Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Cases involving carrying weapons outside the home have been appealed to the Supreme Court in the past.  In part because of the wording of the decision and in part because of the various federal courts denying the right to carry outside the home (even in the wake of Heller and McDonald, see also here), I have claimed and always believed that Heller was a weak decision.  It has always needed clarification regarding the right to bear arms, not just own them.  Scalia equivocated in his verbiage in Heller, and even then there were dissenting Justices on the Supreme Court. 

Now, Alan Gura, of notoriety from the Heller case, is back in the news and may in fact be back before the Supreme Court.

On a roll in recent years, a gun-rights group pressed its advantage in a federal appeals court Wednesday, seeking to extend Second Amendment rights through a challenge to Maryland’s handgun permit laws.

“We’re not challenging the constitutionality of having a licensing system,” Alan Gura, a lawyer for the Second Amendment Foundation, told the three-judge panel in a case involving a Baltimore County man’s permit renewal. Rather, he argued that Maryland unnecessarily restricts the right to carry firearms.

Gura said the issue is a narrow one, but much of the argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit revolved around how to apply recent Supreme Court decisions to the public carrying of firearms, which could have far-reaching implications.

In two other cases Gura won, the high court struck down Illinois and District of Columbia laws that effectively outlawed handgun ownership. But the court did not directly address the right to bear arms for self-defense outside the home.

The Maryland case offers gun-rights advocates a chance to win a broader reading of the Second Amendment, upending the state’s handgun permit process along the way.

Under state law, Marylanders must show “good and substantial reason” to obtain a handgun permit. In March, a federal district judge struck down that requirement, ruling it unconstitutional.

The Maryland attorney general’s office, fearing a spike in gun violence, appealed the decision, and the federal court of appeals allowed the law to stand while the case is resolved.

Gura argued Wednesday that because the Supreme Court has held that bearing arms is a fundamental right, people do not need to give public officials a reason they should be allowed to exercise it. He asked the court to consider the implications of applying that standard to other rights such as speech.

“There’s no way we can apply such a restriction to the right to bear arms,” he said.

Although Mr. Obama stated his real intentions rather clearly during the debates, this wasn’t really necessary.  He told us how he felt about our second amendment rights even before that.  Recall that he nominated Andrew Traver to head the ATF, Traver working hard with the Joyce Foundation to develop recommendations for a new regulatory framework for guns involving among other things federal oversight (National Institutes of Health) of the firearms manufacturing industry.  Obama also nominated Caitlin J. Halligan to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, who wanted to hold gun manufacturers responsible for crimes commited with their products (a position that even the New York Court of Appeals rejected).

The next President will appoint Supreme Court Justices.  He will also appoint judges to the appeals courts, and although I could easily come up with 101 reasons to vote Mr. Obama out of office, preserving our second amendment rights is as good a place to start as any.

Mr. Obama on the violence happening just blocks from his own home.

In one of the more dramatic moments of the half-hour special that covered topics on young voter’s minds ranging from the skyrocketing cost of student loans to guaranteeing equality for same-sex, Calloway read a comment from Chicago native Raven, who described her city as a “war zone.”

Calloway asked the president not only how he responds to charges from New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg that both Obama and challenger Mitt Romney are talking about gun violence but not suggesting any action, but also how he would personally respond to this epidemic if re-elected.

“Raven comes from my hometown and Chicago has seen a huge amount of gun violence, especially among young people,” said Obama. “What I’ve said is that we’ve got to have an ‘all-of-the-above’ approach. We have to enforce our gun laws more effectively. We’ve got to keep them out of the hands of criminals. We’ve got to strengthen background checks.”

Obama said his administration has done a lot of those things, but what also needs to be done is work with local law enforcement groups and faith groups and community organizations to ferret out that broader sources of violence in those neighborhoods.

“I live on the South side of Chicago,” said Obama, who maintains a residence in the city’s Hyde Park neighborhood, in which tony homes sit just beside some of the city’s most economically challenged areas. “Some of these murders are happening just a few blocks from where I live. I have friends whose family members have been killed.”

