Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category



Idaho Goes Constitutional Carry

BY Herschel Smith
1 month, 3 weeks ago

NBC:

Beginning July 1, Idaho residents age 21 or older will be allowed to carry a concealed firearm without a permit inside city limits.

Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter has signed Senate Bill 1389 into law. It will relax the state’s gun policy and remove permitting requirements for concealed carry. Prior to SB 1389, residents age 18 or older could carry concealed firearms without a permit outside of city limits. Open carry is already legal within city limits.

Beginning July 1, Idaho residents age 21 or older will be allowed to carry a concealed firearm without a permit inside city limits.

Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter has signed Senate Bill 1389 into law. It will relax the state’s gun policy and remove permitting requirements for concealed carry. Prior to SB 1389, residents age 18 or older could carry concealed firearms without a permit outside of city limits. Open carry is already legal within city limits.

“While S1389 is consistent with the U.S. Constitution, Idaho values and our commitment to upholding our constitutional protections from government overreach, I am concerned about its lack of any provision for education and training of individuals who choose to exercise the right to concealed carry,” the Republican lawmaker wrote.

“Such a safeguard would seem to be part of the Second Amendment’s ‘well-regulated’ standard. What’s more, the addition of a simple training requirement in this bill could have addressed the concerns of our valued law enforcement leaders and others who cherish both the shooting culture and the safety of shooters and non-shooters alike.”

Trying to play both ends against the middle, huh Governor?  This is just rich.  He admits that the new law is consistent with the provisions of the second amendment, but then essentially says that he doesn’t think the second amendment goes far enough because of the need for education and training.

Then he switches back and reverses his position, saying that a requirement to get training and education is consistent with the notion of “well regulated.”

“Well regulated” has nothing to do with governmental control via regulations, it has to do with accurate and effective fire control.  Furthermore, I’ve warned about the dangers of seeing the second amendment as a political treatise on the foundation of liberty.

The governor is just frightened.  He’ll be better once this has time to soak in and become the standard.  It works in other constitutional carry states, and it’ll work in Idaho too.

Guns In The Work Place And In Parking Lots

BY Herschel Smith
3 months, 1 week ago

This issue has special interest for me, since my own employer prohibits the carrying of weapons in the work place, but also knows that it cannot prohibit the carry of weapons in the public parking lot adjacent to my place of work.

On a personal note, I’ve pressed this issue up the chain of command, to no avail.  They want to maintain, how do they say it, “a safe work place.”  So in order to effect this end, they prohibit self defense and show us those idiotic active shooter videos where they enact an active shooter event and show you what to do.

It’s embarrassing to watch it, and it’s even more embarrassing to work for a company where they show such juvenile rubbish.  So the recommendations?  Hide under desks and be very quiet.  If the shooter sees you, throw potted plants at him.  Run.  Run very fast.  Wait for law enforcement to show up 15 minutes later – after 100 people have already perished.  Then when the dust settles but people are still in mourning, the company gets to go to court or negotiate with lawyers over those 100 preventable deaths, and give away a billion dollar class action settlement.  That’s the way that would work out.  Only lawyers could dream up something so stupid.  All in the interest of a safe work place.  A jury will know what I’m talking about, because most of them have seen the same idiotic video.

So this case interests me.

A Universal Orlando worker who was fired after someone stole a gun from his car at work has sued his former employer.

Dean Kumanchik’s lawsuit was filed in Orange County Circuit Court on Thursday. According to a copy of the complaint sent by his attorney, Universal fired Kumanchik the day before Christmas. A ride technician who earned more than $30 an hour, Kumanchik had worked at Universal more than 20 years.

The lawsuit gives this account: A licensed concealed weapons holder, Kumanchik regularly took his gun to and from work and kept it locked in his vehicle. He parked in an area accessible to both employees and the public. In December, someone broke into his vehicle and stole the gun. He reported it to police. Upon learning what had happened, Universal immediately fired him.

Kumanchik’s lawsuit asserts that Universal violated an eight-year-old law allowing Floridians with concealed-weapons permits to keep firearms locked in their cars at work.

A Universal spokesman said the company does not comment on pending litigation.

Orlando’s big theme parks have previously claimed they are exempt from the law, however.

After the law went into effect, Universal cited an exemption for school property as a justification for its ban. Orange County Public Schools runs an alternative education program called the Universal Education Center on the property.

Claiming that exemption is “nonsense,” Kumanchik’s attorney Richard Celler said. “In our opinion the school they claim is some little building way out of the way, nowhere near the premises or parking lot where he was performing work.”

After the law went into effect, Walt Disney World cited an exemption for property owned by an employer who has a permit for explosives. Disney has such a permit for the fireworks used in its theme parks.

