his line of reasoning. First, the idea of white men being the only persons with voting privileges is exclusionary, and from a historical perspective racist and sexist. Secondly, in that case we amended the constitution to broaden people's rights, not restrict them. Mr. King also fails to state specifically what this amendment should entail. If it is a basic wish list of the anti-gun groups such as the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Center, there is little evidence that these "common sense" laws would do anything to reduce or prevent gun violence.

Furthermore, is this really a fight that Mr. King and the anti-gun crowd want to pick? Proposing an amendment to restrict gun rights is sure to get a lot of attention, but the rigors of the amendment process would be much more difficult than passing something like the assault weapons ban (which they are having trouble reinstating). As a matter of fact, talk of an anti-gun amendment might spark the idea of a pro gun rights amendment. What better way to settle any remaining debate about the reach of the 2nd Amendment by clarifying it even further? If we take a quick look at the US Constitutional amendment process and the state of gun rights across the nation, an amendment supporting and defining gun rights is much more likely to gain formal proposal and be ratified.

First let's take a look at the amendment process:
Though almost every Constitutional Amendment to date has been proposed by Congress, there is a path for 2/3 of the State Legislatures to do so. Ratification by either method is accomplished most often by the approval of the State Legislature, this time by a 3/4 majority. Now let's take a look at the current gun laws across the nation. A good barometer is the acceptance of "shall-issue" concealed carry permits among the states. Here is the map as it exists today:

39 of 50 states currently must issue (or do not require) a permit to carry a concealed handgun for lawful citizens. That is 78% of the Union, which is 11% more than 2/3rds needed to propose an amendment and 3% more than needed to ratify. While that is far from a guarantee, the inverse starts to look grim for those who wish to impose more gun control via amendment.

Ratifying a(nother?) pro-gun amendment would depend greatly on what rights were included and how they were defined. What would be a wish list of those rights was recently passed in the legendarily pro-gun state of Montana. Montana, home to a Democratic Governor and two Democratic Senators, specified in detail the self-defense rights of lawful residents:

This new law (HB 228) clarifies the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm in plain view and to present the firearm for defensive purposes when threatened. Additionally, the law puts clearly into statute existing Montana case law providing that, when threatened, a law-abiding citizen has no duty to retreat if the person is in any place he or she has a legal right to be. Other provisions include expanding existing law to allow the use of force in defense of an occupied structure and preventing landlords and hotel operators from restricting self-defense rights. HB 228 is a victims rights measure that further places the burden of the judicial system on the criminal. Any individual who acts in self-defense, and is able to prove that he or she acted in self-defense, will now be able to shift the burden of proving the absence of justification to the prosecution.

Add a national right to carry to that and places like California and Washington D.C. suddenly become desirable places to reside. Perhaps Mr. King is onto something. I agree that a 28th amendment needs to be proposed, but I and the people of 38 other states are going to have quite a bit to say about what it will entail. Careful what you wish for Mr. King...

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court Incorporates 2nd Amendment in Nordyke v. King

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which formerly held a collectivist view of the 2nd Amendment, has ruled today that the 2A is "incorporated" to the states via the 14th Amendment. This means that the Heller decision (which states that the 2nd Amendment affords a personal right to keep and bear arms) applies to not only the Federal government, but the states as well.

"The right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition…. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental...We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments."

This proclamation by the 9th Circuit was included in the ruling for the case Nordyke v. King. Unfortunately, the remainder of the ruling came down against Nordyke, et al, who claimed that a blanket ban of firearms on Alameda County property violated their 2nd Amendment rights. Nordyke and the other plaintiffs were the organizers of a now-defunct gun show which took place on county fairgrounds. The court said that this was a reasonable restriction that did not impair one's ability to defend themselves or their homes. Additionally, it claimed that all County property could be considered a "sensitive area" under the Heller ruling, which stated:

"(the ruling) should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings..."

David Hardy over at Of Arms and the Law has conjectured that since Nordyke lost the overall decision they are in control of the next move. Alameda County cannot ask to have the ruling heard en banc (and potentially have incorporation overturned), and Nordyke can craft the appeal when asking for a writ of centiorari from the SCOTUS. On the other hand, since incorporation has effectively been taken off the table, the high court is less likely to hear the case. Hardy also notes that two of the three 9th Circuit judges ruling for incorporation were Democratic appointees. One from the Carter Admin, and one from Clinton.