Clearly a personal issue for Obama, the president got more solemn when talking about the upswing in violent deaths in the city after decades of decline. “What I know is that gun violence is part of the issue,” he said. “But part of the issue also is kids who feel so little hope and think their prospects for the future are so small that their attitude is, ‘I’m going to end up in jail or dead.’ And they will take all kinds of risks.”

With that level of nihilistic thought, the president said we have to ask if we’re providing those children’s parents with enough support from an early age, and are those kids getting early childhood education so that when they walk into school every day they feel they can succeed? “If they’ve got mental health issues, are they getting the kind of services and counseling that they need early on?” he said.

“Are we making those investments in those young people so that by the time they’re 11, 12, 13, 15 … they can make responsible choices because they feel they’ve got something at stake?”

Ah.  There it is.  Man is a tabula rasa.  Pour enough money, support, education and counseling into him and he’ll turn out okay.  Take the guns away and give them some money.  That’ll fix ’em.

But I’m just wondering about that trip I took this last weekend to Jocassee Gorges.  We passed all manner of poor, impoverished folk on our way, and homes that would hardly have qualified to be in the inner city of Chicago.  They would have been condemned.  But the people weren’t uninitiated or killing each other.  They all had guns, and it was bear season (with dogs), and in Greenville, Pickens and Oconee county there were more than 800 bear hunters active in the area.  We were carryng guns too.  Here is a picture of Jump Off Rock at Jocassee taken by my son Joshua.

Guns and poverty, but no crime.  Well, enough of my anecdotal observations.  Let’s turn to something more scholarly (via Scotty Starnes).

The recession of 2008-09 has undercut one of the most destructive social theories that came out of the 1960s: the idea that the root cause of crime lies in income inequality and social injustice. As the economy started shedding jobs in 2008, criminologists and pundits predicted that crime would shoot up, since poverty, as the “root causes” theory holds, begets criminals. Instead, the opposite happened. Over seven million lost jobs later, crime has plummeted to its lowest level since the early 1960s. The consequences of this drop for how we think about social order are significant.

The notion that crime is an understandable reaction to poverty and racism took hold in the early 1960s. Sociologists Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin argued that juvenile delinquency was essentially a form of social criticism. Poor minority youth come to understand that the American promise of upward mobility is a sham, after a bigoted society denies them the opportunity to advance. These disillusioned teens then turn to crime out of thwarted expectations.

The theories put forward by Cloward, who spent his career at Columbia University, and Ohlin, who served presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Carter, provided an intellectual foundation for many Great Society-era programs. From the Mobilization for Youth on Manhattan’s Lower East Side in 1963 through the federal Office of Economic Opportunity and a host of welfare, counseling and job initiatives, their ideas were turned into policy.

The 1960s themselves offered a challenge to the poverty-causes-crime thesis. Homicides rose 43%, despite an expanding economy and a surge in government jobs for inner-city residents. The Great Depression also contradicted the idea that need breeds predation, since crime rates dropped during that prolonged crisis. The academy’s commitment to root causes apologetics nevertheless persisted. Andrew Karmen of New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice echoed Cloward and Ohlin in 2000 in his book “New York Murder Mystery.” Crime, he wrote, is “a distorted form of social protest.” And as the current recession deepened, liberal media outlets called for more government social programs to fight the coming crime wave. In late 2008, the New York Times urged President Barack Obama to crank up federal spending on after-school programs, social workers, and summer jobs. “The economic crisis,” the paper’s editorialists wrote, “has clearly created the conditions for more crime and more gangs—among hopeless, jobless young men in the inner cities.”

Even then crime patterns were defying expectations. And by the end of 2009, the purported association between economic hardship and crime was in shambles. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, homicide dropped 10% nationwide in the first six months of 2009; violent crime dropped 4.4% and property crime dropped 6.1%. Car thefts are down nearly 19%. The crime plunge is sharpest in many areas that have been hit the hardest by the housing collapse. Unemployment in California is 12.3%, but homicides in Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Times reported recently, dropped 25% over the course of 2009. Car thefts there are down nearly 20%.

In shambles.  Just like Obama’s economy.  And just like the consulate at Benghazi.  And just like our strategy in Afghanistan.  And just like trust and confidence in government honesty after Fast and Furious.