The notion of a “school” on the property is an accidental feature of the decision to fire the employee, and not the reason Universal has a policy against guns.  They reflexively fired him because of discriminatory policies, and then the lawyers hunted for some justification for what they did in the law.  They landed on the fortuitous wording of a “school” on the property (in some cataloged training literature or procedures, or maps they give employees), which is likely nothing more than a training center, something all corporations have.  A jury will know what I’m talking about.  I can guarantee you that the legislature didn’t have corporate training centers in mind when they used the word “school.”  My own state prohibits weapons on school property and playgrounds as well.  Do you think “playgrounds” includes pick-up games of football after work in the nearest open field?

One commenter has this to say:

Florida is an at-will employment state without the Covenant of Good Faith Exemption. That means employers do not even have to pretend to be fair when they fire you. You can do everything right, follow orders to a T, excel in every way, and the boss can give you the axe with no justification at all. Sucks to be employed in Florida, but Universal is within its legal rights.

He thinks he’s smart, but this isn’t even nearly right.  I’m an at will employee too, but the company cannot discriminate against, for example, the elderly, or black workers, or women, and claim that something like that is justifiable due to at-will employment contracts.  That’s why corporations offer attractive separation packages to workers in their 60’s rather than firing them outright and claiming the existence of at-will contracts.  The jury will know exactly what I’m talking about.  Universal fired this worker because of discriminatory attitudes concerning self defense and the second amendment.  Counsel had better be ready for this strategy during trial.

Associated court documents.

Essay Writing As A Requirement For Concealed Carry

BY Herschel Smith
3 months, 4 weeks ago

News from Massachusetts:

Critics are blasting a Massachusetts city’s new law that they claim requires residents applying for a license to carry handguns to write “an essay” and pay upwards of $1,100 for training.

The new laws take effect this week in Lowell, a city of 110,000 that lies 35 miles north of Boston. Pushed by Police Superintendent William Taylor and passed by the City Council, they require applicants for unrestricted handgun licenses to state in writing why they should receive such a license. Taylor, who was unavailable for comment on Monday, has sole discretion for approving or denying the applications.

“It is absurd that people should have to write an essay to the town to explain why they should be able to exercise their constitutional rights,” said Jim Wallace, executive director of Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts. “We already have a very strict set of gun laws in the state, but this is way over the top.”

State law sets guidelines and requirements, but gives local chiefs of police broad discretion in implementation. While other cities and towns in Massachusetts have tough licensing regulations, Lowell’s new requirements, which also include taking a gun safety course over and above one already required by the state, prompted complaints at a public hearing last week.

“I will never write an essay to get my rights as an American citizen,” resident Dan Gannon told the City Council.

The new policy was prompted in part by a year-old federal lawsuit brought by Commonwealth Second Amendment, a Bay State gun-rights group. Attorney David Jensen said the suit stems from Lowell’s history of denying qualified applicants permits to carry handguns without what the plaintiffs consider a legitimate rationale.

Lowell Police spokesman Capt. Timothy Crowley said characterizing the written requirement as an “essay” is not accurate.

“If you want a license to carry a firearm unrestricted wherever you want and whenever you want, the superintendent is just looking for some documentation as to why,” Crowley said. “That is not unreasonable to most people.”

Local attorney Richard Chambers, who often represents applicants who have been turned down, said calling the new requirement an “essay” is right on target.

“An essay when you’re in school is when you write something, you turn it in and they grade it,” Chambers said. “This is an essay. And it’s also just another layer of bureaucracy they’ve tacked on to block people from exercising their rights.”

Despite the criticism, the new rules were adopted unanimously and are set to take effect this week.

“We’re no longer taking a cookie-cutter approach to issuing firearms licenses …”

Here’s the top cop in Lowell who is in charge of reviewing your essay.

Lowell_Top_Cop

A cookie cutter approach, huh?  That’s what they call exercising a right.  A cookie cutter approach to allowing people to do something that we take to be axiomatic and righteous, i.e., the right to self defense.

I have a better idea.  Rather than applicants writing an essay to get their rights recognized, I want the top cop in Lowell to read the essay I’ve already written, and then write me an essay that explains why anyone has a right to force applicants to write an essay in order to engage in the free exercise of their rights.

If this seems to difficult for the top cop, we can start at a remedial level.  Write me an essay on the meaning of this phrase: ” … shall not be infringed.”

Knives And The Second Amendment

BY Herschel Smith
4 months, 2 weeks ago

Smithsonian.com:

Last week, a divided Washington Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that carrying a paring knife is not a protected right under the Second Amendment. In the court’s majority opinion, Justice Charles Wiggins wrote that a pairing knife “is a utility tool, not a weapon” and so does not qualify as a constitutionally protected weapon.

The question was brought before the Supreme Court after a man pulled over for a speeding infraction​ ​informed a Seattle police officer that he was carrying a paring knife in a plastic sheath in his pocket, according to the ruling.​ Seattle prosecutors initially charged the man with the unlawful use of weapons, ​based on a city ordinance that declares it illegal for someone to “carry concealed or unconcealed…any dangerous knife.” The city’s law defines any knife with a fixed blade longer than 3 ½ inches as dangerous, Levi Pulkkinen reports for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The defense argued that posession of the paring knife was constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment.

