Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Little seems to be known about it at this point, but three are dead, including the shooter.

Three people died early this morning, including an alleged gunman who apparently killed himself, after a shooting inside a New Jersey shopping plaza.

Police in New Jersey responded to shots inside a Pathmark supermarket on Route 9 in Old Bridge, N.J., at 4 a.m.

“This is the worst phone call a mayor can receive,” Mayor Owen Henry told NewJersey.com of the information he obtained about 6:30 a.m. “You can prepare for these things but you can’t prevent them.”

The suspect has been identified as a man in his 20s who was a current or former employee, WABC-TV reported. There’s no word on his motive.

Authorities believe the man killed two before turning the gun on himself, according to WABC.

Several employees were inside the store, which was preparing to open at 6 a.m. Two windows near the entrance to the Pathmark were shot out.

Numerous employees were taken across the street to a T.G.I. Friday’s and many are being treated for trauma at waiting ambulances.

The scene is now under control, according to WABC, and there are emergency responders in the plaza parking lot who have been standing in front of the store for the past hour.

Expect the wailing over guns laws to continue, maybe even crescendo, as a result of this shooting.  But take note that no one in this instance could have legally defended himself.  New Jersey is a “may issue” state.  State Senator Jeff Van Drew has tried to change that, apparently without success.

Current state law only gives carry permits to those who demonstrate a “justifiable need” to their local police chief and then a Superior Court judge — a nearly impossible hurdle, Van Drew says.

“You have to fear for your life, that you’re going to be killed, in essence,” said Van Drew. “It’s virtually never done.”

Van Drew owns two handguns — but he can’t carry them around.

New Jersey residents may purchase handguns through a permit process that involves being fingerprinted by local police and undergoing a background check. A permit must be obtained for each handgun purchased, and the buyer must go through a background check each time he or she wants to buy another pistol.

The state also has strict regulations guiding how handgun owners may transport their pistols outside their homes, requiring the pistol to be placed, unloaded, in a fastened case and carried in the trunk of a vehicle. If the vehicle has no trunk or separate compartment, the unloaded handgun must be kept in a locked box out of reach of passengers.

Those rules also apply to the handgun owners who hold special “carry permits” unless otherwise specified in the permit that allows them to have their handgun on their person. Each “carry permit” is tailored to the person holding it, setting the specific hours in a day, days in a week and the exact locations and circumstances in which a handgun owner may carry his or her gun.

Also apparently, bills to make New Jersey a shall-issue state have come up before, and they never go anywhere.  Note to the progressives.  New Jersey has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.  More laws wouldn’t have stopped this crime.  Someone engaged in concealed carry, on the other hand, might have had a decent chance.

There has been a recent proliferation of commentaries advocating the notion that no one needs an AR for self defense or hunting.  They are good for nothing except killing and maiming innocent human lives, and should be banned.  Some even go so far as to claim that we have no constitutional right to own an AR, which elicited my response in Do We Have A Constitutional Right To Own An AR?  While I do not believe that the government has a moral right to dictate my belongings, and we do in fact have a constitutional right to own weapons of all sorts, it’s always good to retrieve the conversation from the theoretical and ensconce it squarely in the practical.  A recent incident in South Carolina does exactly that for us.

The owner of the Guns and Ammo Gunsmith store in North Augusta, S.C. thought he was going to die tragically. Three men had driven a van into his store, executing what they hoped would be a quick “smash-and-grab” robbery.

Instead, they met owner Stephen Bayezes, who opened fire on the three intruders after the commotion set off an alarm, hitting each one at least once. He says he is not proud of what he was forced to do, but added sometimes “you’ve got to.” The incident occurred on Aug. 9, but the owner says a set of tire marks on the store’s floor and an unfinished wall are daily reminders of the night that he almost lost his life.

“It’s a haunting thought. It literally is a haunting thought when you see the tire tracks, you hear the tires,” Bayezes told WRDW-TV. “Everybody assures you that you just did what you had to do to protect your family. They say it’ll heal over time, but when does time go away? It’s something that nobody ever wants to do.”

But he says he had no choice after he heard one of the robbers shout, “Shoot the mother f**ker!,” followed by the sound of a gun cocking. “I mean, they would’ve shot me. In my mind, with no reservation. If that firearm had been loaded, I might’ve been a statistic.”

With his fight-or-flight reflexes in full gear, Bayezes started shooting, striking all three men, killing one while the surviving two escaped.

So, what happened to the two suspects? WRDW explains:

The Aiken County Sheriff’s Office says Eddie Stewart and Franklin Robinson will be charged with burglary 1st, grand larceny and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. Both suspects are still in the hospital and will be taken into custody once they are released.

The Aiken County coroner says the third suspect, 20-year-old K’Raven Goodwin of Eastover, S.C., died from multiple gunshot wounds on Thursday morning.

The whole altercation took but one minute, he said. The burglars escaped with roughly 50 guns that night, however all of them have been returned safely.

