Are We Still Capable of Self-Governance?

Is the Founding Fathers' ideal of each person governing himself or herself outmoded?

Charles Schumer wants the government to collect even more information on free citizens, others want to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens...

All kinds of stupid ideas are washing up on shore in the wake of the Arizona shootings.  Senator Schumer wants the military to report civilians who fail drug tests at the enlistment station.  Their names would go to the FBI and they would be banned from buying guns.  I don't want doped up people carrying weapons, but his idea would remove someone's constitutional right with no legal adjudication.

One government agency (DoD) reports your name to another (FBI) and your rights are gone.  Sounds like something out of an Orwell novel.  Would the FBI also raid the person's home looking for weapons?

Others are simply, and repetitively, calling for gun control of some flavor or other.  Limit the ammo, or magazine size, licensing...  You can put all the controls in the world in place, but people will find ways around them.

Locks are for Honest People
This is what John Adams meant by our constitution being made for "a moral and religious people."  Religious arguments aside, what he meant is that ours is not a top-down rules-based society, but one where each person governs himself or  herself.  The constitution does not dictate morality; it protects the God-given rights of all.

Such a system requires self-discipline.  As anyone in the military can tell you, imposed discipline only goes so far, and the military employs it chiefly to instill self-discipline.

An irresponsible person in one kitchen can cause an entire apartment block to burn down or explode.  An automobile is a dangerous weapon and kills thousands every year.  Life is fraught with dangers and randomness.

It's a balancing act, and I think enduring conservative principles, as outlined by Russell Kirk in his Ten Conservative Principles are a much better guide than reactionary thinking on the left.  Caution!  It's full of archaic concepts like customs and prudence.

A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be. (Russell Kirk - 10 Conservative Principles)

Concealed carry is serious business

Anti-gun progressives just don't get it, and they won't be happy until the state has disarmed everyone

According to bed-wetter William Saletan, we’re lucky. He tells the story of armed citizen Joe Zamudio, who heard the shots coming from the Safeway that fateful Saturday when a congresswoman, a judge, a nine-year old girl, and other innocent victims were gunned down in cold blood...




 

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting.

BULLSPIT!

Only a gun-fearing, thumb-sucking big-government sheeple could draw such a conclusion. In fact, a reasonable person draws the exact opposite conclusion from the story. Two armed citizens acting not like the trigger-happy cowboys that populate the cringing imaginations of gun-grabbers, but two men taking measure of the situation and acting on the side of prudence and caution.  The total absence of such fanciful stories Saletin conjures is a glaring refutation of his conclusion.

We do not have concealed carry citizens shooting up crime scenes, killing innocent bystanders and other would-be rescuers. I just hasn’t happened. I can say that with confidence without doing my characteristic research. Had even one such event ever occurred in the last 30 years, the liberal media would still be shouting through bullhorns about it.

Mr. Zamudio’s story, combined with the absence of Saletin’s fearful fantasies, proves that Americans are adults and can be trusted with their rights, including the right to arm themselves.

If gun restrictions are so effective, why do “gun free zones” like New Jersey and California experience more gun violence than free-carry states like Arizona, Montana and Colorado?

http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

Gulag America

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
-- Frederic Bastiat, The Law 

New Jersey Man Serving Seven Years for Guns He Legally Owned

When Mount Laurel police arrived at the Aitkens' home on Jan. 2, 2009, they called Brian - who was driving to Hoboken - and asked him to return to his parents' home because they were worried. When he arrived, the cops checked his Honda Civic and, inside the trunk, in a box stuffed into a duffel bag with clothes, they found two handguns, both locked and unloaded as New Jersey law requires.

Aitken had passed an FBI background check to buy them in Colorado when he lived there, his father said, and had contacted New Jersey State Police and discussed the proper way to transport them.(Jason Nark – NJ Man Serving 7 Years)

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

There are three linchpins to this story of a law-abiding entrepreneur condemned to prison for seven years:

Sue Aitken, a trained social worker, decided to play it safe and called police...

The Good: A social worker mother conditioned to call the authorities to intervene in the private affairs of free people.  Her son, Brian Aiken, was distraught over a dispute with his ex over seeing his son.  He was so distraught he...  he...  (are you ready for this) he calmly continued moving his things to his new house.

