David Codrea:

“U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton last night dismissed a National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality on Second Amendment grounds of Washington, DC’s ban on the sale and possession of handguns,” the Violence Policy Center crowed back in 2004, before the historic Heller decision. “Judge Walton’s 68-page ruling in Seegars v. Ashcroft upholds the ban, which was adopted by the City Council in 1976.

“In his opinion, Judge Walton … wrote: ‘[T]he Court must conclude that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment’s objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias,’” the VPC release continued.

David has a discussion of the secret authority wielded by judge Walton that’s well worth the time.  Another from Kurt Hofmann.

The problem with that argument is that the distinction between soldiers and “peace officers” (don’t hear that term much anymore, do you?) is rapidly disappearing. Can anyone look at the massive abuses perpetrated by “peace officers” in Boston in pursuit of the surviving alleged Marathon bomber, and dispute that “law enforcement” is becoming an occupying army?

To the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, that’s just fine, with executive director Josh Horwitz cautioning us to “not pile too much on the militarization of law enforcement,” because “they have a tough job.”

Besides, none of the forcible citizen disarmament advocates object to the police being armed with so-called “assault weapons” (although in that context, they might call them “patrol rifles,” or “personal defense weapons“), which we are told are “weapons of war, that belong on the battlefield, not on our streets,” and are thus not suitable for civilian ownership. Does that not make the police who are issued them soldiers?

Read Kurt’s setup for the situation and the argument for the following comments to make any sense.

Kurt is commenting on what we discussed in And Now They Trample The Third Amendment (which WRSA picked up and linked).  Kurt makes an interesting point of logic.  If the gun controllers and collectivists argue that AR-15s are weapons of war, then they cannot rationally and consistently object to the application of the third amendment to law enforcement – that is, for collectivists who want at least the pretext of being consistent and rational.

Bob Owens has a wonderful takedown of the argument that the founders didn’t imagine weapons of war in the hands of civilians, entitled  ‘ … but the founders couldn’t have imagined more than muskets.” (I had asked Bob to give me the URL for this article several weeks ago and he couldn’t produce it, which means that I know more about what Bob is writing than he does, or something like that).

Bob’s piece is masterful and necessary reading.  Using Kurt’s syllogism and Bob’s article, it means that there is no distinction (which also means that the Hughes amendment is obscene), and both that the police are guilty of a constitutional violation and we should have access to these “weapons of war” since the founders envisioned that we would.

Turning back to David, I don’t really find it surprising that this collectivist judge doesn’t believe in the second amendment, even though it is troubling.  What I find most interesting is how he expressed his demurral: ” … the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms.”

Dear readers, listen to me carefully and pay close attention.  Might does not make right.  If it did the Nazis were justified in killing Jews.  The fact that you have guns and are willing to perish to keep them (like me) doesn’t mean that it’s your right to own them.  Furthermore, the government – voters, rulers, policy, pieces of paper including even the constitution – does not confer rights.  The government is not in a position of justifiably conferring anything on you.

Listen again, dear reader.  If you believe that the constitution confers the right to own a gun, you will always be subject to the vicissitudes of constitutional interpretation and the latest hermeneutic fashions.

I rarely press my religious beliefs, but there is a time and occasion for it.  This is one of those times.  Your rights are conferred by your creator, and that’s why they are unalienable.  The constitution merely recognizes and acknowledges those rights.

You have rights to your “weapons of war,” and so do I.  And the police have no right to invade your castle.  And we have a right to demand better of those who would adjudicate our laws than we have in judge Walton.

Read David and Kurt at Examiner.

John Richardson (via David Codrea).

Judge Winston Kidd extended his Temporary Restraining Order against HB 2 until Friday according to “Jackson Jambalaya” who attended the proceedings this afternoon. The state argues that HB 2 only clarified the definition of concealed and that open carry is allowed under the MS Constitution of 1891.

Rep. Andy Gipson (R-Rankin) who authored HB 2 released this statement earlier today before the beginning of the hearing.

“The Amended Complaint filed with the Hinds County Circuit Court on July 1, 2013 alleges that House Bill 2 (which defined the term “concealed”) is unconstitutional on three grounds:

1) “Unconstitutionally vague” …

2) “Overbroad” …

3) “Arbitrary and Capricious.” This is where it gets most interesting. The complaint alleges that the definition “is arbitrary and capricious in excusing persons who wish to openly-carry firearms from the license requirements imposed on persons who wish to carry concealed firearms.” TRANSLATION: HINDS COUNTY OFFICIALS WANT TO REQUIRE GUN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION OF ALL GUNS BEING CARRIED BY MISSISSIPPIANS. THIS IS THE SAME LINE OF THINKING BEING PUSHED IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND NEW YORK CITY, RIGHT HERE IN OUR OWN BACKYARD.”

