Articles by Herschel Smith

Montana needs a new Governor:

Score one for modernity. Earlier this week, Montana’s legislature passed a nullification bill—a piece of legislation which would have forbidden Big Sky law enforcement from enforcing any new assault weapons ban or ban on high capacity magazines. Steve Bullock, the state’s Democratic governor, announced today that he was vetoing the bill, in part on the grounds that it is “unnecessary political theater.” (That would be because it aimed to nullify laws that don’t even exist yet.)

Nullification—the notion that states can negate federal laws they deem to be unconstitutional—is a doctrine dating to the 19th century that has repeatedly found itself on the wrong side of history, the courts, and the Constitution. And yet it continues to retain mystifying currency on the right, especially among state lawmakers.

The author’s prose is irrelevant and it doesn’t go down as recommended reading or a useful expenditure of your time.  But Milo Townsend gives us a nice rebuttal in the comments.

Firstly, the notion of states nullifying unconstitutional federal Acts dates to the 18th, not the 19th century – none other than both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison urged nullification of President Adams’ Alien & Sedition Acts in 1798 in the first formal political expositions on nullification in U.S. history, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

Second, the doctrine of nullification is not only explicitly sanctioned by the Tenth amendment of the United States Constitution, but is integrally built in to the essential structure of the entire federal charter.

Milo then gives us a link to his article on understanding nullification.  It’s all good and studied prose and does go down as recommended reading and a useful expenditure of your time.  The money quote follows.

The fact is, that in order to see why “We, the People of the several States,” are perfectly in line with the Constitution when we undertake to judge of the constitutionality of the actions and decisions of any branch of the federal government, we need only to open our eyes first to the rationale that gave us our government in the first place. Once we imbibe a sobering dose of that tonic prescribed by our founding physicians, “a frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of liberty,” it will be evident – dare we say even “self-evident?” – that if our government is truly grounded in republican principles, and is truly a government “of the people, by the people,” then there can be no alternative except to recognize our own responsibility in making such judgments. It is our sovereignty, as free individuals, which gives legitimacy to any power of our system of government, at any level, including the power to undertake constitutional arbitration and interpretation; such powers, then, are therefore ours in primacy, and are only lent to our representatives conditionally. They can, thus, be withdrawn, resumed, or re-delegated at any time by us, the sovereign authorities within this federal republic. In short, the question of whether we, the people, may undertake to judge of the limits and powers of our own federal government is obviously and unequivocally, “Yes!”

And thus does Milo give us the philosophical and historical underpinnings of our republic and the right to hold the federal government accountable my more means than a simple vote.  I have attempted to supply the theological underpinnings in previous articles.

So I have recommended numerous times that (a) the states arrest federal agents who enforce federal gun laws, (b) the states confiscate and destroy form 4473s in every gun shop in their respective states and order the owner to inform them if any ATF agent visits the store or attempts to arrests the owner, (c) the states place arrested federal agents in with the general prison population and prosecute them to the fullest extent of state law, (d) the states stop any additional federal agents from entering the state and forbid any federal agents from in any way assisting those arrested federal agents, and (e) the states enforce the laws of the states – including nullification – with the power of the National Guard or unorganized militia if necessary against the federal government.

If readers have seen this as boisterous chest-thumping, you have misunderstood it completely.  My recommendations are serious.  Furthermore, there is justification for such actions, theologically, philosophically and historically.

Obama moves to shame Congress into approving gun control.

President Obama moved Thursday to put the muscle of the White House and his network of supporters behind a gun control package tracking toward the Senate floor, calling on voters to pressure Congress into backing it as the proposal runs into resistance on Capitol Hill.

The president, in a set of brief remarks from the White House Thursday surrounded by the mothers of shooting victims, raised concern that the shock from the Newtown elementary school shooting could soon fade.

“Less than 100 days ago that happened. … Shame on us if we’ve forgotten,” Obama said. “I haven’t forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.”

Let’s recast that shame in a more truthful light.  Shame on you Obama for surrounding yourself with the props of hurting mothers in order to pass your Fascist measures.  Shame on you for lying to the gullible American people and claiming that any measure you take would have changed the outcome of a dedicated person bent on doing harm.  Shame on you for deceiving the public into thinking that this has anything to do with school shootings.

