Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Vox.

I reached out to Stephen Gutowski, the founder of TheReload.com and a longtime reporter on the gun beat, for the latest episode of Vox Conversations. Gutowski is pro-gun, but he’s also a good-faith voice in this space, and I was looking for someone who could make his side of the argument intelligible to people who don’t understand it.

We talk about my own ambivalence on this issue, the blind spots on the left and right, how he makes sense of America’s obsession with guns, and if he thinks we can ever find a way out of the scorched-earth debate we seem to be stuck in.

Notice the term categorization and scorched earth policies the writer uses right up front.  Only someone who is willing to compromise is debating in “good faith.”  Second, anyone who likes to shoot, for hunting, or sporting purposes like three-gun, two-gun, precision rifle, or simply range shooting, has an “obsession with guns.”  Or anyone who believes that all gun control laws are an infringement upon liberties is obsessed.

Next in our little survey of this conversation, “pro-gun” Stephen Gutowski makes the following statement.

I think that there’s often a lack of focus on trying to come up with real solutions for gun violence. [The gun-control movement is] often looked at instinctively as attempts to restrict gun ownership or gun rights. But restricting gun ownership is not the only thing you can do to address gun violence. So there’s just not enough focus from the right on all the potential solutions that might make a difference without necessarily impacting individual gun rights.

Take note.  Restricting gun ownership isn’t the only thing you can do to address violent, and also take careful note that in order to be a legitimate and good faith advocate for gun rights, you must engage a debate about things you can do to reduce violence.  Much more on that in a moment.  Next, the “pro-gun rights” guys says this.

The president likes to say that no amendment is unlimited, and, frankly, he’s right there.

Next up, here’s that time-honored tradition of asserting that a piece of metal can change human psychology.

How much training is enough? I’m a veteran; I was trained to use a pistol and a rifle, but that was 20 years ago. I’ve barely fired any guns since I left the service. I don’t think I’m prepared to walk around town with a gun on my hip. And that’s not because I can’t shoot, it’s because possessing a gun can change the dynamics of an otherwise trivial confrontation and not being prepared for that responsibility is dangerous, and I worry that most people have even less training than I do.

[ … ]

My worry is that having a gun increases the likelihood that a bad interaction will escalate needlessly. There are a lot of people who think they’ll be safer with a gun, and in some cases, they surely will be, but often pulling a gun in order to neutralize a situation only intensifies it.

Sure, a potential rape victim is only intensifying the situation if she pulls a gun.

To give you an example, I was in the grocery store a few weeks ago in southern Mississippi, and there was a guy in line in front of me with a 9-millimeter on his hip. I’ll be charitable and say he didn’t look trained. But the point is that I don’t get what’s going on there. Carrying a concealed gun is one thing, but this guy wanted everyone to see it. To me that’s inviting aggression or it’s just dumb posturing. I don’t buy that he’s seriously scared of being assaulted in the produce aisle.

What am I missing here?

Let me explain what you’re missing here, and then the reader can go read the rest of this silly conversation as he wishes.

When people make the decision to carry and take it seriously, as one might have car insurance or health insurance or life insurance, or carry an emergency suction device for choking victims (I read just recently about a child who was choking on her food and saved by a stranger who just happens to carry such a device as part of their planning for emergencies), they are making the decision to be disciplined about it.

That means carrying even when you don’t like it.  I hate carrying things on my person.  I don’t wear jewelry, I don’t wear watches, and even hate carrying my phone around and won’t do it if I don’t have to.

But in this case, I will carry a firearm because of [we’ll call it] “The practice of discipline.”  For those who are in that category, they may just hate to carry IWB.  It sweats the weapon and corrodes it, it’s uncomfortable, and it’s unnecessary.  No, we’re not trying to prove something.  It’s just the way we choose to carry.  And finally, there was a time in American history when it was considered unlike a gentleman to carry a weapon concealed.  No gentleman, it was thought, would conceal his weapons.  Open carry was the order of the day.  And it’s easier for men to conceal than women.  Men can hide weapons in our girth.  It’s much more difficult for most women to do that.