There you have it.  Impoverished or rich, I think I’ll keep my guns.  They have nothing to do with the choice to commit violence.  That’s a moral choice.

Prior: Obama Calls For Renewal Of Assault Weapons Ban

Jeff Knox explains why the upcoming national election is important, but in the process, I think he proves a corollary (or maybe even contrary) point.

What all of this demonstrates is that Republican appointees to the Supreme Court are rarely “conservative” stalwarts and historically display only a 50 percent chance of supporting traditionally conservative positions, while Democratic appointees are historically 100 percent reliable in backing the Democratic agenda. Even Robert Bork, who is considered an ultra-conservative jurist and whose failed confirmation hearings were so contentious that his name has entered the vernacular as a verb (meaning to block a nomination by defamation), has frequently expressed an opinion that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to arms. I had the opportunity to argue the issue with Judge Bork himself on a radio program in the late ’80s and was sorely disappointed with his position.

The Supreme Court currently breaks down like this: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79 years old and continues to surprise prognosticators (including me) who have been predicting her imminent retirement for years. Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are both 76 years old, and both appear to be in good health for their age. Stephen Breyer is 74 and also healthy. Clarence Thomas is 64. Samuel Alito is 62. Sonia Sotomayor is 58. John Roberts is 57, and Elena Kagan is 52.

It is extremely likely that at least one of these justices will retire within the next four years, and it’s quite possible that as many as three could step down. If Barack Obama is re-elected, it is a virtual surety that any justice he appoints will be relatively young, staunchly “liberal” and have an unfavorable view of the Second Amendment. If Democrats retain control of the Senate, confirmation of an Obama appointee is also almost guaranteed. Even if Republicans manage to take control of the Senate, the odds are almost nil that any but the most extreme radical would be rejected.

If Romney is elected, the odds of him appointing a pro-Second Amendment conservative are no better than 50-50. A Democrat-controlled Senate reduces those odds to somewhere between 25 and 30 percent, while a Republican-controlled Senate raises the odds to around 60 percent. 
In a best-case scenario, the likelihood of seeing reliable, pro-Second Amendment justices seated on the Supreme Court are not great, but each step away from that best-case reduces that likelihood dramatically.

Whether our second amendment rights are further codified or eroded in the coming years is yet to be seen.  Ruth Ginsburg sees reversal of Heller Versus D.C. on the horizon with a “future, wiser court.”  But that’s only part of the battle.  In the future, local politics may be even more important, since the federal government is only one guarantor of our rights as firearms owners and users.

If the particular state in which you reside is unfriendly to firearms rights, they may have Supreme Court decisions upon which to base their intrusions.  But if more friendly to our rights, at least there is a battle to be waged between states and and intrusive federal government.

This isn’t determinative, and it doesn’t obviate gun rights problems, but it does give us a firmer foundation upon which remediation of federal problems may occur, even if difficult and even if the fight is a long one.

Prior: Louisiana, Guns And Strict Scrutiny

Louisiana may be about to become the most second-amendment friendly state in the country.

It is all about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the fight over Amendment No. 2 to the state constitution.

“Amendment No. 2 is a simple amendment. It’s just two lines,” said George Peterson of American Freedom and Supply in Jefferson Parish.

In its two sentences, Amendment No. 2 calls the right to bear arms “fundamental” and adds that any restrictions on that right would be subject to “strict scrutiny.”

Those two words could have a major legal impact.

“It would not only prevent the legislature from enacting new gun laws that would be for the public’s protection, it could also potentially be used to strike down laws, for example, that don’t allow people to bring guns on college campuses, or into grocery stores or bars or churches,” said Eyewitness News Political Analyst Clancy DuBos.

That means more than 80 current gun laws could be more easily challenged in court. The Bureau of Governmental Research opposes the amendment, calling it “alarming” and a public safety issue.

“Louisiana has the third highest death by firearms in the United States. New Orleans has one of the highest murder rates,” said BGR President Janet Howard. “There is just no good reason, as far as we can see, to create uncertainty in this area and make it more difficult to regulate guns than it currently is.”

Supporters, though, said “strict scrutiny” is all about common sense.

“A legislator from some parish or whatever wants to make something that’s non-sensical — like banning assault weapons or sales in a certain parish — you’d have to be under strict scrutiny to see if that’s actually reasonable,” Peterson said.

