Georgia Going for Constitutional Carry

The War on Guns: Georgia Gun Owners going for ‘Constitutional carry’

Go and read at the War on Guns. It is about time. I have accepted having a concealed handgun license as an intermediate step. But frankly, from my perspective, no one should have to obtain a license to either purchase a gun, or to bear it. The move to "shall issue" has had a salutary effect on the argument, however, by demonstrating that concealed carriers are a law abiding bunch who don't go around killing people because they looked at them the wrong way. There has been no blood in the streets, or wild west shootouts. But many people hesitate to obtain these licenses for a number of reasons: fears of what a future government may do, fears of being outed in the press. Some want to have the privilege because they have been threatened before, but fear the process for obtaining a license would alert the other party to where to find them. I understand.

A right can not be licensed. You don't require a license to publish a blog, for example, no matter how much you dislike what is said. To do so renders speaking out a privilege, not a right. You can not require a fee to exercise your right to vote. Books can not be banned, no matter how disreputable the content of the book. Then why may the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment be licensed and taxed?

It has been argued that the solution for people who speak reprehensible ideas is more free speech. Don't censor these guys, the free speech advocates say, instead encourage others to offer their reasons why it is reprehensible, and let the public decide. Public opinion will do more to stop such ideas than censoring them. I agree. But then, why doesn't the same hold true for Second Amendment rights. John Lott has argued, and no one to date has made a valid counter argument, that more guns equals fewer crimes. Everyone who can should bear arms freely, so that criminals will not know at any time who is carrying a gun and prepared to use it. This is not vigilante justice, but stopping the crime right there when it happens. If an armed society is a polite society, think how much more civil our society would be if more of us were armed.

The Herald Gets it Wrong

A recent editorial in the Johnston County Herald contained an editorial that touched on something that I had some personal experience with. The Town of Garner recently reacted to the new State law allowing concealed carry in public parks by defining "recreational area" fairly tightly.

The Town of Garner, like a lot of towns, views itself as a "right thinking place, where progressive values of the people prevail." I determined this from watching them, rather than from anything actually said. As such, they had designated public parks as places where you couldn't bring a concealed handgun. Never mind that all sorts of other potentially lethal items such as baseball bats, crow bars, knives, and so forth could be brought to the parks, and in some cases were required to be there. I speak of baseball bats. On December 1, 2011, the new Castle Doctrine went into effect. Among the things provided in the law was that cities could no longer designate public parks as no gun zones. It was clear at the meeting of the Town Council that they didn't want to do this. None the less, they also did not want to finance a losing lawsuit from the group Grass Roots North Carolina, a group to which I belong.

Overall, the editorial is not terribly anti-gun, and I would normally pass it without comment, but there are huge flaws in the reasoning.  A quote from the editorial:

As for those who think that law-abiding folks ought to be able to carry a gun wherever they want, we're sympathetic. At the same time, we sympathize with moms and dads who might be uncomfortable at the sight of someone packing a handgun on the playground. We sympathize too with referees who don't want to confront parents with pistols, and no one wants an athlete or spectator to get caught in the crossfire of an exchange of gunfire.

The first thing to note is that moms and dads wouldn't see these guns. They are called "concealed" for a reason-you can't see them. I am always amazed when this argument is trotted out. It is trotted out for instance as a reason to keep concealed carry out of bars. After noting that it is illegal for someone to drink while carrying concealed (which is where they go first) the anti-gunners will rejoinder with "but what if some drunk sees your gun, takes it from you, and shoots up the place." Of course, no one will see it, because it is concealed.

The piece goes on to note that criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. The editors hope thereby to divert the most powerful arrow in our quiver. But look at what they have done! They have just assumed that moms, dads, referees, athletes and spectators can all rest assured knowing that no one has a gun on the premises. Except they don't know any such thing. Instead, these people are lulled by an illusion of safety.  Any security these people feel is created by some security theatre staged by the city. But if putting up signs could prevent violence, the this little skit on You Tube would be true, along with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

During the meeting with the Garner Town Council, we mentioned the case of Anna McCall who fended off a man trying to kidnap her three year old son will playing at a playground. Anna McCall's story was fortunately a happy one. One wonders if the next time it happens in Garner, will the parent be quite so lucky?

