Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

The Colorado shooting has brought out the worst in analytical reasoning in what I had called (in a different context) confused and goofy Christians who “forgot all about their theology and think that a new regulation, law or treaty will bring peace on earth and good will toward men.”  There is David Gibson at Huffington Post, and Chuck Currie at Huffington Post, and others.  Gun control is certainly a religious issue (at least for me), as I discussed in Let He Who Has No Gun Sell His Robe And Buy One.  The question “what would Jesus do” if he had the chance to have weapons or jettison them is easily answered.  Jesus advocated weapons.

But it was in this context that a church in Georgia went to court to request legal relief from Georgia’s law that forbids the carrying of weapons in places of worship.  About one and a half years ago:

A gun rights group filed a notice Wednesday that it will appeal a federal judge’s dismissal of a suit challenging a state law banning weapons in churches, mosques and synagogues.

John Monroe, the attorney for GeorgiaCarry.org, filed a notice that he plans to ask the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review U.S. District Judge Ashley Royal’s decision. Royal ruled Monday that a 2010 law that lists places of worship among locations where guns are not allowed did not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion or the Second Amendment guarantee of a right to bear arms.

The lawsuit — brought by GeorgiaCarry.org, the organization’s past president and  the minister at the Baptist Tabernacle of Thomaston — challenged the inclusion of places of worship on a list of places where guns are not allowed –  government buildings, courthouses, jails and prisons, state mental hospitals, nuclear power plants, bars without the owner’s permission and polling places.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has made their decision.

A federal appeals court has upheld Georgia’s law banning guns in churches and other places of worship.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, published Friday, upholds a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the law. The lawsuit was filed by a gun rights organization — GeorgiaCarry.org — and the Rev. Jonathan Wilkins of the Baptist Tabernacle of Thomaston. Wilkins had said he wanted to have a gun for protection while working in the church office.

The 11th Circuit rejected arguments that Georgia’s ban violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion and Second Amendment right to bear arms.

John Monroe, a lawyer for Georgia Carry, said Monday the plaintiffs hadn’t decided whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We’re looking at it,” Monroe said of the 11th Circuit decision. “We respect the court’s decision, but we were disappointed.”

[ … ]

“We conclude that the Second Amendment does not give an individual a right to carry a firearm on a place of worship’s premises against the owner’s wishes because such right did not pre-exist the Amendment’s adoption,” the opinion says. “Enforcing the Carry Law against a license holder who carries a firearm on private property against the owner’s instructions would therefore be constitutional.”

This last part is very important, because the news report has, in my opinion, hit the core of the court’s argument.  It says:

A place of worship’s right, rooted in the common law, to forbid possession of firearms on its property is entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.  Surely, given the Court’s pronouncement that the Second Amendment merely “codified a pre-existing right,” Plaintiffs cannot contend that the Second Amendment in any way abrogated the well established property law, tort law, and criminal law that embodies a private property owner’s exclusive right to be king of his own castle. By codifying a pre-existing right, the Second Amendment did not expand, extend, or enlarge the individual right to bear arms at the expense of other fundamental rights; rather, the Second Amendment merely preserved the status quo of the right that existed at the time.42 Indeed, numerous colonial leaders, as well as scholars whose work influenced the Founding Fathers, embraced the concept that a man’s (or woman’s) right to control his (or her) own private property occupied a special role in American society and in our freedom.

Regardless of one’s views on weapons on private property, this might be a compelling argument if it had anything to do with the case.  This isn’t a case about concealed carry permit holders wishing to carry their weapons when the church authorities had a policy against such actions.

The original complaint states that “The Tabernacle would like to have members armed for the protection of its members attending worship services and other events at the Tabernacle’s place of worship, but is in fear of arrest and prosecution of such members under the Carry Ban for doing so.”

In fact, the church is a plaintiff in the complaint.  So in addressing (under the rubric of the second amendment) the issue of whether weapons may be carried on private property where there is a policy against it, the court has erected and knocked down a straw man.  Instead they could have granted the plaintiff’s petition and still left intact the prohibition for private property when the owner’s policy went contrary to the plaintiff’s desire.  They avoided the core issue in their cowardly ruling – they cut and ran when faced with people who wish exercise their constitutional rights.  Typical American workers can’t get away with such foolishness in the work place and still retain a job.

Continuing with the things we are progressively learning about the shooting in Aurora, Colorado, the shooter’s weapon jammed.