It is a scrutiny that will now fall on voters, as they decide on Nov. 6th, whether or not the proposal is reasonable.

A lawyer would have a better chance of a clear explanation of this than would I, but here it goes anyway.

There is the rational basis test, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny.  On the rational basis test, it is important whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government.  It may not even matter whether there is an actual interest at stake.  If a court can hypothesize a legitimate interest, then the challenge fails.

Under intermediate scrutiny, it is important whether a law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.  Under strict scrutiny, there must be a compelling governmental interest as a basis for the law, the law must be narrowly tailored to achieved that interest, and if there is a less restrictive means of achieving that interest, the challenge succeeds.

This would be an important amendment.  Many states grant deference to local governments in the application of more restrictive laws.  One such example would be the changes made to my own state of North Carolina early in 2012.  Carry of weapons in state and local parks is now legal (and the Castle doctrine is adopted state-wide), but there are municipalities and cities that have chosen more restrictive regulations for their area.

Thus, carrying a weapon like I do, I have been in communication with the head of the parks and recreation division for Mecklenburg County to track what changes have been made and whether signage will be revised to recognize the legitimacy of carrying a weapon – concealed or openly – in the parks and public walkways near where I live.

Louisiana doesn’t have to worry with that, as long as the people pass the amendment to the state constitution.  The right to bear arms will be recognized as fundamental, strict scrutiny will apply, and many local regulations will be struck down.  They are about to become the most gun-friendly state in the nation.  Even if you don’t live in Louisiana, it’s important to celebrate victories.

From Emily:

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens demonstrated the importance of America’s upcoming presidential choice as he spoke Monday to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Justice Stevens told the assembled gun grabbers of the urgent need for Congress to adopt laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

As the author of the dissenting opinions in the Heller and McDonald cases, which affirmed the right of individuals to keep handguns in the home, Justice Stevens said the high court precedent still allows new laws rolling back our rights.

The 92-year-old jurist explained the landmark gun rulings leave room for restrictions on the right to carry outside the home, bans on certain styles of firearms, elimination of carry rights in “sensitive” places and background-check requirements for private gun sales.

“The Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or the use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years,” the Ford nominee said, incorrectly lumping together semi-automatic and automatic weapons, which already are highly regulated.

He added, “Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cellphone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside, and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using.”

Stevens forgets his history.  As I’ve observed before, “There are always caveats, stipulations and complications when it comes to interpreting and applying the constitution.  But a plain reading of the text requires that if our understanding contradicts the fundamental exigencies and vicissitudes of life as it existed in the colonial times that hatched the constitution, then our understanding is in need of modification.  Weapons were ubiquitous in the colonies for sporting and recreation, protection against animals, protection against people and protection against governmental tyranny (“The British never lost sight of the fact that without their gun control program, they could never control America”).  Each was in its own way a threat to the safety and health of strong families.”

So Justice Stevens ignores the warp and woof of American history, and without that familiarity and understanding, no one, including a Supreme Court Justice, will be able to make sense of our founding documents.

But more immediately, the Supreme Court ruling in Castle Rock Versus Gonzales decided that the police do not have a duty to protect citizens.  Justice Stevens – forgetting (or ignoring) his Supreme Court history – is recommending the defenestration of a clear right (i.e., the Second Amendment) in favor of one that is an utter fabrication of his own imagination, i.e., “some kind of constitutional right to have a cellphone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside.”

Such is the case with washed-up, has-been progressives who simply refuse to acquiesce to the nature of the American system.  Bitterness defines them.

From ABC News:

At the end of a long answer to the question, “What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?” Obama said this:

“My belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.

“But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”

Of course he did.  It’s who he is, it’s what he is about.  And notice that he protracts the problem of violence to cheap hand guns as well.  Well hell, let’s just ban cheap hand guns too.  That will fix the problem.

I’ve already made my views known.  Forcing a family to consider what may for them be an inferior weapon for their protection (e.g., a lower capacity magazine or more human-machine interactions in order to make a weapon function) is immoral.  It also won’t fix the problem of evil anywhere, including the inner city, but the notion that he can’t fix evil with a law or new regulation doesn’t comport with his world view since he is a statist.