Full 9th Circuit opinion HERE.
Second Amendment Foundation press release HERE.

UPDATE: John Lott & Others Respond to 20/20 Report

Respected firearms scholar and researcher John Lott posted a blog entry on Fox News where he too responds to the rigged "experiment" produced by 20/20. I am happy to say that Prof. Lott and I came to similar conclusions about the nature and tone of the program. He illustrates how 20/20's methods were poor and their summations biased (and perhaps disingenuous):

The show ends with this claim:

“If you are wondering where are all the studies about the effectiveness of guns used by ordinary Americans for self-defense, well keep searching, we could not find one reliable study and the ones we found were contradictory.”

Yet, “contradictory” is an overstatement. There have been 26 peer-reviewed studies published by criminologists and economists in academic journals and university presses. Most of these studies find large drops in crime. Some find no change, but not a single one shows an increase in crime.

Dr. Ignatius Piazza, of the acclaimed Front Sight firearms training school, also responded to the 20/20 story. While he uses the ill prepared students as a plug to advocate training at his schools, he clearly states what 20/20 casually overlooked:

Even though you may...fall into the category of the 99% of people who are not yet mentally or physically prepared to win a gun fight, the chances are your opponent is not trained either — so having a gun and some training is still better than not having a gun!

More importantly, Piazza provides a nice list of articles and videos about concealed carry holders defending themselves and stopping violent crime. Here is that list:

• Concealed Weapons Permit Holder Stops Bank Robbery
• Off Duty Copy Gets Jumped but Protects Himself with Handgun
• 69-Year-Old Man Shoots Intruder
• CCW Gun Fighter Shoots Two Armed Assailants
• Grandmother Holds Bugler at Gun Point
• Surviving a Gun in Your Face
• Armed Robber stopped by CCW Holder
• Armed Watch Maker Stops Multiple Robberies
• Armed Citizen - Nashville, Tennessee
• Armed Homeowner Shoots Robbers During Daytime Invasion (AZ)
• Woman With Shotgun Kills Rapist in Self-Defense (MO)
• Robber Killed by Clerk
• Pizza Shop Owner Shoots Armed Robber (OH)
• Houston Self Defense Shooting CCW
• Clerk Shoots Crook
• Holdup victim kills gunman in Manheim
• Armed Citizen - Buffalo, New York
• Armed Citizen - Kinsey, Alabama
• Gunman killed in robbery attempt
• Armed Citizen - Canton, Michigan
• Brave store clerk shoots back
• Armed School Teacher Shoots Armed Invader in Self-Defense (FL)
• Man who shot robber at AA gathering

20/20: A Gun Wouldn't Necessarily Get You Out of Shooting; Us: But it Can't Hurt!

ABC News and 20/20 are running a special entitled: "'If I Only Had a Gun': 20/20 Examines Gun Violence in America." In addition, they have posted a companion article on ABCnews.com called: "Carrying a Gun Wouldn't Necessarily Get You Out of a Shooting".

The mainstream media we know and love are finally getting back to their anti-gun bias now that there have been some high-profile shootings in the news. The article and the 20/20 segment are clearly and openly framed as a rebuttal to those that believe concealed carry is the best way to stop, or at least severely limit the deadliness of, so-called 'spree shooters.' The title of the article itself should be enough of a warning that 20/20 is only looking to display one side of the argument.

First, some inaccurate conclusions are drawn based upon the view that many sates have of concealed carry as a right:

Opponents also point out that most people are ill-prepared to handle a gun. Only six states, for instance, require any kind of training before issuing a routine permit to own a gun...

Just because the majority of states do not require a class for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights does not mean that people who regularly carry are automatically "ill-prepared" to handle a gun. Though anecdotal (which is about as good as any evidence presented by ABC News in this article), the group of 2nd Amendment advocates that I associate with are all proud of their extensive knowledge of firearms, the hours of range time they put in, and the advanced training that they partake in. In addition, gun safety and education courses are booming aroundcountry. So, state mandated training in itself does not necessarily make one more or less likely to be able to handle a gun in an active shooter situation.