The jury ruled in favor of the prosecutor, and the superior court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Though the Supreme Court upheld the ruling, it did so on different grounds. Wiggins wrote that because a cooking knife isn’t designed to be a weapon, it shouldn’t be protected as one, rendering the defense’s argument, whether or not the ordinance was constitutional, invalid, Munchies reports.

Washington state law does, however, consider things like police batons, billy clubs, dirks and switchblades as “arms.” While Wiggins’ ruling doesn’t specifically mention whether the Second Amendment extends to concealed carrying of these items, it does reinforce that the right to bear arms includes the “right to carry a weapon,” Eugene Volokh writes for the Washington Post.Still, a knife doesn’t necessarily need to be designed as a weapon for someone to use it as one. And while most people might not think to carry a paring knife with them when they leave home, this could be concerning for some professional cooks, many of whom take their personal knife kits with them to and from work.

Other than briefly lampooning the idiotic officer who started all of this and the idiotic jury who allowed it to begin with, we may observe the following about this case.

First step: man is charged with unlawful use of a weapon and concealment of a weapon by police.  Second step: Lawyer argues that it’s protected by the second amendment as a weapon.  Third step: Judge decides that knife isn’t really a weapon so it isn’t protected by the second amendment.  Fourth step: Thus the conviction that the man was carrying a concealed weapon is upheld.

Good Lord.  Do lawyers have to take classes in classical logic?  No, I’m not even talking about the hard stuff like modal logic.  Just simple schoolchild level classes to teach them how to think?  If not, they need to.

Notes From HPS

BY Herschel Smith
6 months, 3 weeks ago

David Codrea:

“Question 1” referred to in the docket means the Court is only taking on the “recklessness” question. They will not rule on whether a firearm ban due to a domestic violence conviction violated rights under the Second Amendment.

Unannounced at this writing is an even more eagerly anticipated question, whether the Court will grant cert in the case of Friedman v. City of Highland Park, a challenge to the city’s ban on militia-suitable firearms and standard capacity magazines. The docket notes the case was “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 30, 2015” on Monday, so word of whether or not the case will be heard was expected.

Let’s forget the issue of how or why the statute was broken (or in other words, the issue of “recklessness”).  This is a trivial question compared the databank of second amendment rulings, and the fact that they refuse even to consider the issue means that they are running scared on the issue of rights to gun ownership generally, not specific to this case.

Via Mike Vanderboegh, Marco Rubio’s new billionaire backer is a top funder of open borders.  Of course he is, because Rubio is an open borders freak.  Count me out as far as the elections go if the choice is Rubio.  I’ll walk the dog, grill steaks, clean my guns, and catalog my ammunition.

Via Mike Vanderboegh, Georgia becomes a border state for violent illegal immigrants.  Of course.  It’s all by design.  It’s all as it was intended to be.  You understand that, right?

Bear spray is harder to transport through the TSA than firearms.  Not surprising.  I’m no fan of use of bear spray anyway – or at least, not without firearms as a backup.

Firearms records languish at national tracing center.  Good.  Very good.  Let’ keep it that way.

This is what happens when you hate yourself and your heritage.

David Kopel And Joyce Malcolm Versus Priya Satia On Carry Of Guns In England

BY Herschel Smith
7 months ago

An interesting exchange occurred between David Kopel, Joyce Malcolm, et. al., and another professor on carry of guns in England.  The first volley appeared at The Washington Post, and while I won’t quote in its entirety, I will quote at length and send you to the article for the conclusion.

Should D.C. residents have the same right to the licensed carry of defensive handguns as the people in most states? That is the issue currently before the D.C. Circuit, in Wrenn v. District of Columbia. The D.C. government lost on this issue in federal district court. D.C.’s brief to the D.C. Circuit argues that “For as long as citizens have owned firearms, English and American law has restricted any right to carry in populated public places.” According to the brief, the pre-existing right to arms, which was protected by the Second Amendment, “did not encompass carrying in densely populated cities.” Further, D.C. says that in the 19th century, carry prohibitions were widespread in the United States. An amicus brief on behalf of Michael Bloomberg’s organization “Everytown” makes similar claims.

In an amicus brief filed this week, several legal historians, including me, dispute the D.C. and Bloomberg claims. Besides me, the amici are Joyce Malcolm (George Mason Law; the leading historian on the history of English gun control and gun rights), Robert Cottrol (co-appointment at George Washington in Law and in History; a specialist in the history of race, including the racial aspects of gun laws),  Clayton Cramer (author of three books and many articles on the history of firearms law in Early America and the 19th century) and Nicholas Johnson (Fordham Law; most recent book is Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms). Our attorneys were Stephen Halbrook and Dan Peterson. Halbrook has a 5-0 record in the U.S. Supreme Court, all on firearms law cases, and is himself a leading scholar on the legal history of the right to arms.