Thus should all gun owners, lovers of freedom and believers in righteousness work against both the election of Obama and his evil regulations.  My views have been made known, but Obama had successfully hidden his to the ignorant masses until now (since the masses won’t pay attention to anything that didn’t happen yesterday).  At least it’s good that we’re all being transparent.  This is a breath of fresh air.

There are two more “debates” coming up where there is some non-trivial chance that the issue of guns and recent violence will come up.  Here are some potential questions and what Romney should respond.

Governor Romney, given the recent violence that plagues our inner cities and even suburban areas as we see with the recent Colorado shooting, would you be in favor of closing the gun show loophole?

I’ve been to gun shows, and I’ll be the first to tell you several things.  The last show I went to I talked to several firearms dealers.  People are tight and they’re hanging onto their money.  As you know, the economy needs recovery and nothing you’ve seen for four years looks like a recovery.  Second, if you do happen to be doing well and have purchased anything at a gun show, you know that the firearms dealers must follow the same protocol as they do at their place of business.  That is, there must be a background check and you must fill out federal form 4473.

It is true that you may happen to purchase a gun from an individual, but this isn’t a loophole associated with gun shows.  You can do that anyway in most states, a freedom that I intend to preserve as President by leaving that issue to the states.  So the notion of a gun show loophole is a figment of the imagination of the gun control lobby, or better, it’s something they made up.  It isn’t real.  It doesn’t exist.  It’s a phantom.  And making more laws to control mythical things isn’t the solution to crime.  More laws would affect the law abiding citizens, but criminals will still behave in a criminal manner, which is why I would like to focus on criminal behavior and not law abiding citizens.

Governor Romney, what would you do about the botched operation called Fast and Furious as President?

Thank you for asking the question.  First of all, we don’t know the depths of the criminality yet because the Department of Justice is intentionally hiding information and being uncooperative.  I don’t have any direct proof that I could take to court that shows that the operation was intentional rather than botched, but recent documents uncovered by Wikileaks indicates that at least one Mexican authority believes that there were untoward intentions.  This authority said “Federal authorities in the United States have been quietly supporting certain Mexican criminal empires, especially the Sinaloa drug cartel, in a bid to solidify the syndicates’ reign as dominant powerbrokers … If cartel chiefs cooperate with authorities, “governments will allow controlled drug trades.”  Another bombshell uncovered in the leaked e­mails indicated that the U.S. federal government had deliberately allowed cartel hit men to murder people inside the United States if they agreed to offer their services to Washington.”

If I am elected President, I will get to the very bottom of this sordid affair, and I will go from the bottom to the very top of the administration if my investigation takes me there.  I will pursue criminality to the fullest extent of the law as it is within my power as the chief executive, and all criminality that we uncover will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Governor Romney, if you are President would you stop this internet and mail order of assault weapons so that we can be safer in our homes and places of work?  It’s absurd that you can actually order guns on line.

Thank you for the question.  Actually, you can place orders for weapons on line, but they still must be delivered to a federal firearms licensed dealer (FFL) just as if you were purchasing a gun from your local gun store.  Before this FFL will transfer the weapon to you, you must pass a background check and fill out federal form 4473, just like you must do in a gun store.  So as you see, there isn’t any difference between internet order and simply paying a visit to your local gun store.

As for the issue of assault weapons, I would like to give law-abiding citizens the maximum latitude to purchase whatever weapon they thought best suited their needs, while enforcing the laws on the books to prevent criminals from conducting illegal activity.  You see, it isn’t the caliber of the weapon that one is holding that’s the problem.  It’s the caliber of the one holding the weapon.

UPDATE #1: Thanks to Bill Quick!  Yes, I hope Romney uses this line.

UPDATE #2: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the attention!

David Codrea observes that Obama’s views on guns are becoming more transparent as time waxes on.

A “tweet” sent out today by Gun Talk Radio host Tom Gresham reminded gun rights activists that, despite partisan rhetoric to the contrary, draconian gun control remains a stated goal of the Obama administration.

“Finally! The smoking gun!” Gresham posted. “Campaign confirms Obama wants to BAN GUNS, kill gun shows. Scroll down to ‘Crime.’”