So let’s get the root of the problem here.  The constitution isn’t a source of rights.  It is a contract and covenant.  The bill of rights constitutes limitations on governmental overreach.  The root of the problem is that no matter what these writers feel about the limitations on amendments, rights (and duties) come from the Almighty.  We’ve discussed this before.

But if you wish for more direct evidence of ownership of weapons in the Scriptures, look no further than what Jesus commanded in Luke 22:36.  Let’s look at the cultural context for a moment.

… for some evidence, see Digest 48.6.1: collecting weapons ‘beyond those customary for hunting or for a journey by land or sea’ is forbidden; 48.6.3.1 forbids a man ‘of full age’ appearing in public with a weapon (telum) (references and translation are from Mommsen 1985). See also Mommsen 1899: 564 n. 2; 657-58 n. 1; and Linderski 2007: 102-103 (though he cites only Mommsen). Other laws from the same context of the Digest sometimes cited in this regard are not as worthwhile for my purposes because they seem to be forbidding the possession of weapons with criminal intent. But for the outright forbidding of being armed while in public in Rome, see Cicero’s letter to his brother relating an incident in Rome in which a man, who is apparently falsely accused of plotting an assassination, is nonetheless arrested merely for having confessed to having been armed with a dagger while in the city: To Atticus, Letter 44 (II.24). See also Cicero, Philippics 5.6 (§17). Finally we may cite a letter that Synesius of Cyrene wrote to his brother, probably sometime around the year 400 ce. The brother had apparently questioned the legality of Synesius having his household produce weapons to defend themselves against marauding bands. Synesius points out that there are no Roman legions anywhere near for protection, but he seems reluctantly to admit that he is engaged in an illegal act (Letter 107; for English trans., see Fitzgerald 1926).

In this passage, Jesus is quite literally ordering His disciples to ignore the Roman laws and disobey them, buy weapons, and be ready to use them.  He is turning His disciples into lawbreakers for the sake of having self defense.

At its roots, these are issues of epistemology (your source of knowledge), ontology, and Biblical law.  Neither author gets that.  To assert that the only ones who are debating “in good faith” are the ones willing to compromise, is to assert that we should be willing to negotiate away God’s law and settle for enslavement rather than liberty.  What God has granted, no man can take away.  Why would a man choose enslavement when God has set him free?

And mark this down for your records.  I had only been exposed to “The Reload” once before, and this time it is even more distasteful.  I don’t consider him to be a legitimate defender of gun rights and will never cite him.  Be careful, Mr. Gutowski, who you befriend.

As for having these debates, this is an ongoing process here on these pages.  We just don’t compromise.  If you believe that you have to compromise to have a debate, I don’t think you understand the word “debate” at all.

News from Indiana.

Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb made Constitutional Carry the law in Indiana on March 21.

This will allow any Indiana resident over 18-years-old who qualifies to carry a handgun on their person without a permit to do so.

Vanderburgh County Sheriff Dave Wedding says that it could make law enforcement’s jobs considerably harder.

“Now, if you have maybe three people who shouldn’t possess a weapon inside of a vehicle, and they get stopped by police and there is a weapon,” said Wedding, “they can have some young person, 18-year-old person in the car and just claim, hey, those are my guns.”

So what?  It’s none of your business.  Mind you own business, nosey.  Issue the traffic citation and move on.

Officials say on July 1 no one in Indiana will be required to have a carry permit.

Good.  Constitutional carry comes to yet another state, and here’s yet another prediction.  There won’t be blood running in the streets and regardless of the predictions of chicken little, the sky won’t fall.

Now.  How about South Carolina?

Police1.

“Of course this makes things much more difficult for our officers. It really limits the scope of the effectiveness in which we can do our jobs. If an officer needs to take a firearm from somebody, I can totally see the potential for that situation to escalate if the person isn’t wanting to and thinks that the officer doesn’t have a right to do that,” said Hanceville Police Chief Bob Long.

But at least someone makes some sense of this.

David Nunn, retired law enforcement officer and General Manager of Cullman Shooting Sports, says that the change in the law should result in little-to-no change in an officers day to day operations.