The claim that there was a general prohibition on the carrying of arms is based on the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which D.C. characterizes as a public carrying ban. As our brief explains, the case law is contrary to such a broad interpretation of the 1328 Statute.  For example,  Sir John Knight’s Case (1686) said that the statute applies only to people who go armed to terrify the King’s subjects.” There was a lot of weapons-carrying in England, partly because of public duties, such as keeping “watch and ward,” as well as required target practice (in longbows and muskets) at the target ranges that every village was required to maintain. The peaceable carrying of arms was an ordinary thing to see, not a terrifying one.

In the American colonies, nobody appears to have thought that they could not carry arms because of a 1328 English statute. Rather, the colonies mandated gun carrying in certain situations, such as when traveling or when going to church. To the extent that a few early states (and later, D.C.) enacted statutes expressing common law restrictions on arms carrying, the statutes (like the common law) only applied when a person did so “in terror of the country.” (D.C. 1818 statute; similar language in the states). In the colonial period, and in the first 37 years of independence, there were no restrictions on concealed carry. Several states enacted concealed carry bans thereafter, but of course these did not limit open carry. Moreover, our first “four Presidents openly carried firearms.” The notion that they, or anyone else, thought Americans were prohibited from doing so by a 1328 English statute is implausible.

To this, Priya Satia responds at Slate.

Oddly enough, medieval English laws matter in legal debates about gun control in the United States today. The Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 Second Amendment decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, determined that sufficiently “long-standing” firearms regulations are constitutional. This means that in Second Amendment cases, we have to get our English history right.

Doing so is crucial in a gun case now before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals: Wrenn v. D.C. The case is critical for Washington residents but also more broadly as the pro-gun lobby challenges laws in cities across the country. The District of Columbia argues that English and American law has always permitted restrictions on the right to carry guns in populated public places, tracing this tradition to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which generally prohibited carrying guns in public. The District argues that the Second Amendment and its English precursors did not allow unfettered public carrying in densely populated cities, and thus the District may restrict it.

A group of legal historians has disputed this interpretation in an amicus brief filed this month, followed by an essay in the Washington Post by David Kopel, adjunct professor at Denver University’s law school. They claim the English Bill of Rights of 1689 superseded the 1328 statute and that, “There was a lot of weapons-carrying in England.” Thus, they conclude, D.C. residents have the right to carry guns in public. But their English history is wrong, as are their conclusions about public carry in the nation’s capital.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688–89 established a Protestant monarchy in England under William and Mary, ending the reign of the Stuarts. The Bill of Rights codified the constitutional limits on the new monarchy, including a provision guaranteeing Protestants (but not Catholics or Jews) the right to bear arms. But political realities overrode this provision. The new monarchy remained vulnerable to “Jacobites” seeking to restore the Stuart dynasty, with French and Spanish backing. This danger meant the British state could not permit widespread gun ownership.

The new monarchy’s disarmament laws built on laws passed after the Restoration of 1660, when the Stuarts returned to power after 11 years of republican rule and were similarly concerned with political stability. A 1670 statute had limited firearms possession to the noble and rich, although even their arsenals were subject to search and seizure at sensitive moments. A series of game laws from 1671 through 1831 dramatically reduced the number of people permitted to hunt, empowering gamekeepers to search for and seize unauthorized firearms. Smuggling laws also made carrying arms grounds for arrest. An armed militia was active through the 1680s, but not the 80 years that followed. Through the 1740s, its arms were locked in royal arsenals and distributed only at assembly. The government’s success at disarming the population made the militia superfluous, since its entire purpose was to prevent an armed rising against the government.

The amicus brief by Kopel et al. paints a picture of widespread gun carrying incongruous with this well-established history. The authors invoke the 1686 acquittal of the gun-toting Sir John Knight as evidence that the 1328 statute was inconsistently applied, but Patrick J. Charles, the award-winning historian for Air Force Special Operations Command, has shown that Joyce Malcolm (one of the brief’s authors) created this finding “out of thin air.”  In fact, Knight was acquitted because he was armed while cloaked with government authority. In an era of rapid urban growth, before state provision of police, the wealthy and noble fulfilled the role of informal police.

And I think you see where this argument is going, i.e., justifying law enforcement use of weapons to the exclusion of everyone else, even the military.  I wrote to Dave Kopel for a rejoinder, and he declined saying he had too many “irons in the fire,” but that “among its errors are conflating anti-hunting laws (which continued after 1689) with laws against defensive gun ownership.”

He also sent me to Joyce Malcolm, who is also busy but reminded me of her piece in Financial Times (I cannot locate the URL except at Free Republic).

Self-defence, William Blackstone, the 18th century English jurist, wrote, is a natural right that no government can deprive people of, since no government can protect the individual in his moment of need. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 affirmed the right of individuals “to have arms for their defence”. It is a dangerous right. But leaving personal protection to the police is also dangerous, and ineffective. Government is perilously close to denying people the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society.

