Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Good grief.  Heritage again.

On February 26, the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Center for Human Rights issued a white paper on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which concludes that “the proposed ATT is consistent with the Second Amendment.” This conclusion neglects important facts about the treaty and the processes surrounding it, which we have explored in this four-part series.

We have shown that while we agree with several of the ABA’s contentions, it ignores the fact that the ATT—like many treaties—is not designed for a nation with a federal structure like the U.S. The ABA also ignores the fact that the ATT goes beyond import restrictions on firearms by requiring signatories to prevent the domestic diversion of imports. The treaty may also invite the executive branch to take executive actions to restrict and control the import of firearms into the U.S., imports which comprise about 35 percent of the new firearms market.

Finally, the treaty raises broader concerns about the application of transnational law to the U.S. These concerns are heightened by the fact that both foreign nations and some prominent legal scholars have identified treaties like the ATT as a mechanism to pressure the U.S. to change its domestic policies, and even to change the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

The question, then, is what the U.S. should do about this. The U.S. is sensitive to allegations that it is failing to fulfill treaty commitments, and it rightly takes its treaty obligations seriously. Because the ATT is a process that is designed to evolve and grow, it is impossible to know where it will lead.

A new ATT conference begins today in New York, and we will be blogging from the conference.

Supporters of the ATT frequently defend it as entirely unrelated to the Second Amendment. Some opponents of the ATT criticize it as a nefarious plot against the Second Amendment. The truth is more complicated …

Listen carefully.  No, the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty isn’t really that complicated.  It is a nefarious plot against the second amendment.

We’ve covered this in detail before.  All that rubbish and claptrap about the treaty excluding civilians because it excludes civilian arms is a ruse.  What it does is what Feinstein and Obama want to do within the framework of U.S. law, and distinguish between so-called “military weapons” and “civilian weapons.”  Again – it doesn’t distinguish between you and a member of the professional military, it distinguishes between military arms and civilian arms.

It would make illegal all sorts of firearms currently in circulation, as well as subject you to a set of rules, licensing and governmental checks that would make what Obama has proposed look like free utopia.

Some things really are as they seem.  Can Heritage at least try to get it right next time?  Otherwise, it’s just wasted space and bandwidth.

Kurt Hofman:

NYDN’s Bill Hammond sees fit to lecture gun rights advocates about the need to temper our “blind fury” about the latest infringements on that which shall not be infringed–specifically, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s draconian new gun ban (which Hammond describes as “Gov. Cuomo’s landmark law”). Hammond particularly objects to the notion that the Second Amendment is intended to protect the people’s right to the means of effective resistance against a tyrannical government:

The audience applauded heartily in tribute to the many veterans who were there. But it also loudly cheered the speaker who said, “We need guns to protect us from government.”

Maybe that thinking made sense at the time of the Founding Fathers — who had just succeeded in overthrowing the rule of a monarchy. Back then, ordinary citizens living on the frontier faced the very real threat of violent confrontations with Native Americans or British invaders.

But applying that logic to today — after more than two centuries of stable, democratic and mostly non-tyrannical government — is crazy talk.

Notice the change of subject mid-stream.  From overthrowing the Monarchy to the very next thought, which is “ordinary citizens living on the frontier.”  I’m all for pointing out the utility of firearms, from hunting to self defense to sporting value.  But the doctrine embedded in the second amendment pertains to tyranny, not any of the other utilities associated with being armed.

Kurt responds:

“Mostly non-tyrannical” doesn’t cut it–doesn’t come close, and aspiring “mostly non-tyrants” have no right to be surprised when they find themselves staring down the muzzles of the “mostly non-insurrectionist” people’s guns.

I have no idea whether or not Bill Hammond has daughters of dating age, but if he does, I’m sure he’ll have no objection to them dating “mostly non-rapist” boyfriends.

Right.  Girls don’t get mostly pregnant, a person doesn’t mostly have a job, and I don’t mostly have a dog.  Mostly is a bad descriptor.  If a regime is mostly non-tyrannical, then there is some degree to which it is tyrannical.  That means that the ruler is a tyrant at least some of the time.  It’s as simple as that.  And tyranny is never acceptable.  Not mostly unacceptable – always unacceptable.

Alan and Steve,

My relationship with Rock River Arms has been an interesting one.  I first purchased an Elite CAR A4 several years ago, and in the thousands of rounds I have put downrange with my rifle, I have yet to have a failure of any kind, FTF or FTE.  My former Marine son has shot it before and tells me it’s far better than the rifles he had to shoot in the Marines.  I am proud to have my rifle, and you should be proud to make them.