December 7, 1941...a day that will live in infamy...

Mike Vanderboegh is a keen student of history. He is also a great story teller. So, go and read a little bit about World War II that you may not have known, or that you may have forgotten at Sipsey Street Irregulars.

The TSA: Stealing your Rights and Liberties Every Day

I haven't done anything on the TSA (Testicle Squeezing Agency) lately. It is not for a lack of things they do that are worth writing about. In fact, they seen to do something outrageous ever single day. But, in the interests of keeping from going insane, let's take a look at just one little outrage, over at the American Thinker entitled TSA Stops Dangerous Looking Purse. The American Thinker piece links to a video news report from Jacksonville Florida News 4 station. The purse does indeed have a design of a handgun on it. Oh my!

For a number of years now, I have been suspicious that my trusty 1911 might just be going out at night while I am sleeping, and holding up people. Guns do that, you know.  They just go off whenever there is a fender bender.  So, of course, little plastic replica guns probably go off all the time too.

I can believe that there is indeed, somewhere in the thousands of pages of Federal Regulations, a regulation that prohibits replica firearms inside airport "security" perimeters.  Probably the original intent was to keep someone from carrying a realistic replica into the airport, waving it around, and getting shot.  I get it.  But looking at her purse, it is pretty clear that this is not such a replica, and it is pretty clear that it is also not a weapon.

But, all of this begs the question, are we really any safer? The government now violates the rights of every American who steps on a plane.  After all, we don't have to fly, they say.  Flying is a choice, a "privilege."  You could drive a car.  But of course, you can see the slippery slope.  When they start setting up roadblocks on the highway, will they then say say that you don't have to drive, you could walk? This is nonsense.

The 4th Amendment to the Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note that the Amendment, like most of the Constitution, is pretty clearly written. A non lawyer can understand what it says. Note that it doesn't say anything about "privileges" that the government may rescind at will. Notice too that before a search begins, a Warrant must be issued, usually signed by a Judge, stating that they have probable cause, and that a specific person is to be searched, and specific things seized. Searching everyone, or even random searches of people in general, is not allowed, unless they have a reason to search a person, and have obtained a Warrant.

The government has no business placing itself into the middle of a private transaction.  You purchase a ticket from the airline which entitles you to fly on their planes from point A to point B.  If the airline wishes to perform a security check, they are entitled to do so.  After all, it is their airplane and their business they are potentially risking.  If passengers feel that the airline is not doing enough, those passengers are free to take a competing airline instead.  The government does not need to get involved in this process.  The airline could offer to run background checks on people as a courtesy, and have them pre-screened before they get to the airport, for instance.  Such background checks would be perfectly legal as a condition of traveling using that airline.  Otherwise, travelers would face airline security at the airport.  All of this would be legal.  What is not legal, no matter what the Supreme Court may have said, is allowing the government to search everyone who comes to the airport on the grounds that someone, somewhere, might be a terrorist.

I remember as a kid that we could go right out to the airplane to greet a passenger who had just arrived.  Having come to a strange city and a strange airport, it was considered a courtesy to greet them and guide them to awaiting ground transportation.  Will we ever be able to recover any of our lost liberties?  

Banning Assault Pools and Pillows

Ammoland has a very good summary of child fatality statistics in an article entitled More Children Killed by Pillows than by Firearms. According to the article, in 2010, only 65 children (those aged 14 and under) were killed by firearms. That same year, 1,210 were killed by suffocation, and 739 were killed by drowning. Should we ban assault pillows and assault pools?

Every few years, the gun grabbers bring up the idea that thousands of "children" are killed every year in drive by shootings, and from finding their parent's gun and shooting themselves or others.  I hate to be harsh, but the far greater number of these "children" are ages 15 through sometimes as old as 20, who are involved in criminal gangs, selling drugs, running prostitution and guns.  I feel genuinely sorry for the mothers who come on television and sob that their boy was a good boy, but the facts usually say otherwise.  By the age of 18, many have a long record of crimes.