I won’t rehearse the details of the debate.  But one thing stands out to me in this exchange, and it’s Kopel’s statement that “The notion that they, or anyone else, thought Americans were prohibited from doing so by a 1328 English statute is implausible.”  This is an important observation, so let’s unpack it a bit.

From my pedestrian point of view (from my coursework in philosophy, history and apologetics in seminary), I’ve always claimed that the best way to understand what the founders intended was to observe their lives and understand what they did or didn’t think their words meant.  Look to the culture, context and milieu which created these men and their views.  I have cited the public and open carry of weapons to which Kopel refers.

In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.

When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense. One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain that this act was illegal since they were “British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights” while another argued that this “is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense”. The newspaper cited Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, which had listed the “having and using arms for self preservation and defense” among the “absolute rights of individuals.” The colonists felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.

And further:

Their laws about children and guns were strict: every family was required to own a gun, to carry it in public places (especially when going to church) and to train children in firearms proficiency. On the first Thanksgiving Day, in 1621, the colonists and the Indians joined together for target practice; the colonist Edward Winslow wrote back to England that “amongst other recreations we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us.”

The ownership and carry of weapons was virtually ubiquitous in colonial America.  It was so for the purposes of hunting, defense against animals, and defense against men.  As my own professor C. Gregg Singer has pointed out, news reports, primary source literature and eyewitness accounts are the best information on colonial America.  All information and data points to the expectation of the duty of self defense, rather than a prohibition of such.

Moreover, while I concede that it’s interesting what English law had to say about ownership and carry of weapons, it isn’t determinative.  We follow the constitution, and in particular, I have asserted before that rights to ownership and carry of weapons follows God-given stipulations, the constitution flowing from it’s basis in this moral history.

If Satia’s goal was to persuade me that I could look to England to find basis to reject ownership and carry of weapons, the goal wasn’t met.  The attempt was an abject failure.

Chris Christie Says “The Reason The Second Amendment Is Alive In New Jersey Is Because I’ve Been Governor The Last Six Years”

BY Herschel Smith
8 months, 1 week ago

NJ.com:

Gov. Chris Christie’s gradual pivot away from the gun control policies he had advocated as New Jersey governor took its sharpest turn yet Sunday evening on the campaign trail in New Hampshire.

The governor and Republican presidential candidate, while fielding questions from a town hall meeting, took sole credit for keeping the Second Amendment “alive” in New Jersey, which is he said is home to “some of the worst gun laws in America” despite his office voicing support for the state’s firearm laws well before he launched his presidential bid.

“The problem with guns in this country are criminals. Everything we need to make you safer is already on the books and then some,” Christie said.

“If you go to the person that’s in charge of the New Jersey Pistol and Gun Club, what he’ll tell you is the only reason that the Second Amendment is still alive in New Jersey is because I’ve been governor for the last six years,” he said.

First of all, let’s get one thing straight you collectivist windbag.  No one is safer because of your laws because you won’t allow anyone to be legally armed in their own self defense.  God gives us the right to self defense, not the second amendment.  The second amendment applies to everyone and everywhere whether you exist or not.  Therefore, you can’t take credit for anything of the sort.  You will only answer for your own refusal to acknowledge men’s rights before God.  You have everything backwards.

But as for this notion of asking the “person in charge of the New Jersey Pistol and Gun Club” about this, I don’t believe you.  I think you’re a liar.  So I’ve taken it upon myself to contact them myself and I will publish any response I get.

I think you’re a liar and you never really talked to the “person in charge” of anything pertaining to gun rights.  And I don’t think that’s what they will say at all.

Prior: Chris Christie And Guns

The Second Amendment And Illegal Aliens

BY Herschel Smith
8 months, 3 weeks ago

Bob Unruh at WND:

Americans are being warned that the danger from the porous United States borders has increased because of a federal appeals court’s determination that illegal aliens have a right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

“Just think: Illegal aliens who are about to be deported have standing to sue for gun rights, but the sheriff of the fourth largest county located near the border, Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, has no standing to sue Obama for violating the law and flooding his jurisdiction with illegal immigrants,” wrote Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review.

The outrage came on the heels of a ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said people “living in the United States illegally” share in the Second Amendment right.

In the ruling, which conflicts with the decisions of several other appeals courts, the Chicago-based court ruled one particular illegal alien was barred from possessing weapons because of a federal statute.

But the three-judge panel said Mariano Meza-Rodriguez is among “the people” cited in the Constitution and thus would be granted the right “to keep and bear arms” if not for the federal law.

He was found to have a bullet in his pocket when he was apprehended, but he argued that the charges that ensued should be dismissed because he possesses Second Amendment rights.

The author of the opinion, Judge Diane Wood, wrote, “We see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded.”

[ … ]

Bob Owens at Bearing Arms said, “I don’t think for a second that the Founding Fathers would support the concept of granting criminal invaders the same legal status as legal immigrants, legal resident aliens, and citizens.”