However, I sent a note to you several years ago (a month or so after I purchased my rifle) when I realized that I had lost my registration card for the warranty, and you informed me that you could not send a replacement registration card, meaning that my rifle wasn’t under warranty.

That mattered a lot to me then, but matters little to me now.  My rifle has had no problems and I expect none from it.  It is a fine, precision machine.  But I must say that this was less than stellar customer service, especially when I offered to send you my receipt of purchase from Hyatt Gun Shop.  Your refusal to help me puzzled me then and does so to this day.

Letting “bygones be bygones,” we should move on to more pressing matters.  There is the issue of the firearms manufacturers boycott that we need to discuss.  I understand that these are serious issues, not only because of the gravity of the subject, but because you have a fiduciary responsibility to your employees.

As you know, several states are enacting draconian gun laws that infringe on our second amendment rights.  A number of firearms manufacturers have decided to boycott these states, allowing law enforcement to purchase only those weapons allowed to non-law enforcement.

The response give to us by some manufacturers, i.e., that there is concern for the ability of law enforcement to do their jobs in the face of the boycott, rings hollow.  If this is true, it is true of non-law enforcement as well, and the only way to drive this point home is to allow everyone to reap the consequences of what they sow.

I would like to say that RRA had worked well with me in each and every interaction.  That would not be true, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t purchase a RRA firearm in the future.

But this decision is important to me and millions of other gun owners and defenders of the second amendment.  Please let me know the decision made by RRA concerning this matter so that I may pass it on to my readers.  Believe me when I tell you that I have been your local ambassador for RRA.  I wear a RRA hat on my walks and at the gym, discuss my rifle over my web site, and recommend your company to people asking me questions about AR-15s.  I would like to continue this advocacy.

Respectfully submitted,

Herschel Smith

In the mail from Rob Olive, Essential Liberty.

They thought it would never happen here… Seemingly ripped from today’s headlines, Essential Liberty is an action-filled, thought-provoking work of fiction about governmental overreach and the abuse of power. Through believable characters and words that could have come from our current political debate, Essential Liberty asks, “What if?”…and then provides the answer. The United States government has banned and begun confiscating firearms from its citizens. Insurance executive Don Williams has never owned a gun and is part of the majority of Americans who initially favored “Collection” (the official term for confiscation), yet he’s shocked to see his fellow countrymen being rounded up on the evening news. Don’s good friend, former Marine Mike Niculescu, owns many firearms and has refused to surrender them. The son of immigrants from Communist Romania reveres them as symbols of liberty. Bill Payne, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, commands an ATF Hazardous Operations Team. These elite new teams are reserved for Collection operations with a high level of risk. Payne wants his unit to be the first to make headlines. As the story unfolds, Don is forced to make a choice: Will he turn a blind eye to the abuse of power, or will he choose—for the first time in his life—to make a stand on principle that will put everything he cares about at risk?

The first chapter reads very quickly, and Mike is taking actions that I have soberly discussed with my sons, only Mike is better prepared and more thoughtful that I am.  As I read through the chapter, I thought, “This isn’t a novel, this is prescient.” David Codrea also has a good review.  It’s worth the time and money, both David’s review and Rob’s book.

Good grief!  CCRKBA has turned to the dark side (h/t David Codrea).

One of Washington state’s largest gun-rights groups is negotiating with lawmakers on a deal that would simultaneously boost a controversial gun-control proposal and remove one of gun owners’ biggest fears.

Alan Gottlieb, of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said Tuesday night he has offered to support mandatory background checks for all firearm purchases if state lawmakers agree to end what some see as a de facto database of handgun owners.

“I need to see the final version, but we’re working with the sponsors of the bill to try to get one that’s workable,” said Gottlieb, who also runs the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation. “If we can accomplish that, it’s a win for all sides.”

No.  It is not a win for all sides.  It’s a win for the totalitarians and a loss for law abiding citizens.  I don’t want to hear another damn thing about how the NRA waffles and turns against our interests.  At least – so far – Wayne hasn’t turned to this kind of pandering.

Good grief!

We’ve discussed the ongoing attempt to hold states accountable via a boycott and also relocation of gun and ammunition companies from inhospitable states.  But amidst the hubris of New York’s response, this sentiment was almost missed.

“To tell you the truth, Dave, we’re not worried about it,” John Grebert says. He is the executive director of the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police, a group that supported the new gun law in New York State.