Shame on you for inferring that any change you make to the laws governing law abiding people has any affect on criminals.  Shame on you for pushing measures more suited to communist China (who supports your gun control efforts) than a free America (I can recall such a thing, although many youth today cannot).  And finally, shame on you for nurturing a Fascist ideology that would turn our freedoms on their head and focus power in the hands of ruling elites who confiscate not only firearms but wealth too.  Shame … shame … shame.

God will soon condemn you, and your empty philosophies of liberation theology and warmed over Fabian Socialism won’t be able to save you on that awful day of judgment.

Someone has been reading my Save The Planet – Buy An AR concerning the blight of feral hogs on the landscape, American ecology and farming industry.

David Codrea passes along a statement from LWRC International where they have told us that they will move their company out of Maryland if the proposed unconstitutional gun ban passes.  I appreciate their patriotism, and I have already weighed in informing Beretta that they must move as well if they wish to survive as a company.

But there’s some fascinating movement in the proposed weapons ban in Maryland.  I must quote at length.

When hunters argued that Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s proposed assault-weapons ban would ruin their sport, state lawmakers were not moved. When devotees of the National Rifle Association cried that it would trample on their constitutional rights, lawmakers did not blink.

But then there were the soldiers, who showed up in Annapolis by the dozens this year and quietly became one of the most influential critics of O’Malley’s gun-control plan. Veterans streaming back from Iraq and Afghanistan have argued that freedoms they fought for overseas would be violated at home.

Some also came with a different, more complicated message that has resonated with lawmakers, who are now considering significantly weakening the proposal by O’Malley, a Democrat, by exempting several military-style weapons.

The very guns the veterans used in war — the ones they sang about in boot camp, slept with, cared for, cleaned, prayed with, the guns that led them down dark alleys and through firefights — have now become something altogether different. They are instruments of catharsis more than violence, a postwar release, therapy through the crosshairs.

Since he has returned from Afghanistan, A.J. Wynne, 24, who was a corporal in the Marines, has spent countless hours shooting in the farmland north of Frederick, Md. On a recent Sunday, he picked up his semiautomatic rifle, put down his demons and let muscle memory take over.

Breathe. Focus. Squeeze.

The weapon erupted into a violent cacophony — 30 shots in 11 seconds — and sent the crows in the treesbolting skyward.

The smile made his beard rise. He reloaded.

Wynne knows there are those who would argue that he is perhaps the last person who should be given unfettered access to high-powered, semiautomatic rifles that are designed to emulate the weapons he was trained to use in battle.

For months after coming home, Wynne would lunge to the ground at the sound of a weapon firing or a car backfiring. At night, he would awaken to find himself wrestling an invisible enemy, flailing and slamming the nightstand and leaving his girlfriend, Tara, cowering at the end of the bed.

The nightmares have subsided, but guns have become an ever bigger part of his life. He sells them, trains people how to shoot them, collects them, and has positioned them around his home so they are never more than a few steps away.

As the House of Delegates debates O’Malley’s bill, the veterans’ argument appears to be having an effect. After passing the Senate, the legislation is bogged down in an influential House committee, where lawmakers say they are concerned about the effect of the assault-weapons ban. Members of both parties say they are considering rolling back provisions of O’Malley’s ban, potentially leaving legal for purchase many semiautomatic rifles modeled after military ones.

State Del. Kathleen Dumais, a Montgomery County Democrat and vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said veterans and competitive sportsmen were central factors in her thinking that a total ban may be inappropriate.

“We have problems with soldiers returning from combat and taking their own lives. That’s a big deal, and we need to talk about that overall in this country,” added state Del. Michael McDermott, an Eastern Shore Republican and former member of the U.S. Army Reserve. “But banning these weapons? For some guys, that’s actually therapy …

While he understands that many like to shoot for recreation or even relaxation, Democratic Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, a colonel in the Army Reserve, said that doesn’t mean you need to have a weapon designed for war.

[ … ]

“I came home and bought an M4 and $1,000 worth of suits at Joseph Banks” to look for a new job, said Obest.

“I want to be able to be an asset to my community if I am needed. If there is a disaster, and the road is blocked and I can’t get to the armory, I want to be able to tell my mayor that, ‘I’ve got this. I’m here. I can help keep order.’ “

First, as for Brown, no one cares what he thinks.

Second, let’s deal with the lawmakers.  I am generally opposed to treatment of veterans which differs from treatment of the balance of U.S. citizens.  The idiot Feinstein wants to ban combat veterans from having firearms.  As I said, she is an idiot and so her ideas are idiotic.  On the other hand, I am uninterested in the cathartic affect of firearms for veterans if civilians cannot have them.