I don’t go where Bob Owens does on this.  This isn’t about the second amendment to me.  I took a strong stand against illegal aliens and bearing arms before (I cannot recall where, perhaps in a comment at reddit/guns, or at Say Uncle), and was savaged, as if I was anti-gun.

There is a libertarian case against the ownership of weapons by illegal aliens.  It’s simple.  You cannot do things to take actions that adversely affect others, and the mere presence of illegal aliens on my home soil adversely affects me.

Libertarians notwithstanding, you do not have a right to do anything you want any time you want.  Your rights are circumscribed by God.  God gives me the right to own weapons.  God does not give illegal aliens the right to be in my country.  The discussion about weapons for illegal aliens shouldn’t even come up.  Let central and South America figure it out.

I don’t have to turn to the founding fathers to figure this out.  But what’s so rich about this – and Bob Unruh points this out – is that judges who would otherwise vomit at the notion of God-given rights and bearing arms, suddenly find it necessary to expand this right to people who have no right to be on this soil.  It must suck to be a progressive and face logical problems like this.  Being impaled on the horns of a dilemma is the sort of thing that sticks to your innards.

Canadian Supreme Court Rules On Firearms Registry

BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 1 month ago

Yahoo:

Ottawa (AFP) – Canada’s high court struck a blow against gun control on Friday, with a decision that clears the way for the federal government to destroy data on owners of rifles and shotguns.

Ottawa ordered the database destroyed in 2012, but Quebec went to court to try to stop it, hoping to use the names of Quebecers on the list to build its own firearms registry.

The Supreme Court’s decision means that while Canadians must still obtain a license to own a gun, most will not have to disclose that they own a long gun.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a longtime advocate for the gun rights of hunters and farmers, said he was “happy” with this outcome.

But in Quebec, which also fought to maintain the national firearms registry created by parliament in 1995, there was disappointment.

The province pressed Ottawa to hand over parts of the database relevant to Quebec after the federal government shut down the national firearms registry three years ago.

But Harper’s Tory government refused, citing critics of the registry who complained the original had been an expensive intrusion on gun owners and should not be repeated.

Furthermore, the Tories argued, the registry did not help to stem crime.

With both sides refusing to yield and Quebec vowing to create its own registry from scratch, firearms regulations are sure to become a hot campaign issue in upcoming elections.

In a five-four split decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Quebec had simply failed to establish a legal basis for its claim to the data.

The court added that the disagreement over the fate of the information in the registry should have been negotiated in a political process, rather than adjudicated.

So here’s the scene.  The firearms registry is being done away.  Quebec wants the information, and this court case decided the issue.  Quebec doesn’t get it.  In the process, the Canadian supreme court looks a lot like the U.S. supreme court and other morons, and stipulated that in the future, the political process must be used to restrict God-given rights.  But it gets better.

Quebec Public Safety Minister Lise Theriault said the province would move ahead with its plans for a database of its own, allocating Can$30 million (US$24 million) for the project.

If the centralized government won’t help, they’ll do it themselves.  Sounds like New York or Connecticut, no?  But wait.  It gets even better than this.

Earlier this month, Harper earned widespread scorn over comments he made which seemed to wrongfully imply that Canadians have the right to shoot intruders.

“My wife’s from a rural area, gun ownership wasn’t just for the farm, it was also for a certain level of security when you’re ways away from police, immediate police assistance,” he’d told the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities on March 12.

Legal experts and the opposition pounced on the comments to suggest Harper had urged Canadians to take the law into their own hands.

“It’s vigilantism,” former Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant was widely quoted as saying.

“People are going to find themselves facing the criminal justice system and being charged with serious crimes if they decide to follow what the prime minister is suggesting.”

Rather than being a God-ordained duty, self defense is “vigilantism” according to Bryant.  The former attorney general of Ontario is a damn communist.  And the damn communists (and Harper’s Tories) notwithstanding, the reasons for ownership and bearing of arms goes beyond hunting and self defense (American “Fudds” also notwithstanding).  It also enables us to kill people just like them.  The extent to which Americans get that will be directly proportional to the liberties we retain in the face of men just … like … the … rulers … of … Quebec in the U.S., federal, state and local.

The Second Amendment Creates A God-Given Right To Bear Arms?

BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 2 months ago

MSNBC:

Asked about the Second Amendment at a town-hall meeting yesterday, the governor told voters, “Send me a Republican legislature. And with a Republican legislature you’ll have a governor who will respect, appropriately, the rights of law-abiding citizens to be able to protect ourselves…. No rights are given to you by government. All our rights are given to you by God.”
The theological reference was a bit odd under the circumstances. Even if Christie genuinely believes the Second Amendment creates a God-given entitlement to firearm ownership, it’s up to policymakers – humans, in positions of governmental authority – to shape and place limits on this right.