The semiautomatic assault rifle used by the gunman in a mass shooting at a midnight showing of the latest Batman movie jammed during the attack, a federal law enforcement official told The Associated Press, which forced the shooter to switch to another gun with less fire power.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to in order to discuss the investigation, said the disabled weapon had a high-capacity ammunition magazine. Police have said that a 100-round drum magazine was recovered at the scene and that such a device would be able to fire 50 to 60 rounds a minute.

As I have pointed out, the rifle wasn’t an “assault rifle” (since it didn’t have selective fire capability) and the phrase “semiautomatic assault rifle” is nonsensical.  It is a contradiction, since a semiautomatic rifle cannot be an assault rifle.  The police and media are both to blame for sloppy work.

But note also what I said about mass shootings.

“… the most frequent choice for such shooters in order to achieve effectiveness seems not to rely on magazine capacity, but having multiple weapons and magazines.”

Unlike me, he had a crappy rifle and his jammed.  He also had a high capacity magazine.  It didn’t matter.  He reverted to use of multiple weapons.  It also won’t matter to the anti-gun lobby.  They will continue to use this as yet another example of why high capacity magazines should be banned.

My readers know better, and you’re among the first to learn the right definitions, in the right context, the right way.

The Phoenix New Times reports on “assault rifles” found by hikers in the desert of Arizona, and the three weapons – two SKS’s and an AK-47 – according to the news report, “could have come from almost anywhere, considering the hundreds of gun stores in Arizona that sell such weapons.”  The report is followed by another which again calls the guns “assault rifles.”

Northescambia.com reports that a man was charged with discharging an AK-47, later citing a witness who saw “what appeared to be a clip connected to an automatic weapon in a back passenger floorboard.”  Without knowing any better, one would be tempted to think that rogue New Yorkers were running around with machine guns given this news report about a recent shooting in the Springfield Gardens area of Queens.  It shows a picture of an AK-47 take from Wikipedia, with the following caption: “The AK-47 is a deadly assault rifle that can fire 10 rounds per second.”

Most main stream media reports concering “assault rifles” and “assault weapons” become badly confused, with terms conflated with other, and with competing (and oftentimes incorrect) terms.  Thus does the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 become important in our discussion.  Among other things, this act banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, inflating the cost of fully automatic weapons then in circulation to $10,000 or more (far beyond their actual worth).  For most people, it is cost prohibitive to own a fully automatic weapon, and purchase of one requires registration and approval with the ATF and local law enforcement (oftentimes not granted).

Why is this important?  The answer hinges on the technical, formal, official definition for “assault rifle.”  The correct definition comes from the U.S. Military.

Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges … Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters.

When understanding the phrase “assault rifle,” one needs to imagine U.S. Marine Corps squad rushes; the fire team member using the Squad Automatic Weapon fires area suppressing fire while the other three fire team members run forward.  After a certain distance has been covered, the three Marines carrying the M4s or M16s go prone and lay down suppressing fire with their rifles (capable of selective fire) while the SAW gunner runs forward, goes prone, and then the rush continues in like manner until the enemy position has been assaulted and overrun.

So assault rifles have at least three characteristics: (1) capable of selective fire (which includes fully automatic fire), (2) fire an intermediate cartridge,  and (3) mild recoil.  My Rock Rivers Arms rifle has two of the three characteristics, and so it is not an assault rifle.  The confused phrase “assault weapon” pertains to weapons that were banned and later allowed because of the sunset provision on September 13, 2004, and have to do with weapons that look scary because they have collapsible (or telescoping) stocks, forend grips, high capacity magazines, and so forth.  The expiration of the assault weapons ban doesn’t have any affect on the continued ban on fully automatic weapons in the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

The phrases “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” (now a defunct and outdated definition) are used interchangeably in the main stream media, and sloppiness is to blame, even if firearms owners refer to their weapons as ARs (AR is shorthand for ARmalite).  One humorous example refers to .50 caliber assault rifles, a contradiction in terms and an impossibility.

But not all media is as ignorant or reluctant to be precise as the dozens of examples I find daily.  For one such report headlined with the phrase assault rifle, I contacted the author, Jessica Schrader, with the following note.

Jessica,

I am a gun rights and second amendment blogger.  I strongly suspect that the use of an “assault rifle” is incorrect (to fully meet the definition of “assault rifle” it must be capable of select(ive) fire, which includes fully automatic fire).  The phrase “assault weapon” is purely a political definition, and went out when the federal “assault weapons” ban … because of the sunset provision on September 13, 2004.  It pertains mostly to weapons that look “scary,” not to fully automatic weapons.
 