The Bad: A nation of mistrustful batwinged lawmakers who know no more about writing just law than I do about writing a ballet.

The stinking statist sewer known as New Jersey (I know, Chris Christie is trying) actually has a law that criminalizes a free man who securely transports unloaded firearms in his trunk.  The law is convoluted and full of tedious rules and legal minutiae, guaranteed to confuse a reasonably intelligent non-lawyer.

Aitken's mistake was leaving God's country, where Colorado law allows us to carry a loaded gun in our car.  Men and women are still free out here.  For the bonus round, go google which state has more gun violence.

The Ugly:  A police force that ignores timeless principles of criminal intent and common sense. A black-robed judicial mullah who turns the legal system into his own petty fiefdom

A worried mother saying she is scared he might "do something" is not probable cause to search a man's car, especially if the person is going about his business and not exhibiting threatening behavior.  If you didn't buy George Bush's preventive wars, you also cannot defend preventive justice.  It opens a pandora's box and it is a violation of our constitutionally-protected rights.

If this were still the United States of America and we were still a free people, a citizen with no criminal record like Mr. Aitken would point out to the cops that he had committed no crime, had no intention of committing one, and then politely tell them to buzz off.  But now, as anyone who has done the perp walk though the the TSA Grop and Grab Gauntlet at the airport knows, probable cause is whatever the authorities say it is.

The judge, since dismissed by Governor Christie for judicial stupidity in an unrelated case, turned the law into a game of gotcha.  Instead of evaluating Mr. Aitken's actions against the law and judging criminal intent, he disallowed his lawyer's line of defense and sent Aitken to jail for seven years.

"Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
-- Lavrentiy Beria, Head of Stalin's Secret Police

Gordon Crovitz, in reviewing Harvey Silverglate's book, Three Felonies a Day, explains how the vagueness and complexity of unjust laws provide police and prosecutors a sea of ambiguity in which to fish for “criminals.”

He concludes:

These miscarriages are avoidable. Under the English common law we inherited, a crime requires intent. This protection is disappearing in the U.S.

Prosecutors identify defendants to go after instead of finding a law that was broken and figuring out who did it. (L Gordon Crovitz – Three Felonies a Day)

 A man-made law that contradicts natural law and the natural rights of free men is an unjust law.  Legislators who make such law, and imperious jurists who give them the seal of approval must be turned out.

E-mail Governor Christie's office and request he correct this gross miscarriage of justice and grant clemency Brian Aitken.
 
See Also: Reason – Brian Aitken’s Mistake

Dead and Paralyzed Criminals Commit Less Crimes

Thought Experiment:  If more criminals were shot in flagrante delicto, would there be more crime, or less crime?

The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. (CATO - Gun Control Myths)

Here's a headline from Chicago:

Elderly Woman Shoots 12-Year Old Hellion

Why? Because the little bastard was throwing bricks at her house. He had terrorized other neighbors, setting trash on fire, threatening old people, and committing other acts of vandalism.  Best of all, even in the liberal la la land that brought us President Barack Obama, they are not prosecuting her.  I'm glad to see Chicago Democrats actually do something right for a change.

Meanwhile, out here in the west, wussified east coast style liberalism is killing us...

DA Disarms 82-Year-Old Man, Denver Area Breathes Collective Sigh of Relief

Wallace was originally charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder in February after he fired a shot into a pickup that was carrying away his flatbed trailer from his Wheat Ridge home.

The gunshot hit Alvaro Cardona, 28, in the face, blinding him and causing a serious brain injury, Russell said.

Left unsaid is that the sanctuary city of Denver had caught and released these illegal alien criminals after each of their numerous felonies.  Senior citizen Robert Wallace does society a great and heroic service in paralyzing one of them, and this is what the nanny-state DA had to say:

"The lesson to be learned is that Colorado law does not authorize a citizen to use deadly physical force to protect property," Storey said.

That's just the message criminals want to hear.  Mr. Wallace, unarmed, is now at the mercy of retaliation from the predators' gang-banger cronies.  Way to go, DA Story!  You're a hero!  To the all the crooks and predators out there who depend on a compliant and passive populace.  You're moron of the first order.