So naturally, I see the actions of lawmakers who insist of being Fascists, but who back down because they might be seen as opposing the voice of veterans as cowardly.  But then again, saying that politicians are cowardly is redundant in most cases.

Veterans mostly just want you to see them as normal people, and for you to fulfill your contractual obligations to them (involving the GI bill, etc.).  I know because my son is a Marine Corps veteran … a veteran of a combat tour in Fallujah in 2007, MOS 0311.  So I’ve put in my time standing at the doorway to my home at 0200 hours looking out into the driveway and wondering if a Marine Corps officer and a Chaplain were going to show up any minute.

Third, speaking of Marines and veterans and guns and what you do stateside, you have made a serious blunder, Mr. Obest, and it is this blunder where I want to spend the rest of our time together.

You’ve made it easy on yourself.  Listen to me, boy.  Take it from someone who is more than twice your age.  God has placed a thousand unexpected things in my path over my lifetime.  You cannot prepare for the unexpected, but what you can do is train your body, mind and soul.  The mind and soul are the most important.

You need to have a set of incorrigible beliefs – a worldview – a set of irreducible axioms – upon which to base your life.  This way, when you face the unexpected you will have some moral moorings upon which to lean.

It’s too easy to imagine that a natural disaster occurs and you are called upon to “keep order,” whatever that means.  Frankly, you’re better off just ensuring that your family and loved ones are cared for and protected.

It’s much more likely that you will be called upon in darker circumstances, and it is these conditions you must consider.  I have asked my own son what he would do if ordered to bear arms against American citizens, and the answer is not only no, but “No, and I will prevent others from doing so.  Not a single one of my old unit would do such a thing.”

So you see, I’m not impressed with the felt need to shoot, although I certainly have that and like to do that.  I would be much more impressed if you would simply cite the constitution and demand rights for not only yourself, but your fellow citizens in the broader context of the intention of the second amendment.

So Obest, listen to me, son.  Heed my counsel (Leviticus 19:32).  Life’s vicissitudes are hard and complicated, and you haven’t seen anywhere near the worst of it, regardless of what you saw in Egypt.

You need to ask yourself some very hard questions regarding world view, morality, and basic commitment to liberty.  Suppose that you are called upon to “keep order” while the statists confiscate weapons, or confiscate wealth, or confiscate children?  Will you fire upon American citizens if ordered to?  I know my son’s answer.  How about yours?

UPDATE: Thanks to Mike and David for the attention.

In what will surely be many to come, the New York gun ban has claimed its first victim.

It was only a matter of time before New York’s draconian new gun law, the obscenely misnamed “SAFE Act,” claimed its first victim Since the oppressive new law was forced through with such haste (and “under a veil of secrecy in the dark of night,” as the NRA put it), and signed by Governor Cuomo (who is already scrambling to change this “Most Stupid Gun Law Ever Made“) into law immediately (because the required three-day public comment period apparently frightened supporters of the law), it ends up not having been much time for that first victim.

Our alleged “gun criminal” is Benjamin M. Wassell, and his supposed “crime” is selling both an AR-15 pattern rifle and a (similar, but larger) AR-10 pattern rifle, both of which had supposedly been upgraded by Mr. Wassell with such now-verboten “assault features” as a pistol grip …

Read it all at Examiner.  The question now is what will New Yorkers do?  You know, the riflemen?  You have a fellow rifleman who has been charged under the new communist law, so what will you do now?

Twitchy, quoting Jim Carrey:

‘Cold Dead Hand’ is abt u heartless motherf%ckers unwilling 2 bend 4 the safety of our kids.Sorry if you’re offended by the word safety! ;^}

Oh, don’t worry over me being offended Jimbo.  You didn’t even come close.  See, every time you wax on trying to be scholarly and serious, I just remember that you’re actually a no-talent Hollywood slapstick man who earns his living making juvenile faces.

And then presto!  No more serious.  Go back to your room in the Asylum Jimbo.  Let the serious people talk about serious things.  Practice making your silly faces, and pretend that what you think actually matters to anyone.

Prior: Jim Carrey On Assault Weapons

Hartford Courant has a silly editorial demanding that we hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed with their products.  Ain’t going to happen.  In one more small victory for freedom, the Senate blocked the wicked witch of the East, Caitlan Halligan in her bid to fill a vacancy on the D.C. circuit court of appeals.