I strongly suspect that the shooting was done with a semi-automatic rifle of some kind, of which there are 50 million plus in the U.S.  Can you confirm that a semi-automatic rifle was used, or was it in actual fact a machine gun capable of fully automatic fire?  The wording in the headline may have been a function of sloppy police department communications, so I am not attempting to place blame on anyone, just get to the facts.

To which she responded:

Thanks for your note. That is a good point- actually, in the follow up we published yesterday, police used the term semi-automatic. We will update the other one. Thanks again!

So even though the police are sometimes to blame for sloppy word usage, they occasionally get it right too.  We may not ever win the battle, but words mean something, and it’s important to be precise.  Jessica Schrader knows this and serves as an example for how the rest of the main stream media should cover the facts.

Much will be learned about the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado in the coming days.  There will be ready-made diatribes, crafted for the ignorant, for the purpose of advocating increased gun control.  But for those who do not choose to be ignorant (e.g., my readers), listen carefully.

“The gunman was armed with a rifle, a shotgun and two handguns …”

It is as I observed before in a slight different context.

“… the most frequent choice for such shooters in order to achieve effectiveness seems not to rely on magazine capacity, but having multiple weapons and magazines.”

I do not know if the gunman had what would qualify as high capacity magazines.  It likely doesn’t matter, because he had four weapons with him.  So in the coming days when you hear more calls for banning high capacity magazines because of this event, remember that those calls are from people who don’t care about whether the facts comport with their agenda.  They just don’t care.

As regular readers know, I am an advocate of open carry.  I openly carry a firearm for several reasons, none of which is to “make a point.”  I hate the feel of so-called “inside the waistband” carry, I hate sweating my weapon (especially in the summer), and my weapon simply hangs better if I use a good tactical holster and carry it on my side.  My home state of North Carolina is an open carry state, and has no stop and identify statute.  I have observed before that no one screams and runs for cover, and all of the boogeymen under the bed that people imagine when they think of open carry simply do not obtain.  They aren’t real.

So as you can imagine, I couldn’t resist a chuckle when I read this paragraph in a commentary somewhat friendly to open carry.

If you do carry in an exposed manner, have you considered what would happen if someone snatched your pistol while you were distracted?  Don’t give me that line about always being in condition yellow, or how you are never distracted.  Everyone can be, and everyone is at various points throughout the day.  You do your best, but your best ain’t perfect.

Sometimes, spotting a criminal is obvious.  Many times it is not.  Sometimes the person grabbing your gun isn’t a criminal at all, but that nice lady in the grocery store line behind you who just lost her job, found out her husband is cheating on her and thinks life is not worth living.  She smiles at you, but she is thinking about death.  If someone grabs that exposed gun, can you defend it?

Here in my home state, nice ladies don’t snatch guns out of holsters and go on rampages.  Nonetheless, thinking about weapon retention is usually in order.  What kind of holster do you have, how difficult would it be to unholster your weapon, and so forth.

But the notion about people going berserk and freaking out and spuriously going on killing sprees and rampages is just the monster in the closet.  Give it some thought.  If you suspect a monster of being in your closet, have your weapon ready, open the door, and if he’s not there, relax.  Be prepared, but don’t be paranoid about it.  Fearing monsters and boogeymen after you’ve already looked under the bed and in the closet is just being paranoid.

Capital Hill is under pressure to adopt the approaching U.N. arms treaty, from the New York Times, to Reuters, to confused and goofy Christians who forgot all about their theology and think that a new regulation, law or treaty will bring peace on earth and good will toward men.

We have been informed that this administration will not allow the U.N. to impose any restrictions on American’s gun rights.  But then again, this is the same administration that: [1] Sent Donald Verrilli and Lanny Breuer to argue against Sean Masciandaro concerning the possession of firearms on National Park land, [2] Nominated Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court (who testified that Heller was settled law, and then dissented in McDonald versus Chicago, agreeing with Breyer who argued for overturning Heller), and [3] Named Rose Gottemoeller to head the U.S. delegation to the U.N. arms control negotiations, the very same Rose Gottemoeller who informed Moscow that the U.S. was open to significant compromise on U.S. missile defense.