Whatever you tolerate, you'll get more of.

Want more ammo to combat failed "gun control" policies?  Get the facts!  Just Facts - Gun Control

Gun Rights are Natural Rights

Self-Defense: An Inalienable Right

Statesmen from ancient Rome to the American Revolution laid the foundation in law for the right of self-defense. America's founders were influenced by these classic philosophic teachings and the European tradition derived from them.

"Civilized people are taught by logic, barbarians by necessity, communities by tradition; and the lesson is inculcated even in wild beasts by nature itself," wrote the great Roman orator Marcus Tullius Cicero.

"They learn that they have to defend their own bodies and persons and lives from violence of any and every kind by all the means within their power." (Claremont Institute)

 

Do you have a right to life?

The right to self-defense is the first and most fundamental right contained in Natural Law.  Without life, nothing else matters.

Think we should surrender that right to government so the state can protect us?  

OK, then riddle me this:  Does the family of a murder victim have a legal right to sue the state for failing to use its police powers to prevent the murder?

American courts have ruled again and again that police have no duty to protect individuals from deadly assault. The only alternatives for a person in such danger are to rely on the mercy of criminals or to carry a gun illegally. No one should be forced to break the law to exercise a basic right. (Claremont Institute)

Your only recourse is to your natural right of self-defense.  Take that away (violate it) and you have deprived a free person of the fundamental right to life.  Welcome to progressivism!

For an interesting and understandable legal discussion, see Volokh - Jim Lindgren

* - Cross Posted at Rational Nation

Gun Rights Don't Come From Government

Justices Signal They're Ready to Make Gun Ownership a National Right 

WRONG!

(It's an El Lay Times headline, so what do you expect?)

Government does not confer this right.  The Second Amendment recognizes gun ownership as a preexisting right granted by God (or natural law, if you prefer.)  The Constitution is a document drawn up by the several states charging the Federal Government to protect this right and not infringe upon it.  Pretty damn simple for this Colorado boy...

False Dichotomy

But do individual rights enumerated (and upheld) in the Constitution supersede a city’s duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens? Because that’s how the City of Chicago is describing its position:

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s response is that the federal government is not responsible for the health and safety of the citizens of Chicago; the city is.

Daley slips us a false dichotomy:  Either ban all guns or we can't be safe. 

A writer at The Moderate Voice gets it right:

So on the one hand we have an individual right, enumerated in the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court — just like freedom of religion, or speech, or assembly — but thus far only applied to federal jurisdictions.

On the other hand we have a city’s (or other local entity’s) duty to protect its citizens. Which should take precedence? [...]
Cities and other governmental entities cannot simply ban a Constitutional right. I’m somewhat amazed, frankly, that it took this long to get this issue decided.

The bogus liberal argument of imperious rulers like Mayor Daley presupposes, generally, that God-given rights cannot be reconciled with public safety, to wit: Gun ownership is a threat to the health and safety of Chicago's citizens.

That is demonstrably false.  Anecdotal evidence to the contrary is everywhere.  Concealed carry laws do not cause more crime.  Anecdotal evidence suggests such laws bring the crime rate down.  Knowing his "victim" might have the capacity to drill a .357 slug between his eyes makes a criminal think twice.  A puny gun ban does not. 

King Daley and his liberal comrades are not so foolish that they believes their own BS about gun ownership.  Like so much of the progressive agenda, this is about power and control.

Gun Grabbers have their Day in Court

Are the 50 states required to obey the Second Amendment?

Or can they do whatever they want, with no obligation to respect our right to keep and bear arms?

That’s what’s at stake in the Chicago gun-ban case, McDonald v. City of Chicago (Alan Korwin)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-- 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution

This will be a landmark decision

Last year, The Supreme Court upheld our right to bear arms in the Heller Decision, but since it was a DC case, it was silent on such bans imposed by states and cities.

The Chicago Case before the Supreme Court is complex and involves much more that just the right to bear arms.  Can the federal government compel states to respect The Bill of Rights?  If so, is this a violation of states rights?

A straight reading of the 2nd Amendment should settle it:  Chicago may not infringe upon a person's right to own a gun.  Unfortunately, progressive lawmakers have trampled and twisted our constitution, and deferential judges have too often let them get by with it.