ABC News quotes a Bethlehem, PA police investigator who gives his opinion that having a gun will not be of any assistance in a dire situation:
the

"Rounds are coming back at you," Benton said. "You've got outside environments, people are screaming, running. It's too much for a normal person who's never been trained to deal with. It's overwhelming. What happens is that you get so jacked up you forget how to do the simple things," Benton said. "Because your [heart rate] elevates, your fine motor skills deteriorate, and you can't get your gun out. And you're thinking, 'Oh there's a gun; I'm getting shot at.'"

ABC also quotes a firearms instructor who states that if a stray bullet hits a bystander you are legally responsible for that action. We are then told that those who have survived active shooter scenarios are those who have played dead or fled to potential exits, such as windows. What is not addressed is that it is not always possible to play dead or to flee. If a shooter enters a room and starts executing people at point blank, unfortunately the only option may be to become a victim - unless you are armed. Choosing between attempting to defend yourself and your colleagues/classmates, or dying, I think most people would attempt to overcome the risks of being 'jacked up' on adrenaline and fighting through poential tunnel vision. Also, if multiple people are being executed in a small area, bystanders being injured from defensive gun fire (an extremely rare phenomenon despite the fear mongering) will be on the lower end of concern when considering possible negative outcomes.

At the same time that they claim armed defense would be impossible due to the physical and mental state of the armed citizen, they suggest complex planning and strategy as the best way to survive:

"Get on the cell phone, tell people, barricade these doors, and wait it out." Stanton said there are three immediate steps to take if you're suddenly in the middle of a deadly shooting: "Identify what's going on, recognize the situation, and have an exit strategy." When they do a post interview of all these different people (spree shooting survivors), you'll see a, a general commonality: 'I knew I had to live.'"

So, having a will to live helps you think clearly. And the 'experts' suggest calling authorities, barricading doors, and planning exit strategies. Sounds like complicated work, especially if "Rounds are coming back at you," and when "you get so jacked up you forget how to do the simple things." How can someone get their cell phone out of their pocket and dial with fine motor skills if they cannot even upholster a weapon? The double standard being applied here is obvious and dripping with bias.

Additionally, while the 20/20 article quotes a number of 'experts' speaking against the possibility of civilian intervention, the only dissenter that they briefly refer to is the head of a local chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. 20/20 should have looked at recent research by police trainer Ron Borsch. When training officers, he advocates that they act as soon as possible, even if they are by themselves, because active shooters add to their death toll by the second. He makes a number of observations that indicate an armed citizen could slow or stop the massacre :

• 98% of active killers act alone
• Despite heavy armaments...they have an average hit rate of less than 50%
• They strike “stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves.”
• They generally try to avoid police...and “typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation.”
• 90% commit suicide on-site. “Surrender or escape attempts are unlikely.”

Borsch concludes that quick confrontation by a single individual can often be the best way to save lives and end the situation:

They choose unarmed, defenseless innocents for a reason: They have no wish to encounter someone who can hurt them. They are personally risk- and pain-avoidant...If pressed, they are more likely to kill themselves.

There is no reason to believe that this effectiveness would not translate from a single patrol officer to a determined armed citizen who "knows he has to live." The 20/20 video seems set on ignoring this possibility, and attempts to disprove it with mock scenarios that clearly set the participants up to fail. They create a situation where individuals who volunteered for firearms training are given real firearms with simulated rounds. Then, during a classroom lecture, a police officer poses as a shooter and opens fire on the teacher and fleeing students. In addition, this attack happens when the subjects of the test are wearing protective gloves, neckwear, and helmets with face shields. Then, when these first day shooters do not have perfect results, 20/20 reacts derisively. Some have trouble getting the gun out of the holster, some freeze, and some get shot while engaging the shooter. But while the program states that this is a reenactment of a real scenario, they do not state that the deck has been stacked against the subjects. Let's take a look at how this does not accurately represent an armed citizen/active shooter scenario:

• The perpetrator does not fit the profile of an active shooter as described above (a pain-avoidant coward), and is not in that state of mind - he is actually a trained police officer prepared for the situation
• The subjects do not represent an accurate cross section of concealed carry holders and their varying skill levels. Only one the participants shown claimed to have firearms experience and most were barely comfortable wearing and operating a holster.
  