In fact, a short tour through the U.N. schemes shows that international tracing, combined with nationalized regulations and controls on the manufacture, transfer and sell of small arms, is the central feature of the plan.  The U.N. program for implementation includes such requirements as no “military style” weapons should be possessed by civilians, a registered and traceable lifetime for every weapon, and so on.  Courtesy of reddit/guns, here is a marked-up listing of the kinds of regulations envisioned by the U.N.

As we have discussed before, the distinction between civilian and military weapons is meaningless today, and wasn’t ever very useful.  Bolt action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, tactical shotguns and a whole host of other kinds of weapons are being used in both civilian and military applications, and have been for a very long time.  A U.N. distinction between civilian and military weapons would yield regulations more onerous than the assault weapons ban (sunset provision on September 13, 2004) ever could.  A U.N. distinction between civilian and military owners achieves nothing beyond what the U.N. already wants, i.e., an international gun registry and lack of weapons transferability, and thus is this distinction a disingenuous subterfuge.  Promises to exempt “civilians” – whatever that means – doesn’t make this treaty any less dangerous to firearms ownership in America.

Missives on why treaties do not obviate or supersede the constitution, while well intentioned and informative, miss the point entirely.  Even in the wake of the Heller and McDonald rulings, there are still four justices on the Supreme Court who fundamentally do not believe in the second amendment, and then at least one who sees reversal of Heller on the horizon with a “future, wiser court.”  Furthermore, the decisions in Heller and McDonald do not address issues such as a gun registry, further controls on transfer of weapons across state lines or even within states, or other meaningless and intrusive ATF regulations.  There is a pregnant field of un-litigated second amendment issues in America, and the existence of an international treaty only complicates gun ownership.  It isn’t obvious that any court, much less the Supreme Court, would find stipulations similar to the ones in the U.N. treaty to be unconstitutional.

Finally, take note that international luminaries such as Iran – known to supply weapons to insurgents in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria – have been appointed to a post negotiating the treaty.  The very real possibility exists that legitimate weapons sales from the U.S. to allies (such as Israel) would become problematic under the treaty.  Taiwan, for instance, is concerned that the treaty could undercut weapons imports.

The silliness of the treaty and its effect on other nations is outlined fairly well by David Bosco at Foreign Policy (even if Bosco is willing to overlook its silliness).

There was a lot of talk at the session about the absurdity that sales of bananas are more regulated internationally than sales of assault rifles and about the need for more states to enact domestic legislation regulating arms transfers. The assembled activists did leaven their optimism with a dose of reality. They acknowledged that the treaty almost certainly would not contain any binding language or enforcement mechanisms. Instead, every country will determine for itself whether an arms sale or transfer is likely to contribute to human rights violations. (Under the ATT likely to emerge, Russia could report that it has duly considered whether arming Syrian forces would lead to violations and decided that it would not. Nobody would be able to gainsay the Kremlin, at least not through the treaty mechanism.)  What’s more, the treaty negotiations will be conducted on a consensus basis (Washington insisted on that), which means that any state can block adoption of a text it doesn’t like.

So civilians in America would be subject to onerous new regulations since America is a law abiding nation, while rogue nations would be free to export weapons as they see fit.  Or in other words, the criminals have the guns while the law abiding citizens are disarmed, sort of like gun control in America.  As I have previously observed, the U.N. arms treaty is a solution in search of a problem.

Not only does this treaty intrude on the second amendment rights of American citizens, and not only is it hypocritical in its intent, it would target the very country who abides by its laws and allow the perpetrators justification for their own actions.  The treaty is just one more progressive, micromanaging, over-controlling, statist solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.  We’ve seen ten thousand like it, and as long as the U.N. gets funding and a home from the U.S. government, we will see many more instances of this kind of busy-body meddling into the affairs of American citizens.

Regardless of what kind of language is included in the treaty concerning military and civilian weapons, it does nothing to address the real problem of weapons traffickers such as Iran, and there is no reason to ratify it.

UPDATE: Thanks to David Codrea for the attention to this.

UPDATE #2: Glenn Reynolds says bring it!

Prior:

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty

From Politico:

From John Parkinson and Jake Tapper:

Days before the House of Representatives is scheduled to take an unprecedented vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, Obama administration officials and House Republican aides met today at the White House in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the standoff over documents related to the Fast and Furious gunwalking operation.

Those participating in the meeting included White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, Justice Department associate deputy attorney general Steven Reich and staff representing House Speaker John Boehner and Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, although neither lawmaker was there.