First of all, Chris Christie’s campaign is over.  It’s far too late to convince any legitimate gun owner that Christie would be good for gun rights.  Now that this point is out of the way, consider the way the reporter, Steve Benen, worded this objection.  “Even if Christie genuinely believes the Second Amendment creates a God-given entitlement to firearm ownership …”  How on earth could a man-made document create a God-given right?  What kind of ignorance and sophomoric thinking leads someone to make such intellectual missteps?

As I have stated, “The basis [for bearing arms] comes not from the constitution or any other founding document, but from God Himself, and he answers to no one.  His laws have a deontological flavor (see Divine Command Theory).  He refers to no one outside Himself for notions of right and wrong, and when He speaks, it is right because He has spoken it and it follows the nature of His character, which is itself good.  Simply said, God doesn’t need the constitution, and neither do we need it to tell us it is okay to seek and employ means of self defense.”

For the grand finale of embarrassing brain freezes, Steve believes that it’s up to humans to “shape and place limits on this right.”  God, to whom man answers and who is in need of no one and nothing (see the “Aseity of God”), and who demands obedience rather than demurral, apparently hasn’t spoken clearly enough for Steve, who believes that creatures have the right to amend the word of the creator!

And there you have it.  The much heralded main stream media, who wouldn’t be able to perform good analysis work if their lives depended on it.