The website he linked to was Obama’s Change.Gov site, created when he was President-Elect, and the page in question defined his “Urban Policy.”

In the administration’s own words under the section titled “Address Gun Violence in Cities” we see:

Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

In short, the president wants to enact a measure opposed by the Fraternal Order of Police because it could compromise ongoing criminal investigations, he wants to end private sales, he wants to mandate nonexistent technology (“Only Ones” exempted, of course, even though the genesis of “smart gun” research and development was to mitigate police “takeaway” incidents), and he wants the federal government to withhold 19th Century firearm technology from “We the People.”

This column noted those goals back in January, 2009, when Obama first took office, noting that some key language had been deleted, with the reasonable assumption that it was done to mask intent and diminish alarm, specifically by someone at the administration’s direction deliberately editing out the words “such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets” from the last sentence.

Yes, there is that so-called “assault weapons” ban being advocated.  I’ve already weighed in on this saying that it is not only unconstitutional, but immoral because it forces families to consider potentially inferior weaponry (i.e., magazine capacity limitations) for their own home defense.

But there is that other phrase – gun show loophole – that’s bothersome.  It’s bothersome because it’s a phantom.  It isn’t real.  It doesn’t exist.  There is no such thing as a gun show loophole.  That’s a ghost phrase invented by the gun control lobby intended to embed itself into the consciousness of the American public.

Guns sold by firearms dealers at gun shows go through the same process as if they were at their own store.  Form 4473’s are filled out and background checks are performed.  But the gun control lobby will say that individuals can still sell to individuals, and that’s right, just as they can outside of gun shows.

The real intent is to enact legislation to prohibit individual sales, forcing paperwork for every firearms sale, and thus creating the beginnings of a national gun registry.  A national gun registry is an evil thing because it is the first step to confiscation.

There are other definition problems in current news.  Wal-mart in South Bend, Indiana, is having some problems.  “A Wal-Mart in South Bend has pulled weapons marketed as tactical shotguns after the Common Council said it believed the sale of such weapons violated an agreement between the store and the city.  In a conference call between the council and Wal-Mart, the two entities also agreed to reduce the hours in which the store sells firearms in response to complaints from the public.”

There’s that dreaded word – tactical – sound and fury signifying nothing.  More shells in the tube magazine, apply a scary word to it, and the city council goes bananas.  But what’s the real problem here?  It gets interesting.

Reverend Greg Brown, a local minister on the city’s West side, became concerned about Wal-Mart’s gun sales after two of the kids in his youth group said they were offered $50 to steal ammunition from the store.

“A gentleman came to them with a gym bag and asked them to load it up with ammunition and come out where they get tires,” Brown.

ABC 57 went to the Wal-Mart off Ireland Road in South Bend. That is when we found a 12 gauge tactical shotgun in the display case, next to .223 high-powered ammunition.

So Reverend Brown’s youth group’s problems becomes Wal-Mart’s problems via a scary story in the news, a word grouping (“tactical” shotguns), and a progressive city council.  Good misdirect on Reverend Brown’s part.

Those same stories discuss the freedom Wal-Mart has to sell hunting rifles.  But take note.  If someone had purchased a really nice bolt action .308 with expensive glass, what would the press have done if this had gotten into criminal hands?  Perhaps call it a “sniper rifle?”

In the hands of the gun control lobby, hunting rifles become “sniper rifles,” home defense shotguns with shorter barrels for moving around corners become “tactical shotguns,” and rifles with a magazine capacity of greater than ten rounds become the extremely scary “assault weapon.”

So far, we have let the horrible and dishonest gun control lobby dominate the dialogue, and they have used their control to invent scary slogans like “gun show loophole,” and words for weapons designed to scare any good mother.  We need to punch back twice as hard, lampooning and ridiculing each and every instance of such dishonest word gaming, from the media to the politicians and whomever else uses those stupid phrases.  It’s one way to bring some manly righteousness to the conversation.

UPDATE #1: Thanks to David for the attention.

From Emily Miller:

After getting a message from someone who threatened to kill me, I was scared. I found myself in the ten-day waiting period before I could get my first gun for self-defense in my home. When the waiting was finally over, I felt a little safer.

Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Detective Kim, who had taken my case, called once a week to check on me. One week I told her that Verizon refused to give out the blocked phone number. She called Verizon’s law enforcement line to get the number, but the phone company refused without a subpoena.

The next few weeks I was a bit more relaxed but kept a careful vigilance, avoiding being caught anywhere alone. I scanned my street every morning and night to see if anyone was hiding. I’m not the only one in Washington who wanted carry rights for self-defense outside the home.

A few weeks after the call, Mary Cheh, who represents Ward 3 in the city council, happened to hold a public safety hearing about the enormous spike in crime in her ward. At the meeting, a woman stood up and said that she had been targeted by a criminal on the street.

The D.C. resident said that she was walking home on Military Rd., N.W. when a man came up to her and tried to rob her. Thinking quickly,  she claimed to be armed. “Just because I said, ‘I have a gun and will shoot,’ he ran,” she reported at the community meeting.

If there were ever a perfect example of why having the right to concealed carry is a deterrent to crime, that was it.

“So I can’t have it on the street?” the resident asked, turning to her neighbors in the rows of chairs. Someone said, “No.” The woman turned back to Ms. Cheh. “You said, ‘You can go ahead and keep it at home,’ but [this resident] answered the questions directly — you cannot have it on the streets.”

She also added, “I understand the power behind a weapon, but by the same token I think law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, we need to have some other recourse.”

I would like to say that the ultimate solution to this outrage is simply to leave Washington, D.C., and head to a location that doesn’t adhere to communist doctrine.

But the problem runs deeper than that.  My solution is too easy, and people everywhere have a right and duty to self defense.  That’s the fundamental issue with Ms. Cheh’s counsel.  There is no other recourse, since the mission of the police is not to prevent crime, but to respond to it.

Ms. Cheh’s counsel involves, quite literally, forcing law-abiding citizens to disarm (a gun in the domicile is an expensive paperweight when the threat is on the street), while only the criminals – by definition – have the guns.

It isn’t simply silly, or confusing, or wrongheaded, and it isn’t merely a policy difference between otherwise well-intentioned people.  It’s immoral, because the D.C. legal framework is forcing people to abdicate their God-given responsibilities to prevent harm to themselves in favor of the social engineering visions of utopia so precious to people like Ms. Cheh.

If your state has a similar legal framework, your mission is to get it changed.

Prior:

Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense

The Rabbi Would Take My Guns Away

David Codrea notes that there is a way for Romney to score big in the first debate.

The Brady Campaign has asked Jim Lehrer, moderator of tonight’s debate between President Barack Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney, to deviate from the announced agenda and ask the candidates questions about “gun violence,” a press release issued yesterday by the group announced.

“Splendid idea,” Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman agreed. “Romney’s first and best answer to such a question would be that within 24 hours after taking office, he would order his attorney general to enforce the contempt of Congress citation against Eric Holder. And, Romney could add, he would also order his attorney general to fire those responsible for Operation Fast and Furious, and if warranted, pursue criminal charges against them.”

That’s consistent with an open letter question asked a month ago in this column of Romney:

Will you pledge and commit, that if elected in November, you will rescind Obama’s executive privilege order and direct your Attorney General to fully cooperate with and assist the Committee in document production and whatever else it needs to finally determine and tell the American people the truth?

It’s also consistent with a question asked of some prominent Romney boosters in the gun rights community.

It seems especially appropriate now that Romney’s campaign is using Fast and Furious to raise funds (although The Washington Times should know better than to refer to the operation as “botched,” and the assertion that “Holder was not aware” is a gross misstatement of OIG report findings of “no evidence” in an investigation where key witnesses with administration and Justice ties refused to be interviewed, and the White House itself reminded the OIG of its restricted authority).

Yes to all of the above, but Fast and Furious isn’t the only issue, and the first debate isn’t the only time.  As I’ve noted before, Romney is better than Obama on gun rights, but the difference isn’t stark enough.  If there are questions on gun rights in the wake of recent events, Romney can go on the offensive rather than sit or stand blithely and rehearse talking points as if to apologize for our rights.  It’s what I would do.

Romney needs us, but does he understand how much?