At the meeting, GOP staffers from the speaker’s office and the Oversight and Government Reform committee were permitted to briefly look at about 30 pages of documents, but both sides were unable to strike an agreement to avoid the contempt vote Thursday.

The hour-long meeting was described by a senior Obama administration official and GOP congressional sources as “picking-up on the offer DOJ made last Tuesday to the Committee” and was a product of a previous conversation between the speaker’s office and the White House.

“At the time [last week], Republicans rejected the offer because they claimed to be uncomfortable making a deal without seeing the documents,” the administration official told ABC. “In response, today we reached out and showed them a representative sample of the documents so they could see first-hand the types of communications in contention. This offer would result in the committee getting unprecedented access to documents showing how the Department responded to the Committee’s inquiry and would dispel any notion of an intent to mislead Congress.”

A congressional GOP aide who asked not to be identified also told ABC the offer was essentially the same as what Holder had presented Issa at the Capitol a week ago: A promise to make a compilation of documents available if the committee ends its investigation and takes contempt off the table. That offer was flatly rejected again today.

Republicans also asked the White House today whether it was willing to make a log available of the documents that the president would continue invoking executive privilege over, but the officials made clear that was “off the table,” according to a congressional source.

Fox News calls this a last ditch effort to resolve the contempt issue with Eric Holder.  This is one branch of our government holding another branch accountable.  At least back when I attended grammar and middle school, Americans were being taught that the branches of government have means to do this, and the practice of it is called balance of power.

There is no reason to attempt to avoid the vote.  The fast and furious scandal is the most significant and obscene lawlessness in any administration in recent history, and maybe ever in American history.  Congress has a duty to act.  As Glen Tschirgi observed:

Congress has an absolute duty to exercise its Constitutional power to oversee and reign in (when necessary) the excesses of the Executive Branch.   While there have been calls for the appointment of independent counsel (formerly known as a “special prosecutor”), those calls have been directed at the Obama Administration to make that appointment, presumably under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution known as, “The Appointment Power.”   But this power is not the exclusive prerogative of the Executive Branch.  According to the case of Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), Congress has the power to indirectly appoint “inferior officers” such as Independent Counsel by directing the Judiciary to make such an appointment with its approval.   This power arises for the very reason that the Executive Branch cannot always be expected to cooperate in appointing an Independent Counsel when Executive wrongdoing is involved.

And recall what I have mentioned before concerning the walking of guns into Mexico for use by criminals and war lords.  “The trafficking of weapons in violation of the National Firearms Act and Export Control Act isn’t a “mistake.”  It’s an illegality.”  As one astute and knowledgeable individual described to David Codrea:

While the ATF, and by extension the USGOV, did not formally sell (or provide) weapons to straw purchases and physically deliver these weapons across the border to into a foreign sovereign nation, the ATF and the USGOV was/were the intellectual author(s) of a comprehensive plan to facilitate the sale and illegal export of weapons to a foreign country. As such, the ATF and the USGOV are the intellectual authors of a conspiracy (I am not an attorney, but use the word “conspiracy” in a broad sense) to illegally export weapons to a foreign country.

Those exports were a clear violation of US weapons export laws, and the USGOV knowingly conspired and allowed those weapons to leave the United States without, (1) A valid US Department of State Export License, (2) a valid End Use statement signed by an appropriate Mexican GOV authority attesting as to the use and end destination of the weapons, and (3) a valid Import License issued by the GOV of Mexico documenting approval for the weapons to enter Mexican sovereign territory. It would not be a stretch to suggest that one could successfully argue that the ATF’s actions, and by extension the USGOV, by facilitating these exports are: (a) complicit in illegal arms trafficking in violation of US weapons export law as codified by ITAR (DOS export regulations), and (b) complicit in a violation of Mexican law by knowingly allowing the weapons to transit into Mexican sovereign territory. Whether the USGOV could be found complicit or guilty of arms trafficking under international law (apart from ITAR and Mexican law) is not something I could speak to. I would, however, offer the following: (1) If any individual or any private group of any national origin had coordinated such an operation, the full legal powers of the Mexican government, the USGOV, and Interpol (not legal powers strictly speaking) would have been brought to bear on that individual or group (witness international arms trafficking prosecutions over the last 20 years), each of those government/other entities would have competed to get the arrest and prosecution headline in their national newspapers, that individual or group would have been immediately detained and incarcerated pending charges, charges would most likely be not in the dozens but in the thousands (as each weapon trafficked can be made to count for several if not dozens of individual violations), and all assets (financial and other, whether or not gained from trafficking) would be seized, and (2) if this were conducted by any number of sovereign countries – in particular any Latin American or African country – perhaps Ecuador facilitating transit/delivery of weapons to the FARC in Colombia, or South Africa providing weapons to a sub-Saharan civil war (create any scenario you wish) – that country facilitating the weapons transit would likely suffer several consequences: (1) The low-level individuals involved, if found by international authorities would be incarcerated (but likely they would never be found), (2) an international court (and perhaps the USGOV under previous administrations) would call for all top level GOV officials (Minister of Defense, Minister of Justice, and perhaps the President – as they are all in the chain of corruption) to be held accountable and tried – and perhaps extradited and (3) the country in question would be labeled as an international pariah, perhaps sanctioned, and certainly black-listed from purchasing and selling weapons and “bellic materiel” from the “civilized nations”.