But, he adds, “I think it’s pretty unfortunate that any business thinks they can bully us.”

Because people in law enforcement deal with criminals every days, Grebert thinks they have, “a greater right” to weapons, “to deal with potentially violent situations.” And Grebert says he’s confident police will still have access to the equipment they need “to get the job done right.”

He could be discussing the popular progressive notion that the militia doesn’t exist today because it’s an antiquated idea, or if it does, it consists of law enforcement.  Thus, the second amendment gives them rights that it doesn’t give us, or a “greater right,” if you will.

But even though this takes on the trappings of erudition, it’s still ignorant and illogical.  There were constabulary officers in the eighteenth century America that produced the constitution.  And besides, if the second amendment applied only to constables, then we would have no right at all, not less right to weapons.

The reason he did give was that they deal with violence.  You don’t, or if you do, it isn’t as necessary for you to be capable of dealing with it.  Don’t ever forget this sentiment, and how it leads to an “us versus them” mentality in law enforcement.  This is rich and wonderful because of its honesty.  I’m thankful that he brought it up.

Mike Vanderboegh:

William Diamond’s drum is sounding the long roll once again, and it doesn’t take much imagination to hear it … The enforcement of these various odious, unconstitutional laws — whether state or federal — will be resisted, flaunted and then Leviathan, which can’t afford to look silly, will come to kill us for our temerity.

What’s Mike talking about?  You’ll have to visit his place to read the rest.  In this article, Mike waxes philosophical and even poetic in places.  His call isn’t a funeral dirge, or a panic.  It is a solemn call to duty.  It’s absolutely worth the time to study it and study it again.

David Codrea:

The “progressive” activist group MoveOn.org posted a television commercial to You Tube yesterday featuring a self-proclaimed gun rights proponent warning politicians of electoral consequences if they don’t support more “gun control” laws.

“The six-figure ad buy is running for a week on national cable and will air during the Sunday morning political talk shows,” The Hill reported.

“I’m a gun owner and a proud defender of the Second Amendment, but for years I’ve watched Congress take money from the NRA and then oppose any kind of reform that helps keep us safe,” a man identified in the video as Ohio gun owner Jerry Thompson declares.

“After the Newtown massacre and the NRA’s disgusting response, I’ve had enough, Thompson growls, warning members of Congress if they “take money from the NRA, and then continue to do their bidding, we’re gonna remember that come election time.”

Read the rest at Examiner.  Mr. Thompson isn’t a proud defender of the second amendment any more than I’m a defender of MoveOn.org.  It’s the same story with Congressional candidates and Senators who claim that they’re NRA members or hunters.  The hair on my neck stands up when I hear a candidate for any office claim that he’s a hunter.  There’s nothing wrong with hunting.  I’ve done it before.  But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the second amendment.

And as for Mr. Thompson, the second amendment pertains to resistance to tyranny.  That’s why we know he’s lying.  On the one hand he claims to support resistance to tyranny, and on the other wants to impose tyrannical laws.

Consistency isn’t the hobgoblin of little minds.  It’s the stuff of life, and when you’re not, you’re irrelevant.

Examiner:

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, decrying America’s demonization of guns, is predicting that the parade of new gun control laws, cheered on by President Obama, will hit the Supreme Court soon, possibly settling for ever the types of weapons that can be owned.

Scalia, whose legacy decision in the 2008 case of District of Columbia vs. Heller ended the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., suggested that the Constitution allows limits on what Americans can own, but the only example he offered was a shoulder-launched rocket that would bring down jets.

And the wily judge suggested to an audience of Smithsonian Associates at George Washington University’s Lisner Auditorium Tuesday night that he is not just preparing for a new gun control challenge, but that he’s softening up one of his liberal colleague on guns.

The long-time duck hunter revealed that he’s taken Obama appointee Elena Kagan hunting several times, the last being for big game in Wyoming where she shot a whitetail doe. “She dropped that doe with one shot,” he said during an event that featured questions from NPR’s court reporter Nina Totenberg.

[ … ]

Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn’t discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. “There are doubtless cases on the way up,” he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. “There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see.”

Commentary

Good.  Let’s rock.  Let’s get on with the preservation or diminution of our rights and freedoms.  Time is wasting.  It’s time to revisit the decisions in Heller and McDonald, not because, as Justice Ginsburg thinks, there might be a reversal of Heller on the horizon with a “future, wiser court,” but because Heller didn’t go far enough.  The Supreme Court recognized our right to ownership of firearms, but didn’t specifically broach the issue of “bearing” those arms, i.e., carrying them for personal defense.