“Any officer worth his salt should already be treating every individual they come in contact with as if they are armed. They should approach people with courtesy and respect, but with the idea they are in possession of a weapon of some kind also.”

Cullman Police Chief Kenny Culpepper agrees for the most part, but says an important tool has been taken away from officers.

“Things shouldn’t look that much different as far as how officers conduct themselves, we are trained to be prepared for that worst case situation, although permits were a useful tool that we could use to make sure the guys that didn’t need to have firearms didn’t have them, and now we don’t have that.”

Oh blah, blah, blah, prattle and blather and drivel.

If someone is breaking the law, then arrest and disarm them.  If they’re not, whether they’re carrying a weapon is none of your business because it’s not against the law to carry without a permit now.  Whether they filled out Form 4473 or bought it in a person-to-person transfer is also none of your business.

See how easily I solved that problem for you?

As for the Alabama cops who are still moaning about this, here’s my message: go pound sand.

And what else would I expect to read at Police1 except blather like this.

Via TTAG, this bit of histrionics.

Owning a gun isn’t a “God-given right.” It’s a slave-owning, misogynistic founding father-given right. I’m not against 2A, but be real – the Constitution was written by people! Today I’m filibustering a bill that would allow concealed carry without training or a permit

News from Alabama.

Today, a conference committee approved House Bill 272, constitutional carry. Then, both the House and Senate voted to adopt the conference report. It will now go to Governor Kay Ivey, who is expected to sign it into law promptly. Alabama is now just one more step away from becoming the 22^nd constitutional carry state and the first state to join that group in 2022.

Oh no!  It will be blood running in the streets.

“The Alabama House Public Safety Committee just chose gun extremists over public safety,” Harriette Huggins, a volunteer with the Alabama chapter of Moms Demand Action, said in a statement after the vote.

I think I’m classified as a gun extremist.  I think you are too.  More.

On Thursday, Gov. Kay Ivey signed House Bill 272, known as the constitutional carry bill, into law. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Shane Stringer, eliminates the permit required for concealed carry and revises certain restrictions related to carrying and possessing a pistol.

“Unlike states who are doing everything in their power to make it harder for law-abiding citizens, Alabama is reaffirming our commitment to defending our Second Amendment rights,” Ivey said. “I have always stood up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and I am proud to do that again today.”

The passage of the bill did not come without controversy. Many gun-rights advocates argued people should not have to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed pistol, but opponents of the bill, including some local law enforcement, argued the permits help fight crime and enhance public safety.

Shortly after Ivey signed the bill into law, Oxford Police Chief Bill Partridge tweeted the following statement:

“Alabama law enforcement lost another tool in the tool box to get illegal guns off our streets. Continuing to make officers’ jobs harder. Five of the six officers killed in the line of duty in Alabama in 2019 were killed with a stolen firearm.”

A stolen firearm.  What that has to do with constitutional carry is anybody’s guess.  It sounds like sour grapes to me.

Boss Hogg is not happy tonight.

Now.  South Carolina needs to undo the ridiculous preemption where cities can circumvent open carry the state legislature passed, and move on the constitutional carry.

Alabama will prove to you that blood doesn’t run in the streets, just like Texas did and like the other 20 states did.

News from Florida.

Floridians could openly carry firearms in public and wouldn’t need a permit to carry them concealed under legislation that now has the endorsement of Governor Ron DeSantis.

There’s one problem though… The bill hasn’t received a single hearing in either legislative chamber.

While the sponsor of the constitutional carry bill thinks it will be enough to pull the bill directly on the House floor for a vote, opponents don’t seem all that worried.

The controllers aren’t worried because the fix is in.  The fix is always in.

Governor Ron DeSantis was asked if he would support constitutional carry at a press conference Thursday morning.

His direct response: “Put it on my desk I’ll sign it”.

[ … ]

But the legislation on this bill is on life support.

It hasn’t gotten a single hearing in either chamber and the Governor’s endorsement came with only nine days remaining in the legislative session.

It’s easy to say you’ll sign it when it has no chance of passing the chambers of the legislature.

I guess you don’t really think this is important enough to push it, DeSantis.

Ammoland.