Jason Adkins at Big Government explains:

But the practice of constitutional law has unfortunately long since been about more than the simple application of the plain text.  That’s because the Constitution—the point of which is to limit government power—is a rather inconvenient roadblock when government wants to do something without restraints.  

Courts, in many cases, have abandoned their responsibility to apply the clear commands of the Constitution and have become extremely deferential to legislatures, especially with regard to progressive policy goals the judges themselves often share.  

Some call this judicial “restraint,” but increasingly, a more accurate term would be judicial abdication.  

This case revolves around not just the 2nd Amendment, but also the 14th.  It's a very long amendment, passed to give teeth to the 13th, which abolished slavery.  Here is the relevant section:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

Gun Rights champion Alan Korwin has written The Definitive Article on this case.  He breaks it down so us non-lawyers can understand it.  Here are some excerpts:

Our brief establishes this crucial point: the Second Amendment protects an American right that is long standing, deeply rooted and truly fundamental, and therefore meets the tests for incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

 The idea that the states should also be obligated to respect the fundamental rights in the national Bill of Rights didn’t arrive until 1868, with the 14th Amendment. And that was a result of the end of slavery — the former Confederate states did everything they could think of to deny virtually any rights to newly freed slaves — especially the right to keep and bear arms.

Is Chicago obligated, under the 14th Amendment, to honor and respect your rights? It says no, it can do as it pleases and screw your rights, just like other abhorrent petty tyrants currently running loose without nooses in the United States.

Gun Rights vs. States Rights? 

Here's a critical issue:  If the court overturns the ban, is it a blow to states' rights?  As important is a separate issue:  If the federal government can use the 14th Amendment to force states to respect a right mentioned in the 2nd, will liberals use this precedent to force states to recognize other "rights" that they invent?

Yes, we’re delighted that the states may be forced — by our friends the feds — to honor our right to keep arms and our right to bear arms. We can conveniently overlook and rationalize any concerns about federalism — the concept that states are sovereign and independent, and in many matters can decide on their own how their territories will be run.

Will gun rights activists end up providing cover fire for progressive schemers?

Force from federal mandates seems just fine to protect free speech or stop search-and-seizure abuse, or to protect RKBA. But how well that flies if it’s “newly discovered privileges and immunities” (polygamy? drugs? animal rights? affirmative action? debt? medicine? carbon neutrality? diversity? greenness? diet?) remains to be seen.

Those are far fetched and unlikely concerns, according to most people in the know.

Interesting stuff. I don't see this as a states rights issue because our God-given rights may not be infringed by anyone.  As for the progressive schemers, the tide seems to be turning against them.

The Chicago Gun Ban Case

Supreme Court Appears Ready To Overturn Chicago Gun Ban Ordinance

If the early reports coming out of Washington D.C. are correct, we will not have to listen to the nonsense Mayor Richard Daley has been spinning for years. Mayor Daley has defended the city's handgun ban as being necessary and reasonable. Reasonable? For Whom?

The New American - Partial Victory Could Have Other Implications

So while the anticipated Supreme Court decision may represent a partial victory to some, and an unconstitutional infringement on the powers of state governments to others, the future of gun rights in America generally looks brighter than it did just a few years ago. After all, more and more Americans are beginning to appreciate that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable gift from their Creator which “shall not be infringed” by government. And that is encouraging news. 

The Economist

Mr McDonald’s lawsuit against Chicago’s gun laws reached the Supreme Court this week. It was the moment gun-lovers had been waiting for since 2008, when the court struck down as unconstitutional a similar handgun ban in Washington, DC. By a 5-4 majority, the justices ruled then that the second amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms” applies to individuals, not just members of a militia. 

The question now is whether this right applies only in a federal enclave such as Washington, DC, or nationwide. Judging by the questions the justices threw at Chicago’s lawyer on March 2nd, the answer is “nationwide”.

The first ten amendments to the constitution (the Bill of Rights) originally bound only the federal government. But the rights contained in them, such as free speech, have mostly been applied to the states via the “due process” clause of the 14th amendment. (“Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law…”) This is the most likely way that the court’s slim majority will extend gun rights to the whole country. 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-- 2nd Amendment to The US Constitution