Vagueness has no bearing whatsoever on the latitude given to a judge, or in other words, this isn’t a good justification for barring a law, and the judge has no right under the rubric of “vagueness” to do such a thing.

Same with “overbroad.”  But it is indeed most interesting that arbitrary and capricious is included, and it makes the case for judge Kidd doing what he did laughable.  Many laws are arbitrary and capricious – the legal drinking age, speed limits, most traffic laws, zoning regulations, etc.  My point isn’t that we should change the legal drinking age or amend the speed limit to 100 MPH.

The point is that if judge Kidd were going to use arbitrary and capricious as a justification for throwing a law out (rather than the more classic reason that a law does not comport with the constitution), he’s got a lot of work to do and most laws would disappear from the books.

No, judge Kidd has another agenda, and it is this agenda that does not comport with the constitution.

Prior:

Mississippi Supreme Court Denies Petition To Undo Open Carry Block

Mississippi Judge Blocks Open Carry Law

There is an interesting discussion thread at reddit/guns on whether you open carry when you hike.  There is some good information, some bad.  Take it all with a grain of salt.

We have discussed open carry before, and how laws against open carry are an artifact of Jim Crow laws.  They should all be repealed, each and every one of them.  Furthermore, see my Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense for a discussion of the ubiquity of weapons and their open carry in Colonial America.

But regarding the open carry of weapons when you hike or camp, you should do it.  There are threats in the East, from Coyotes (which can be aggressive), to Black Bear, to snakes and other threats.  In the West the problem becomes even more severe, with Brown Bear, Cougar (Mountain Lion, Panther or various other names), and even Jaguar in the Southwest.  And of course, there is the omnipresent threat of evil humans with which to contend.

The discussion thread gives some examples of threats (and also see here), and I have given an example of a man who saved his life by carrying a .45 pistol while camping.  Whether legal in any specific state or not, open carry is wise in the wilds since need for the weapon is likely to be an immediate and urgent need.

However unsafe you are in urban America, you are even less safe when you go into the wilds.  Carry weapons.  Have them at your rapid disposal.  Know how to use them.  Don’t be a victim.

Courthouse News Service:

LAS VEGAS (CN) – Henderson police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.

Anthony Mitchell and his parents Michael and Linda Mitchell sued the City of Henderson, its Police Chief Jutta Chambers, Officers Garret Poiner, Ronald Feola, Ramona Walls, Angela Walker, and Christopher Worley, and City of North Las Vegas and its Police Chief Joseph Chronister, in Federal Court.

Henderson, pop. 257,000, is a suburb of Las Vegas.

The Mitchell family’s claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States. The Third Amendment prohibits quartering soldiers in citizens’ homes in times of peace without the consent of the owner.

“On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor’s residence,” the Mitchells say in the complaint.

It continues: “At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a ‘tactical advantage’ against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.

Mitchell claims that defendant officers, including Cawthorn and Worley and Sgt. Michael Waller then “conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use.” (Waller is identified as a defendant in the body of the complaint, but not in the heading of it.)

The complaint continues: “Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants’ plan in his official report: ‘It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.'”

At a few minutes before noon, at least five defendant officers “arrayed themselves in front of plaintiff Anthony Mitchell’s house and prepared to execute their plan,” the complaint states.

It continues: “The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.

“Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.

“Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell’s front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room.

“As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor.

“Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.

“Addressing plaintiff as ‘asshole’, officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to ‘crawl’ toward the officers.

“Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.

“Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple ‘pepperball’ rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain.” (Parentheses in complaint.)

Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint.

He says they also hurt his pet dog for no reason whatsoever: “Plaintiff Anthony Mitchell’s pet, a female dog named ‘Sam,’ was cowering in the corner when officers smashed through the front door. Although the terrified animal posed no threat to officers, they gratuitously shot it with one or more pepperball rounds. The panicked animal howled in fear and pain and fled from the residence. Sam was subsequently left trapped outside in a fenced alcove without access to water, food, or shelter from the sun for much of the day, while temperatures outside soared to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.”

Happy fourth of July, and Welcome to Amerika.

David Codrea:

A three-judge panel of the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled yesterday against the state attorney general’s petition to undo an injunction blocking a firearms open carry law from going into effect.

“After due consideration, we find that the State’s Combined Petition should be denied for procedural reasons,” the order signed by Justice James W. Kitchens declared. “In denying the Petition, the panel expresses no opinion respecting the merits of the matters pending before the circuit court.”

We had previously discussed the new Mississippi open carry law and how an activist judge blocked implementation of the law for what appears to be illegitimate reasons.

With this move, the supreme court has weighed in by not weighing in.  In other words, there is no one left in the judiciary who will stop judicial activism in Mississippi.

The proper way to deal with this kind of judicial activism is to implement the constitutional law anyway and impeach the judge in an emergency meeting of the Mississippi Senate.  It’s called balance of power, and at least in part, America is built upon this precept.