President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill one of the vacancies on the powerful appeals court in Washington withdrew Friday, two weeks after the Senate blocked her from a getting a confirmation vote.

The National Rifle Association had opposed New York attorney Caitlin Halligan due to her involvement while Solicitor General for the state of New York in a lawsuit against gun manufacturers. The NRA said she had tried to undermine a federal law which prohibited lawsuits against gun manufacturers in cases involving criminal misuse of firearms.

The NRA made that claim because it’s true.

Caitlin J. Halligan, who in her tenure as Solicitor General of the State of New York, attempted to hold firearms manufactures and retailers responsible for crimes committed with guns. In 2006, Halligan also filed a brief arguing that handgun manufacturers were guilty of creating a public nuisance.  This caused an almost incredulous rejection by the New York Court of Appeals.

“The New York Court of Appeals has never recognized a common-law public nuisance cause of action based on allegations like those in this complaint. Moreover, other jurisdictions have dismissed public nuisance claims against firearms manufacturers on similar or other grounds… In light of the foregoing, we believe it is legally inappropriate, impractical and unrealistic to mandate that defendants undertake, and the courts enforce, unspecified measures urged by plaintiff in order to abate the conceded availability and criminal use of illegal handguns.” (People Of The State Of New York v. Sturm & Ruger Co., 309 A.D.2d 91, 2003).

When the New York Court of Appeals thinks you’re too radical, you have a problem.  There is much ground to be tilled before we’ve seen the last of Obama’s gun-grabbing efforts.  But this is a small victory, and one to relish.  Now, on to the next task, perhaps destroying the recapitulation of the U.N. gun grabbing efforts.

Ever to be late to the debate and wrong with the facts, Fluffington Post discusses Hitler and guns.

When the president of Ohio’s state school board posted her opposition to gun control, she used a powerful symbol to make her point: a picture of Adolf Hitler. When a well-known conservative commentator decried efforts to restrict guns, he argued that if only Jews in Poland had been better armed, many more would have survived the Holocaust.

In the months since the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, some gun rights supporters have repeatedly compared U.S. gun control efforts to Nazi restrictions on firearms, arguing that limiting weapons ownership could leave Americans defenseless against homegrown tyrants.

But some experts say that argument distorts a complex and contrary history. In reality, scholars say, Hitler loosened the tight gun laws that governed Germany after World War I, even as he barred Jews from owning weapons and moved to confiscate them.

Advocates who cite Hitler in the current U.S. debate overlook that Jews in 1930s Germany were a very small population, owned few guns before the Nazis took control, and lived under a dictatorship commanding overwhelming public support and military might, historians say. While it doesn’t fit neatly into the modern-day gun debate, they say, the truth is that for all Hitler’s unquestionably evil acts, his firearms laws likely made no difference in Jews’ very tenuous odds of survival.

“Objectively, it might have made things worse” if the Jews who fought the Nazis in the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising in Poland had more and better guns, said historian Steve Paulsson, an expert on the period whose Jewish family survived the city’s destruction.

It’s difficult to imagine how it could be worse than gas chambers and ovens to commit genocide, but they aren’t reluctant to cite an absurd comment like that because it’s a failing organization.  It’s a wonder anyone will write for or talk to them.

The record is clear.

… the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as “communists.” After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun control law in 1938, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state.

Furthermore, regarding the specifics:

… control over weapons that have collapsible or telescoping capabilities, easy take-down and modularity, lights, no so-called “sporting purpose,” and magazines more than a pre-determined amount has its roots in Nazi Germany.

Again, the record is clear.  Today, potential enemies of the state includes everyone except law enforcement, and the controls that the current administration advocates are to be found in Nazi Germany.

No one has ever claimed that either the Obama administration or Adolf Hitler wanted the disappearance of all guns.  They just want guns in the “right hands.”

Over at David’s place he is talking about making an AA-12, and taunting the police about it.  Read it at Examiner.

Over at Mike’s place, he is wondering when anyone is going to notice that an awful lot of ammunition is being sold.

You wonder when somebody on the other side besides the analysts in the Three Letters are going to notice. Deep in bowels of the FBI. CIA and DHS, THEY notice and are passing warnings up the chain, or so I am told. But the politicians either don’t believe them or don’t get it.

