Category Archives: Keep and Bear Arms

D.C. Circuit Court Gets it Absolutely Right

I couldn’t imagine a better statement about the right to keep and bear arms coming from any court in this land (emphasis mine):

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).

In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty.

Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

More, including links to other sites and analysis, at How Appealing

I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

The New Assualt Weapons Ban

Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-New York) has proposed a new assualt weapons ban. Say Uncle has a summary of what the ban proposes.

Instead of banning rifles with 2 evil features, it’s one evil feature. Said evil features are:
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

Expands the list of rifles banned specifically by name.
Bans possession of conversion kits (example, you couldn’t own a rifle and a bayonet lug even if the two weren’t attached).
Transfer of grandfathered weapons would have to go through a FFL.
Bans transfers of grandfathered semi-automatics with regular capacity magazines.

As mike pointed out in his post, the cops are using the ban expiration as an excuse to further militarize their departments. Imagine what checks there would be to these militarized cops if the McCarthy gun ban goes through.

Free Republic has the full text of the scary bill.

I’m waiting for outrage from the “libertarian Democrats” and the “libertarian left”.

I’m one of the original co-founders of The Liberty Papers all the way back in 2005. Since then, I wound up doing this blogging thing professionally. Now I’m running the site now. You can find my other work at The Hayride.com and Rare. You can also find me over at the R Street Institute.

“Police needing heavier weapons”

This is great news.

WASHINGTON — Law enforcement agencies across the country have been upgrading their firepower to deal with what they say is the increasing presence of high-powered weapons on the streets.

Scott Knight, chairman of the Firearms Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, says an informal survey of about 20 departments revealed that since 2004 all of the agencies have either added weapons to officers’ patrol units or have replaced existing weaponry with military-style arms.

Knight, police chief in Chaska, Minn., says the upgrades have occurred since a national ban on certain assault weapons expired in September 2004. The ban, passed in 1994, in part prohibited domestic gunmakers from producing semi-automatic weapons and ammunition dispensers holding more than 10 rounds.

“This (weapons upgrade) is being done with an eye to the absolute knowledge that more higher-caliber weapons are on the street since the expiration of the ban,” Knight said. He said his own department of about 20 officers is in the midst of determining whether to upgrade its weapons.

Ah, yes. The “assault weapons” ban. Prior to the ’94 ban, the term “assault weapons” did not exist. In fact, now that the ban has (thankfully) expired, that term isn’t really used much anymore, except by gun-banning groups like the Brady folks and police chief associations. For the record, USA Today is completely wrong in stating that the ban prohibited domestic gunmakers from producing semi-automatic weapons. It banned them from producing semi-automatic weapons that looked scary, weapons that looked “militaristic.” They were still completely free to produce semi-automatic weapons as long as said weapons didn’t look like they were a military weapon.

This is why I find it hard to believe that the streets of American have suddenly been flooded with a glut of semi-automatic weapons with the expiration of the ban. The only thing the streets could have been flooded with are weapons that look mean. Nothing has changed with regard to the operation and effectiveness of legal weapons. Of course, there might have been an increase in the amount of automatic weapons on streets in the U.S. (unlikely, but possible). However, this would have absolutely nothing to do with the “assault weapons” ban, as fully automatic firearms have been illegal without special permission from the BATF since 1934. This of course begs the question as to why Chief Knight felt it was necessary to bring up the “assault weapons” ban. He wouldn’t have an ulterior motive, would he?

In Houston, where homicides were up as much as 25% in 2006 over the previous year, Police Chief Harold Hurtt says the AK-47 assault rifle has become “kind of a weapon of choice” for warring gangs, major drug distributors and immigrant smugglers in a city that has become a major transit point for criminals.

“The reality on the street is that many of these weapons are readily available,” says Hurtt, whose department began upgrading its weaponry with assault-style arms about three years ago before he arrived from Phoenix.

I’m not sure this article could get more stereotypical if it tried. Oh no, it’s the AK-47 boogeyman out to get you! I’m surprised Chief Hurtt didn’t drop the other three horsemen of the gun control apocalypse: the TEC-9, Uzi, and AR variants.