Bidens (sic) DOJ doesn’t like the idea that the State of Missouri has decided to protect its citizens from an overreaching federal government and unconstitutional laws. HB85 also known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act or SAPA has really gotten under the skin of the Biden administration because it prevents gun-grabbers at the federal level from coercing with state officials for gun grabs. The law does not extend to various federal statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, or other actions that collect data or restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, or use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the borders of Missouri.

The Federal government’s complaint alleges that the restrictions within HB85 have hindered cooperation and other activities that aid federal, state, and local law enforcement efforts in creating joint Federal Task Forces against Missourians.

The legislation, which was signed into law in 2021 and sponsored by Representative Jered Taylor, invalidates federal firearms laws. Under SAPA, law enforcement agencies can be fined up to $50,000 if they enforce federal gun regulations. You can imagine how infuriated the gun grabbers would be over something like this.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said, “A state cannot simply declare federal laws invalid,” “This act makes enforcement of federal firearms laws difficult and strains the important law enforcement partnerships that help keep violent criminals off the street.”

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said, “After their disastrous arguments in the Missouri Supreme Court last week, the Biden Department of Justice has now filed yet another partisan lawsuit that seeks to attack Missourians’ Second Amendment rights.”

This is not an especially well written article.  Nonetheless, I told you that the FedGov hated this law.  I told you so.

I think the thing about this the FedGov hates so much is that state, county and local LEOs can be sued for $50,000 and fired for cooperating with agents of the FedGov, and barred from ever working as a LEO again in the state of Missouri.

The reason they hate this is because they need local LEOs to assist in protection, addresses, processing, records (e.g., let’s say that FedGov wants to press other charges) and the like.

This continues the saga of he Missouri 2A preservation act.

I wouldn’t make a prediction on what the SCOTUS will do.  What I do know is that if the state of Missouri is serious about this, it won’t matter and any SCOTUS decision will be ignored.  The state doesn’t have to cooperate with the FedGov in anything.  They could decide to arrest agents of the FedGov and thrown them in the state penitentiary if they so choose, and there’s nothing the FedGov could do about it.

Ammoland.

The Senate is taking swift action on constitutional carry as they previously promised. On Wednesday, at 1:00 PM, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear House Bill 272. After that, it will receive a final vote on the Senate floor on Thursday. Please contact your state senator and ask them to SUPPORT House Bill 272.

Uh oh.  Boss Hogg (Bobby Timmons) won’t be happy.  The good news is that he may blow a gasket before he tries to repeal the second amendment.

Do the right thing folks.  Don’t strike out.

Prior: Alabama House Passes Permitless Carry Bill

I remain extremely happy with their strength of position on the 2A preservation act.  It looks like patriots in Missouri are preparing to shoot down a bad gun law.

Among the few gun restrictions left in Missouri is a ban on concealed carry in churches, among a handful of other locations. Under current law, legal gun owners with carry permits may bring their guns if they receive permission from church officials.

I didn’t know about this Missouri law, but the replacement makes perfect sense.  I recognizes the right of carry, while elevating property rights to the top.

If a church is anti-liberty and doesn’t allow firearms, they should have to post like businesses or offices or any other buildings do.  This would also be a convenience for firearms owners.  If a church doesn’t allow carry, it helps them to turn and walk away when seeing the sign at the door.

News from Georgia.

Georgians would be able to carry firearms without a permit under controversial legislation the Republican-controlled state Senate passed Monday.

Supporters said Senate Bill 319, which passed 34-22 along party lines, wouldn’t change state laws governing who can possess guns or where they can carry them.

“This law is simply to remove an unnecessary burden from law-abiding citizens,” said Sen. Jason Anavitarte, R-Dallas, the bill’s chief sponsor. “Criminals do not care about a carry permit.”

[ … ]

Senators defeated an amendment introduced by Sen. Michelle Au, D-Johns Creek, to require background checks of Georgians seeking to buy firearms in private transactions, including at gun shows or flea markets.

Good.  It’s good that they shot down that amendment, and it looks like constitutional carry will pass into law this year in Georgia.  The governor (who is a putz trying to position himself for reelection) has committed to sign it.