Over at Kurt’s place he is talking about an awful lot of people unwilling to relinquish their firearms.  Matt Bracken weighs in with comment as follows.

Please watch the new 5 minute youtube mini-documentary “Democide: Socialism, Tyranny, Guns and Freedom.” Socialist dictators (and they were often very popular) murdered over 200 million innocent victims in the 20th century. And in every case, they disarmed them first in the name of “public safety.” (Sound familar?) And in every case, they began the process of democide with “commonsense” gun registration. 1. Registration 2. Confiscation 3. Extermination. Ask the Armenians, the Jews or the Russian “kulaks” if they were treated better, or worse, by their oppressors after they were disarmed and helpless. Actually, they were exterminated. As an older, male, Christian “bitter clinger,” I refuse to be an Armenian Jewish Kulak. Molon Labe!

Over at Bob’s place, he has a different take.  I’m not smart enough to know which is right.  I know which side I’m on, and that’s all I need to know.

Bob is also talking about Colt possibly leaving Connecticut.  Maybe they listened to my warning (although my commenter on this article has a strong demurral – with which I’m not smart enough to disagree).

Bob is also (correctly) pointing out that gun control is part of the overall plan, which is people control (which I also point out here).  I commented thusly.

When the people demand cradle to grave security and overwatch, the state responds with cradle to grave demand for omniscience for itself and cradle to grave compliance by the people.  It’s a deal with the devil for our soul, and America has made it a long time ago.

The demands of totalitarianism are comprehensive.  Finally, Western Rifle Shooters tells us that the recent financial crisis in Cyprus is headed here.

Listen folks.  The only way I know to tell you the state of affairs is this.  Would you stop them with force if they try to take your weapons?  If not, they will.  Let’s take it to the next level.  Would you stop them if they try to take your wealth?  If you have no guns, they will.  The wealth for which you have worked all of your life will be gone in an instant to try to pay for the trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities in America, which amounts to more wealth than the world has at its disposal (so not even confiscation of wealth will work to save a failing system).

Finally, would you use force to prevent them from taking your child?  As we know, this isn’t far fetched at all.  What if one day your wife takes a picture of you and your one year old little boy, or grandson (a truly precious picture for a life’s memory when you grow old), with your boy unclothed and sleeping on your shoulder or chest, your wife releases that photo to some presumed friends, and suddenly you find yourself staring down the barrel of a gun from a SWAT team member supporting a DSS agent who wants to arrest you and take the child to a father who can raise him with proper sensibilities – and talk about his “private parts being private?”  What is your threshold?  When will you stop them?

Reuters:

New York state lawmakers are considering amendments to the state’s sweeping new gun control law, including repealing a ban on magazines that hold more than seven bullets, Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Wednesday, describing most of the changes as technical.

The law, passed January 15, a month after the massacre at a Connecticut elementary school, also requires gun owners to register most guns with the state and requires universal background checks.

[ … ]

Cuomo and legislators have been discussing “technical corrections” to the law, the governor told a news conference.

A provision banning magazines that hold more than seven bullets beginning April 15 would likely be repealed, as magazines generally hold 10 bullets.

“There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine,” Cuomo said.

Under the proposal, gun owners would be barred from loading more than seven bullets at a time, he said, unless they are at a shooting range or participating in a competition.

First of all, regarding this issue of seven cartridges in the magazine, Kimber makes plenty such magazines for their 1911’s.  Second, please stop saying that bullets go in magazines, you ignorant moron.  Complete cartridges go in magazines.

But to the substance of the report, take careful note again what the Governor said.  At shooting competitions (we can guess they mean IDPA or 3-gun competitions or some similar event), shooters could load more than seven cartridges in their magazines.  Likewise for ranges.  But if they’re home preparing to defend their families at night, it would presumably mean that gun owners would be committing a felony by loading more than seven cartridges.

This assumes that anyone would be willing to defend themselves from a home invasion and then rather than unloading the balance of the magazine, they admitted to law enforcement that they had more than seven loaded.  Of course, it might take more than seven to defend against the home invasion, which is the point of this ridiculous dance anyway.

Note again.  Voluntarily acquiescing to load no more than seven cartridges in your magazines when you need them, and loading them up to capacity when you don’t.

This has to be the most stupid law ever proposed by the most stupid people on earth.  But of course regarding the people, we knew that already, didn’t we?