I don’t doubt that there are some very nasty people out there with some nasty firearms. The police need to be equipped to effectively deal with these people. But the overall increased militarization of our police departments, when coupled with the drive to disarm our populace, is not a good thing for liberty.

UPDATE: Rob Miller over at Homeland Stupidity has a post up on the same article, including some statistics to refute the assertions of the Chiefs.

Illegal Immigration And Gun Control

Let’s set up a little thought experiment, and think about how different people might react.

Scenario 1: Nathan awakes in the middle of the night, startled by a loud noise. He has no home camera system installed at his house. He heads into the closet, grabs his pistol, and goes to investigate. He lives in Washington DC, and his firearm is completely unregistered. As he exits the bedroom, he sees an intruder armed with a crowbar, heading towards him. He shoots the intruder, killing him instantly. When the cops arrive, they cite him for unlawful possession of a firearm.

Scenario 2: Jose comes from Mexico, where he’s got two small children. His wife has passed away, and his children are being cared for in Mexico City by their elderly grandmother, who Jose also supports. Jose can’t legally emigrate to the US, but jumps the border to work two jobs, so he can feed his family and put his children through school. One day, as he’s working on the construction site, the INS shows up, demanding his paperwork. When he provides his fraudulent ID, they round him up for deportation.

Now, a lot can be explained by your reaction to these two scenarios. I’m going to sketch out a few possibilities. What do you think, am I on target?

Republican: Nathan is a hero. He deserves a medal, not legal threats. Those gun laws are horrible, and you should never punish a man for protecting his family. Jose, however, is a lawbreaker. He should be deported, for stealing our jobs and sucking up our welfare dollars!

Democrat: Jose is just doing what anyone would do in that situation. It’s not his fault that US immigration laws are so tough. He needs to take care of his family, not be deported. But Nathan? Couldn’t there have been a peaceful way out of that situation. His intruder wasn’t armed with a gun, didn’t Nathan have a baseball bat around? Why didn’t he fire a warning shot, or just call the police?

Libertarian: Good on ya, Nathan and Jose! An immoral law shouldn’t be followed. Ooh, hey, are those brownies? I’ve got a wicked case of the munchies!

Highest Murder Rate & Strictest Gun Laws

Yep, that’s what the mayor of DC says they’ve got. So he and a bunch of other mayors are headed to the feds for help.

Fenty (D), speaking at a news conference held by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition, said local laws are not sufficient to fight the use of illegal weapons.

“We have one of the highest homicide rates in the country but at the same time have the strictest [gun] law,” Fenty said, joining other urban chief executives at the bipartisan summit on the issue yesterday on Capitol Hill. “Local jurisdictions just can’t solve the problem. You need to have the federal government have one standard for dealing with illegal guns.”

I’m sure he’s right… If only the feds would control the guns, they’d magically disappear from DC’s streets! Yes, we need a federal standard. You know, like the one they have in Britian!

Despite these figures, the number of overall offences involving firearms has been increasing each year since 1997/98. And crime involving imitation weapons was up 55% in 2004-05 compared to the previous year.

In a nice big box, they highlighted the few gun crime statistics that showed a reduction. The above bit of text, of course, follows in much smaller text. It might be useful to compare these to Crime Statistics Australia to get a better international view of gun crime that could improve judgment going forward.

Gun advocates have predicted this over and over and over. When you make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own guns, the criminals know that a gun gives them an insurmountable advantage. It’s gotten to the point where they feel comfortable using replica firearms, because they know nobody is going to challenge them with a real one. It only happens in the movies…

[Caution: Don’t hit play if you’re offended by explicit language]

But don’t worry, dear readers… They’re not coming after YOU.

Bloomberg said the group is not anti-gun and does not oppose the constitutional right to bear arms.

“This is about getting guns out of the hands of criminals,” Bloomberg said.

There, there… Doesn’t that put your mind at ease?

1 30 31 32 33 34 36