Thus – the “who knew what when” and the “who told you not to release material that my office requested” etc. is nice to know but gets away from the real issue. The real issue is that the USGOV, through the ATF, was the intellectual author of an illegal arms trafficking operation that violated both US law and Mexican law – and perhaps international law. That is institutional and governmental corruption of the worst kind, above and beyond a few AKs crossing a border.

Far from something to be avoided, holding Eric Holder and the DoJ accountable is a year late.  But it’s better late than never.

UPDATE: Thanks to David Codrea for the link.  Also, I concur with his expectation that the NRA flex its significant muscle concerning this scandal.  David remarks:

The NRA must be involved. Now is not the time to avoid confirmation, now is the time to show the leadership it claims, and that its membership expects of it.

Turning to their politically potent candidate rating process, they can and should make it clear that a contempt vote will be scored, as will members of the GOP leadership thinking about going squishy. If they will not play this card, and before it’s too late, gun owners deserve to know why.

UPDATE: NRA promises to score the vote.

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin has just signed Senate bill 1733 into law allowing open carry in the state of Oklahoma.  More specifically, Oklahoma is now a licensed open carry state.

The measure, Senate Bill 1733, allows those who are licensed to carry a firearm under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act to openly carry a weapon or conceal it.

It also allows a property owner to openly carry a handgun on his or her land. No concealed carry permit would be required.

To receive a license under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, applicants must take a firearms safety and training course and submit to a background check by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors may not receive a handgun license.

The measure takes effect Nov. 1.

Oklahoma is the 25th state with either “permissive open carry” laws, or no permit required, or “licensed open carry,” which requires a permit. Oklahoma now joins Utah, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii and Massachusetts as a “licensed open carry” state.

“As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and a gun owner myself, I’m happy to sign this bill into law and grant law-abiding citizens the ability to openly carry firearms,” Fallin said. “Senate Bill 1733 sends a strong message that Oklahoma values the rights of its citizens to defend themselves, their family and their property. It does so in a responsible way, by requiring those citizens who choose to ‘open carry’ to undergo both firearms training and a background check.”

As I have discussed, I both conceal and open carry, and still prefer the way it is in my home state of North Carolina.  I must have a concealed handgun permit to conceal, and open carry is legal without a permit (and we have no “stop and identify” statute).  However, this qualifier to open carry in Oklahoma is minor, and doesn’t trouble me.  In North Carolina as in every state, a background check is necessary for purchase of a gun anyway, and the only additional requirement to open carry in this case is the day-long class.  Every gun owner should take such a class whether s/he carries or not.

As with those of us who already recognize these civil rights, Oklahomans will find that women and children don’t run in fear, screaming for their lives once they see a weapon.  And the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police smile and wave at me when they observe me.  Your state won’t turn into the Wild, Wild West, and the only real requirement is that the Police departments be properly educated on the new law so that they can recognize these rights.  On rare occasions, dispatchers might have to inform callers that it is legal to open carry.

So with those stipulations, Oklahoma is hereby welcomed to the club as a “free” state.

Related: The Open Carry Debate

U.S. News is hosting a debate over open carry.  First, Lindsay Nichols.

Private citizens should not be allowed to carry firearms openly in public. The open carrying of firearms on the street and in places like restaurants and parks intimidates the public, wastes law enforcement resources, and increases the risk that someone will be injured or killed from the accidental or intentional use of firearms. In response to these dangers and an aggressive “open carry movement” in California, in 2011 the California Legislature banned the open carrying of handguns. Other states should consider similar action.