Please make a copy of the chart included with the article.  The next time someone starts yammering on about the number of children killed with a firearm, pull out the chart.

Was Ted Stevens Really Guilty?

I carry no water for former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. But, this is interesting: according to USA Today, Inquiry Finds Misconduct by Prosecutors in Ted Stevens case. Such misconduct was also present in, among other cases, the Olafson case. What I find remarkable is that no prosecution of the prosecutors is recommended because the judge didn't issue a "clear and unequivocal" order that they "follow the law."

Huh?

Now it is necessary to state that the proceedings will follow the law, otherwise you don't know under what set of rules the prosecution may be conducted? Really?  As officers of the court, aren't they supposed to automatically follow the law, or be disbarred?

As I said before, I carry no water for Stevens, but he should have been tried under the rule of law, giving him the full benefit of the doubt. Exculpatory evidence should have been revealed to him. The purpose of prosecuting people is not to find them guilty and send them to jail, but to find justice, or as close as we can get in this world. Sometimes that means jail, sometimes that means letting a bad guy go free. Was Stevens guilty? We will never know because of these prosecutors shenanigans.

Only a 40% Chance the Supreme Court will Rule Individual Mandate Unconstitutional

In Trade is a predictions market, that lets people bid on predictions of the outcomes of real world events. The markets give probablilities of future events happening, for example, Barack Obama being elected President in 2012. People either buy "yes" shares or "no" shares. Obviously, chance that an event will happen is reflected in the price of the shares, which range from $0 to $10. For instance, if the price of the share is $7.00 dollars, the event is predicted to have a 70% chance of happening. As of this writing, the odds of Barack Obama winning the election is 52% The odds of Romney running against him is 70%.

All of this is very interesting, but it seems a little bit like betting on whether or not the Cubs will in the World Series next year.  Strangely, though, In Trade has a pretty good record of predicting the outcome of events correctly. So, it was diappointing to see that trading is going on for a prediction "The U. S. Supreme Court to rule individual mandate unconstitutional before 31 December 2012" and that the odds of this event are only 40%. If the Supreme Court can torture the language enough to find this horrible law "Constitutional" then we are well and truly done as a nation.

The individual mandate in ObamaCare relies on the dubious notion that the Commerce Clause grants to Congress near universal authority to regulate any activity it wants on the grounds that it has a tangential effect on interstate commerce. (It also relies on a clause, known only to Representative John Conyers, called the "Good and Plenty" clause, but I digress.) This was not the original meaning of the Commerce clause. Remember that the States are sovereign. So, one State, Ohio for example, could enact a "Buy Ohio" law that made it illegal to sell anything made or grown in another State if that product was also made or grown in Ohio. Or, the States could have erected tariffs against products from out of State. Congress could therefore regulate how commerce was to be conducted among the several States. They were given authority to create a framework for trade and commerce internal to the United States that enhanced the general welfare. Then, under President Franklin Roosevelt, the Court began taking a more expansive view of the Commerce Clause, notoriously ruling in Wickard vs. Filburn that even grain that a farmer raised on his own property, and which never left his farm, none the less affected interstate commerce. With this view of the Commerce clause powers of Congress, it is hard to see that any activity could not be regulated. It was put very well at the Volokh Conspiracy:

For example, not everyone eats broccoli. But everyone does participate in the market for food. Therefore, a mandate requiring everyone to purchase and eat broccoli would be permissible under the federal government’s logic, as would any other purchase requirement. As the Eleventh Circuit puts it, “the government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life.” Whatever we do, we are always implicitly making decisions not to purchase some product or other, and those choices all have economic effects.

There is a bright spot in all this however, the Court has begun trimming the sails of Congress just a bit. In 1995, in Lopez the courts began ruling that some things simply do not meet the test of interstate commerce.