Read it at Examiner.

Just a brief note on a pet peeve of mine.  I had the distinctly obnoxious displeasure of watching a man named Bo Dietl on Fox News last night discussing the George Zimmerman case.  I haven’t weighed in on this case, and probably won’t until it’s finished and I comment on what a huge waste of time and resources this whole thing was.  Circus, it is.

But on point, Mr. Dietl is apparently a former NYPD Police Department employee who now comments on television.  He was discussing guns just “going off.”  The context had to do with whether a round was in the chamber in Mr. Zimmerman’s gun, and while a round being chambered makes the gun ready to use, it also makes it liable to just “go off.”

It’s really annoying when people talk this way.  Of course, a gun does nothing of the sort.  Guns don’t “go off,” regardless of the fact that one can find an article about every day about guns “going off” and harming or killing someone.

Whether you like or dislike the “beaver tail safety” on my XDm .45 semi-auto, or any other model that has a grip safety, and whether you like or dislike the two-stage triggers that come on the XDm and S&W M&P (i.e., brush guard), the fact is that a pistol requires user interaction in order to discharge a round (excluding something like “baking off” a round because of heavy combat and high weapon temperatures, something most Americans won’t experience).

And even if a weapon doesn’t have those features, your trigger finger is your safety.  Without it, the weapon doesn’t fire.  It’s fear mongering affecting unengaged and uneducated people to say that a weapon “goes off” if you have a round in the chamber.  People who know firearms know better.

I guess Bo Dietl doesn’t know firearms.  What a putz.  Maybe he should become educated before commenting on television.  It’s the least he could do.

Concerning the illegal arrest of a man for filming police activities and subsequent  unnecessary shooting of the man’s dog, the Hawthorne, California Police Department responds.

Rosby was arrested for Obstruction of Justice for playing loud music, walking a large dog, and getting too close to officers according to police.

The statement said all of that in its entirety distracted officers from their dangerous work.

And more.

Lt Swain, however, alleges that the officers were also looking out for Rosby.

‘I know it’s the dog’s master, and more than likely not going to attack him, (but) we’ve got a guy handcuffed that’s kind of defenseless. We have a duty to defend him too,’ Swain said.

And in my original article, a commenter remarks as follows (let’s assume that he doesn’t work for the Hawthorne PD but that his comment is similar to what many officers feel).

Do you here that music? That was from this idiots car. This clip shows just the end of the encounter not the moron stopping in the middle of the intersection, being told repeatedly turn down the radio which was causing an issue with cops hearing what was going on in an armed standoff. This idiot never turn down the radio and didn’t secure his dog which is what led to his dog being shot. !00% (sic) this morons own fault!

So let’s deal with loud noises first.  The commenter wants us to believe that the police who use flash-bangs during their raids, who many times discharge multiple rounds from their weapons, who use loud speakers, and who have radios and headsets to communicate, were bothered my music playing a hundred yards away.  Horse shit.

The next thing they want us to believe is that they were protecting the man against – here it is – his own dog.  This is so stupid that spending time on a rebuttal would make me look stupid.  And if you believe this excuse you’re stupid.

Next, it was walking a large dog, or something.  Do you hear that loud noise?  No, not music playing.  That loud noise is the sound of the impenetrable blue wall closing in behind the officer who arrested the man and shot his dog.  They will find an excuse and justification, as God is their witness.  They will protect their own.

I maintain the following.  First of all, the police caused the incident by trying to arrest a man for filming their activities.  It was the fault of the police.  Second, the dog wasn’t a menace.  Men usually know how to handle large dogs, and many women I know.  But this officer wasn’t the equal of most men (or even some women).  He was a coward, and could have handled the dog without the use of deadly force (e.g., speech patterns, commands, physical actions, pepper spray, etc.).  This pitiful officer needs to spend more time doing man-things.

But the police are always right.  If they do it, then it must have been justified, because, you know, they are after all the police.  It has a rather deontological ring to it, doesn’t it?  Besides, the man was one of those bad, ahem, you know, Negros, and must have been up to no good.

The reality of the situation is that he wasn’t breaking any laws, shouldn’t have been arrested, and shouldn’t have to endure a dead dog.  And the police will not be held accountable, the system of law will defend them, and the judges will look the other way.  It’s the way it always works.

Professor Reynolds co-authored the paper A Due Process Right To Record The Police, while he also points to Morgan Manning’s article on photographers’ rights.  But the constitution matters not to the Hawthorne, California police department, who arrested a man for filming a raid, drawing out a protective dog and then shooting the dog in front of him.

As I’ve written before, you have no right to invade my home or kill my beasts.  You can add to that list “arrest me for photographing you, you bunch of statist, totalitarian thugs.”

Oh, and add to that the fact that I think the officer is a pussy. I wouldn’t have had to shoot the dog to get control of it.

Prior: SWAT Raids