When individuals openly carry firearms in public, other citizens may become concerned about impending crime and contact the police. In this way, the open carrying of firearms causes a waste of law enforcement resources, but more importantly, it threatens public safety.

How the risk of an inadvertent or accidental discharge is greater with open carry than concealed carry Ms. Nichols doesn’t say.  Besides, the notion that it may be inconvenient for folk would not seem to be a promising line of argument before most courts.  Whether something is legal would be the more important question.  Not much there to see.  On to Mr. Ralph Shortey.

The debate over how some may carry a firearm for protection can only be discussed when the foundation for the carry provisions has been fairly set. Most conceal and carry laws restrict a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution. To say that you may only carry a firearm if you have paid a certain amount of money to the government for a licensing fee and then submit to regulation would be equivalent to telling the press that they must abide by certain rules and pay for the right of free speech.

I recently had a debate with a friend who told me that everyone has the right to defend themselves and that gun control does nothing to infringe on that. The issue this brings up is a very simple one. If you are attacked by an unarmed assailant, and you are yourself unarmed, then for the most part you have the right to self-defense. However, if the assailant is armed or is otherwise stronger, bigger, or faster than you, then the government has guaranteed through regulation that you are not only unarmed but also an easy target. “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It seems like this should be easy enough to understand.

Let’s assume, however, that the carry provisions we are talking about are fair in their access to every citizen. The first question that must be answered is, “Why does the government think it has the right to tell a law-abiding citizen how they may go about protecting themselves?” Some may feel that the best way to defend yourself is by letting the criminals know that you are not an easy target. Most criminals look for the easiest and quickest route to their goal. There is nothing that will slow a criminal down faster than seeing a loaded gun at the ready.

And here, law abiding citizen is the key.  Courts have upheld the idea that states have the right to examine the background of a would-be firearms owner to ensure that they are in fact law-abiding.  McDonald versus Chicago seems to indicate that the requirements cannot be obstructionist, but must be the minimal regulations that accomplish the goal.

I’ve already discussed my own experiences with open carry.  “I open carry, and as I have mentioned before, and women and children don’t run off screaming in fear, and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police, who are well-educated and comprehensively trained, simply wave and smile as they go past me while openly carrying my weapon.  The issue has to do with bigotry and prejudice, not concocted or fabricated problems that it causes.”

I open carry because I simply hate IWB holsters and sweating my weapon like I do when I go outside in the summer with my weapon concealed.  I am not trying to prove a point so much as I simply find it much more convenient to open carry than conceal carry.  The people I’m around never seem to mind.

If people mind, it’s usually the police.  Witness an open carry club in Missouri.

The only issue I have with this example is that, unfortunately in a very strange decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of stop and identify statutes, and Missouri is a stop and identify state.

But the real issue doesn’t have anything to do with open or concealed carry.  The real issue is that this debate is yet another subterfuge to the real aim of the anti-firearms extremists, i.e., the eradication of all firearms from the possession of law abiding people.

At National Review, Robert VerBruggen does a nice job of fisking Jill Lepore’s piece in The New Yorker on the history of the second amendment and gun control.  I’ll leave it to Robert to supply you with the data on how firearms and the second amendment were seen and interpreted in early America.  But the mistake I see with most second amendment detractors is that the claim that the right to firearms ownership resides with the states because of the word “militia” dismisses the context and thus miss the point.

The second amendment makes no sense whatsoever if individuals didn’t own firearms.  The militias were made up of individuals who owned firearms and thus brought them to bear on issues of the state and oppressive authorities.  The ubiquity of firearms in colonial America means that individual ownership was presupposed with the second amendment, even if not specifically addressed.

But as to the warp and woof of Lepore’s piece, all you need to know about it is this silly quote:

Inside, there’s a shop, a pistol range, a rifle range, a couple of classrooms, a locker room, and a place to clean your gun. The walls are painted police blue up to the wainscoting, and then white to the ceiling, which is painted black. It feels like a clubhouse, except, if you’ve never been to a gun shop before, that part feels not quite licit, like a porn shop.

Seriously?  This passes for serious journalism these days?  The best part of [VerBruggen’s] piece was the following comment: “The most shocking part of this article is that people still read the New Yorker.”  Apparently, people still do.  Lepore’s piece is breathlessly fawned over and pushed at The Daily Beast, The Atlantic Wire and other sites.