26th MEU (10)
Abu Muqawama (12)
ACOG (2)
ACOGs (1)
Afghan National Army (36)
Afghan National Police (17)
Afghanistan (677)
Afghanistan SOFA (4)
Agriculture in COIN (3)
AGW (1)
Air Force (29)
Air Power (9)
al Qaeda (83)
Ali al-Sistani (1)
America (7)
Ammunition (22)
Animals in War (4)
Ansar al Sunna (15)
Anthropology (3)
Antonin Scalia (1)
AR-15s (61)
Arghandab River Valley (1)
Arlington Cemetery (2)
Army (41)
Assassinations (2)
Assault Weapon Ban (26)
Australian Army (5)
Azerbaijan (4)
Backpacking (2)
Badr Organization (8)
Baitullah Mehsud (21)
Basra (17)
BATFE (49)
Battle of Bari Alai (2)
Battle of Wanat (17)
Battle Space Weight (3)
Bin Laden (7)
Blogroll (2)
Blogs (5)
Body Armor (17)
Books (2)
Border War (7)
Brady Campaign (1)
Britain (27)
British Army (35)
Camping (4)
Canada (2)
Castle Doctrine (1)
Caucasus (6)
CENTCOM (7)
Center For a New American Security (8)
Charity (3)
China (10)
Christmas (8)
CIA (12)
Civilian National Security Force (3)
Col. Gian Gentile (9)
Combat Outposts (3)
Combat Video (2)
Concerned Citizens (6)
Constabulary Actions (3)
Coolness Factor (2)
COP Keating (4)
Corruption in COIN (4)
Council on Foreign Relations (1)
Counterinsurgency (215)
DADT (2)
David Rohde (1)
Defense Contractors (2)
Department of Defense (122)
Department of Homeland Security (13)
Disaster Preparedness (2)
Distributed Operations (5)
Dogs (6)
Drone Campaign (3)
EFV (3)
Egypt (12)
El Salvador (1)
Embassy Security (1)
Enemy Spotters (1)
Expeditionary Warfare (17)
F-22 (2)
F-35 (1)
Fallujah (17)
Far East (3)
Fathers and Sons (1)
Favorite (1)
Fazlullah (3)
FBI (2)
Featured (176)
Federal Firearms Laws (16)
Financing the Taliban (2)
Firearms (421)
Football (1)
Force Projection (35)
Force Protection (4)
Force Transformation (1)
Foreign Policy (27)
Fukushima Reactor Accident (6)
Ganjgal (1)
Garmsir (1)
general (14)
General Amos (1)
General James Mattis (1)
General McChrystal (39)
General McKiernan (6)
General Rodriguez (3)
General Suleimani (7)
Georgia (19)
GITMO (2)
Google (1)
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (1)
Gun Control (378)
Guns (900)
Guns In National Parks (3)
Haditha Roundup (10)
Haiti (2)
HAMAS (7)
Haqqani Network (9)
Hate Mail (7)
Hekmatyar (1)
Heroism (4)
Hezbollah (12)
High Capacity Magazines (11)
High Value Targets (9)
Homecoming (1)
Homeland Security (1)
Horses (1)
Humor (13)
ICOS (1)
IEDs (7)
Immigration (45)
India (10)
Infantry (3)
Information Warfare (2)
Infrastructure (2)
Intelligence (22)
Intelligence Bulletin (6)
Iran (169)
Iraq (378)
Iraq SOFA (23)
Islamic Facism (38)
Islamists (55)
Israel (18)
Jaish al Mahdi (21)
Jalalabad (1)
Japan (2)
Jihadists (75)
John Nagl (5)
Joint Intelligence Centers (1)
JRTN (1)
Kabul (1)
Kajaki Dam (1)
Kamdesh (9)
Kandahar (12)
Karachi (7)
Kashmir (2)
Khost Province (1)
Khyber (11)
Knife Blogging (2)
Korea (4)
Korengal Valley (3)
Kunar Province (20)
Kurdistan (3)
Language in COIN (5)
Language in Statecraft (1)
Language Interpreters (2)
Lashkar-e-Taiba (2)
Law Enforcement (2)
Lawfare (6)
Leadership (5)
Lebanon (6)
Leon Panetta (2)
Let Them Fight (2)
Libya (14)
Lines of Effort (3)
Littoral Combat (8)
Logistics (49)
Long Guns (1)
Lt. Col. Allen West (2)
Marine Corps (239)
Marines in Bakwa (1)
Marines in Helmand (67)
Marjah (4)
MEDEVAC (2)
Media (23)
Memorial Day (2)
Mexican Cartels (23)
Mexico (30)
Michael Yon (5)
Micromanaging the Military (7)
Middle East (1)
Military Blogging (26)
Military Contractors (3)
Military Equipment (24)
Militia (3)
Mitt Romney (3)
Monetary Policy (1)
Moqtada al Sadr (2)
Mosul (4)
Mountains (10)
MRAPs (1)
Mullah Baradar (1)
Mullah Fazlullah (1)
Mullah Omar (3)
Musa Qala (4)
Music (16)
Muslim Brotherhood (6)
Nation Building (2)
National Internet IDs (1)
National Rifle Association (17)
NATO (15)
Navy (20)
Navy Corpsman (1)
NCOs (3)
News (1)
NGOs (2)
Nicholas Schmidle (2)
Now Zad (19)
NSA (1)
NSA James L. Jones (6)
Nuclear (53)
Nuristan (8)
Obama Administration (216)
Offshore Balancing (1)
Operation Alljah (7)
Operation Khanjar (14)
Ossetia (7)
Pakistan (165)
Paktya Province (1)
Palestine (5)
Patriotism (6)
Patrolling (1)
Pech River Valley (11)
Personal (27)
Petraeus (14)
Pictures (1)
Piracy (13)
Pistol (2)
Police (194)
Police in COIN (3)
Policy (15)
Politics (232)
Poppy (2)
PPEs (1)
Prisons in Counterinsurgency (12)
Project Gunrunner (20)
PRTs (1)
Qatar (1)
Quadrennial Defense Review (2)
Quds Force (13)
Quetta Shura (1)
RAND (3)
Recommended Reading (14)
Refueling Tanker (1)
Religion (105)
Religion and Insurgency (19)
Reuters (1)
Rick Perry (4)
Rifles (1)
Roads (4)
Rolling Stone (1)
Ron Paul (1)
ROTC (1)
Rules of Engagement (74)
Rumsfeld (1)
Russia (28)
Sabbatical (1)
Sangin (1)
Saqlawiyah (1)
Satellite Patrols (2)
Saudi Arabia (4)
Scenes from Iraq (1)
Second Amendment (154)
Second Amendment Quick Hits (2)
Secretary Gates (9)
Sharia Law (3)
Shura Ittehad-ul-Mujahiden (1)
SIIC (2)
Sirajuddin Haqqani (1)
Small Wars (72)
Snipers (9)
Sniveling Lackeys (2)
Soft Power (4)
Somalia (8)
Sons of Afghanistan (1)
Sons of Iraq (2)
Special Forces (24)
Squad Rushes (1)
State Department (17)
Statistics (1)
Sunni Insurgency (10)
Support to Infantry Ratio (1)
Supreme Court (1)
Survival (12)
SWAT Raids (53)
Syria (38)
Tactical Drills (1)
Tactical Gear (1)
Taliban (167)
Taliban Massing of Forces (4)
Tarmiyah (1)
TBI (1)
Technology (16)
Tehrik-i-Taliban (78)
Terrain in Combat (1)
Terrorism (92)
Thanksgiving (5)
The Anbar Narrative (23)
The Art of War (5)
The Fallen (1)
The Long War (20)
The Surge (3)
The Wounded (13)
Thomas Barnett (1)
Transnational Insurgencies (5)
Tribes (5)
TSA (12)
TSA Ineptitude (10)
TTPs (1)
U.S. Border Patrol (5)
U.S. Border Security (13)
U.S. Sovereignty (14)
UAVs (2)
UBL (4)
Ukraine (3)
Uncategorized (41)
Universal Background Check (3)
Unrestricted Warfare (4)
USS Iwo Jima (2)
USS San Antonio (1)
Uzbekistan (1)
V-22 Osprey (4)
Veterans (2)
Vietnam (1)
War & Warfare (210)
War & Warfare (40)
War Movies (3)
War Reporting (18)
Wardak Province (1)
Warriors (6)
Waziristan (1)
Weapons and Tactics (57)
West Point (1)
Winter Operations (1)
Women in Combat (17)
WTF? (1)
Yemen (1)

about · archives · contact · register

Copyright © 2006-2016 Captain's Journal. All rights reserved.