• Participants were wearing heavy cloth gloves and a helmet with full face shield for protection. This clearly impedes their motor skills and potentially obstructs their vision.
• The police officer "perpetrator" knew which person in the classroom was armed and was able to target them for the purposes of the 'experiment.' In addition, most of the other people in the lecture were either officers or involved in the setup. They quickly moved away from the subject which allow for easier targeting.
• Though the subjects claimed the scenario felt very realistic, they knew before hand that everyone was using simulated rounds, including themselves. This means the armed students were less likely to flee and use the firearm to protect others while hiding or taking cover - a tactic often taught in firearms and self defense classes.
  

One of the subjects shown, "Danielle", does manage to unholster her weapon, take aim, and score a hit despite of the circumstances. 20/20 then points out that she took a hit to the head and chides her for striking the perp in the leg when she though she also got off a headshot. Last time I checked, the femoral artery was one of the least desirable places to be shot. Also, in this scenario almost every other person in the room was able to escape.

So, 20/20 says that having a gun won't necessarily get us out of a shooting, but I don't think that people who chose to carry concealed believe that arming themselves guarantees anything. What it does do is level the playing field. And from the profiles of past active-shooter scenarios to even the stacked experiments on 20/20, we have seen that intervention from a single armed individual can make a difference. At the very least it can distract and delay the shooter, which in itself could save lives. In the best scenario, it can end the confrontation and save countless lives. Having a gun won't necessarily save you, but not having one surely won't.

Holmes Norton Says DC Gun Rights Greatest Threat to Homeland Security

During a hearing on the House floor concerning the DC Voting Rights Act, non-voting Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton referred to the loosening of Washington DC's gun laws as the greatest risk to Homeland Security. What has gotten Holmes in such a fury is the Ensign Amendment tacked onto the bill that strips the District of the privilege to create and enforce its own gun laws. This amendment restores gun rights to the citizens of DC and forces compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling in DC v Heller, which the city council has done just about everything to skirt.

Now that we have the background, let's get on with the outrage that has been absent in the media. The Representative's lack of respect for her constituents Constitutional rights and her lack of respect for the enormity of our national security concerns are reprehensible. Does she truly believe that allowing law abiding citizens to own arms, as is exercised legally and safely in the vast majority of this nation, is more of a threat than Iranian nuclear enrichment, North Korean missile tests , or border drug violence? This is the politics of fear on blatant display.

Norton goes on to make her case against the amendment, not with facts and figures, but with scary adjectives and fear-based tactics:

...would allow military style weapons, including .50 caliber armor-piercing guns to be legally possessed, without limit on the number, in the nation’s capital...

While Holmes wants to link possession of these weapons to terrorists, she does not make the case as to why this could not already happen within the borders of Washington DC. Terrorists have little regard for law, and committed ones would have no problems purchasing weapons elsewhere and bringing them into the city. She also fails to mention that the current restrictive laws and the past prohibition have failed to curb violence in the city or restrict availability of guns to the criminal elements that desire them. According to The Washington Post, "a recent survey depicts an urban D.C. environment where 80 percent of youths are 'highly exposed' to gun violence."

Norton also tries to scare people with the specter of guns being carried in public and allowed in employer lots, but her hysteria rings hollow in a nation where responsible concealed carry is the norm:

...employees could bring guns to a Wizards game at the Verizon Center, to a National’s baseball game at Nationals Park, to a national conference at the Convention Center, to Pepco headquarters, to law offices, and to other small and large workplaces throughout the city, to churches and other places of worship, to bars, restaurants and nightclubs, to hotels, to power plants and to all District government offices.

While this is all meant to sound threatening, laws permitting concealed carry in some or all of the types of places she listed tend to be the rule in the US, not the exception. The "wild west" argument she implies was based purely on speculation when it was first made over 20 years ago when states started to adopt carry laws. With the amazing record of safety and civility that permit holders have demonstrated, to raise the argument now borders on pure dishonesty.