This relationship that appears to be developing between Scalia and Kagan is, I’m sure, very sweet and and all of that, but I wouldn’t count on her vote.  Furthermore, the whole issue of duck hunting concerns me.  The Second Amendment, as Scalia knows, isn’t about duck hunting, or deer hunting, or any other “sporting purpose.”  The sporting purposes test imposed by the last round of onerous firearms laws, and enforced by the ATF, is entirely unconstitutional.  I have said before that I think the test is misapplied, and that if it is a firearm, it has a sporting purpose.  But proliferation of this test through the judiciary (from some future decision) is cowardly because it doesn’t formally recognize the truth, and that is that the second amendment exists in order to ameliorate tyranny.

But for the courts, just remember that we firearms owners aren’t likely to have any more respect for confiscatory policies (or anything that can enable confiscation such as universal background checks), onerous policies (such as counting the number of cartridges I can put in my magazine), or unconstitutional tests (like sporting purposes) coming from the courts than we would if it came from the Congress or the President.  And just for the record, the Supreme Court became a laughingstock over the decision on Obamacare.  You wouldn’t want to put the final nail in the coffin holding your honor or respectability, would you?

Be very careful.  Think wisely.  Don’t start things you cannot stop.

UPDATE: Thank you for the visit on this article.  It is timely and important.

Washington Post:

Switzerland has the world’s third-highest number of privately held guns per person, after the United States and Yemen, an outgrowth of its unique military culture. Service is mandatory for young men, though the national military is a little bit like a collection of local militias. That militia-tinged military culture blurs the line, just a bit, between an “on duty” time, when it’s normal to carry a gun, and “off-duty”; the result is that it’s not considered crazy, as it might be in the United States, for a service member to carry his or her assault rifle home.

[ … ]

Philip D. Jaffe, a forensic psychologist, said Switzerland’s military draft and annual weapons training have historically fostered national unity among the confederation’s cultural groups, which include French, German and Italian speakers. Even though the citizen militia may be outdated in modern military terms, he said in an interview in Lausanne, it has long fit in with the national image of small, self-reliant Switzerland maintaining its independence while being surrounded by much larger countries.

“They drill this into you; there’s something idealistic about it,” Jaffe said. “They hand you a big, bulky machine gun, and it’s yours. You get to keep it.”

This is all written from the perspective of someone who doesn’t believe in the unorganized militia in America.  I wouldn’t consider it “crazy” at all for unorganized militia members (such as me) to own machine guns, and I don’t believe that the notion of a citizen-militia is outdated at all.  I should be able to own the same kind of weaponry that I have to use my tax dollars to purchase our military forces.

Driving South for a few hours, the world view changes a great deal.  South Carolina is currently considering protections for the unorganized militia (via Mike Vanderboegh).

Senate Bill 247 was introduced on January 16, 2013 by state Senators Tom Corbin, Tom Davis, Kevin Bryant, and Lee Bright and sources indicate that a companion measure will soon be offered in the South Carolina House of Representatives.

The bill reads:

(A) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 25-1-60, an able-bodied citizen of this State who is over seventeen years of age and can legally purchase a firearm is deemed a member of the South Carolina Unorganized Militia, unless he is already a member of the National Guard or the organized militia not in National Guard service …

(2) A militia member, at his own expense, shall have the right to possess and keep all arms that could be legally acquired or possessed by a South Carolina citizen as of December 31, 2012. This includes shouldered rifles and shotguns, handguns, clips, magazines, and all components.

(3) The unorganized militia may not fall under any law or regulation or jurisdiction of any person or entity outside of South Carolina.

This bill seems like obvious low hanging fruit.  It should have an easy time being ushered through the legislature.  But beware, it does in fact lend protections to the unorganized militia from the intrusive federal government.  The totalitarians will be furious.

This kind of state law is a good and necessary thing only insofar as the state is willing to enforce it with the power of law enforcement and the unorganized militia themselves.  As long as the state is willing to throw agents of the federal government in state penitentiary for enforcing intrusive federal laws, the state’s word means something.  Otherwise, the state is just inviting scorn from both the federal government and its own citizens.

Federal laws concerning firearms are unconstitutional – every one of them, without exception.  State laws are too if they infringe as prohibited in the Second Amendment.  This South Carolina law places them squarely in the totalitarian line of fire coming out of Washington, D.C., and decidedly in the corner of the people.  But being righteous doesn’t end the story.  Totalitarians never decide to go away.  They must be defeated.