The scene below shows the carnage sustained by the business.

The report says that this is the same type of weapon Bayezes used to defend himself and his wife.

This report doesn’t clearly state the details of Bayezes’s reaction, but the Aiken Standard does.

A North Augusta gun store owner used a semi-automatic weapon when he opened fire on three men who broke into his business early Thursday, killing one and sending two others to the hospital with gunshot wounds, officials said.

The break-in occurred around 4 a.m. at the Guns and Ammo Gunsmith, located on Edgefield Road in North Augusta, said Aiken County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Jason Feemster, a spokesman for the agency.

Stephen Bayazes Jr., 57, who lives in an attached apartment in the rear of the business with his wife, said he awoke to a loud bang and the silent store alarm going off.

Police said he got out of bed, grabbed his AR-15 weapon and found three men inside the store.

The men crashed a vehicle into the business and were smashing display cases and taking guns when he said he heard one of the men shout, “kill that (expletive deleted ).”

He told investigators he emptied a .223-caliber 30-round magazine and then retreated to his room to reload.

When he returned, he said he saw the vehicle pulling out from the business.

He used one of those evil “high capacity magazines” to defend his home, one of those features on so-called assault weapons that no living man is supposed to need.  He emptied his magazine.  I would have too.

But on to hunting.  Discovery Channel viewers may have taken note of a new series called Yukon Men.  It’s an interesting show on the hardships of living in the Yukon, but more to the point, take note of what happens in this video.

The young man uses an AR to take down the Caribou, and it’s a good size animal.  I also know someone who has taken down a large deer with the same caliber round (5.56 mm, or .223, and my friend was using “pointed soft point” ammunition for the deer).  The young man smartly remarks that the caliber he is using is good because it doesn’t destroy the meat.  This is meat he needs to eat in order to live.

It’s preposterous to assert that a high capacity magazine isn’t useful for self defense.  Clearly it is, and just as clearly, use of an AR (or similar modern sporting rifle) is useful and in common use for hunting.

In Guns: The Great White Male Right-Wing Freak-Out, we heard Katha Pollitt ridiculing the very notion that a concealed handgun carrier might just have saved lives in the recent Aurora, Colorado shooting.  “All those moviegoers in Aurora needed to make their misery complete was to have a bunch of armed freelancers shooting off their weapons in a dark theater,” she dryly commented.

I wondered if she might be mistakenly referring to the incident where the New York Police Department fired off 84 rounds at a single shooter, missing with 70.  Now we learn from none other than Mayor Nazi himself that the NYPD might have again neglected to maintain situational awareness of their backstop.

Bloomberg says the suspect had been fired from his job at the address about a year ago.

He says some of the people injured in the melee may have been accidentally shot by police officers firing at the gunman.

I’m just wondering if any white, freaked-out, right-wing males might have been able to help in this situation if they had been carrying?

UPDATE #1:

“These officers … had absolutely no choice,” Kelly said. “This individual took a gun out very close to them and perhaps fired at them.”

Kelly said authorities believe police may be responsible for some of the injuries because of the limited capacity of the gunman’s weapon.

Erica Solar doesn’t know who shot her in the back of the knee while she walked to get coffee on her way to work, said her brother, Louis Lleras.

“She just heard shots and she fell to the ground a couple of steps forward and noticed that she was shot,” Lleras said.

Ercolino’s profile on the business networking site Linkedin identified him as a vice president of sales at Hazan Import Corp. It said he was a graduate of the State University of New York at Oneonta

A man who answered the phone at Ercolino’s home in Warwick, northwest of Manhattan, said he was too distraught to talk.

“He was a good son, that’s all I can say, said the man, who didn’t give his name

The two officers fired a total of 14 rounds at Johnson, Kelly said. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said some of the nine wounded may have been shot by police in the mayhem. Johnson’s semi-automatic weapon was equipped to fire at least eight rounds; at least one round was left in the clip, police said. Another loaded magazine was in his briefcase.

You mean that he didn’t need a high capacity clip, er … magazine to cause all that carnage?  You mean that the NYPD officers were “very close” to the shooter and still shot innocents?

On another front, Katrina Trinko says:

I’ve been past the Empire State Building many, many times now; it’s one of the most crowded areas in Manhattan. There’s always tourists to see the building itself, and there’s plenty of non-tourists, too, going about their daily business. Unbelievable that it would be a scene of violence like this.

That’s the problem with Mayor Nazi and his gun laws, and all of those who acquiesce to them.  It’s “unbelievable” that someone would be shot there.  It needs to become very believable, right now, especially if it is a crowded area.  I was attending worship services a few weeks ago and took note of the very large, seated crowd.  What a horrible target  for a crazed shooter!  That’s why I was armed while sitting in the service, and thus, the service was safer for everyone in attendance.

UPDATE #2:

Based on other sources, it appears that the sequence of events is basically as follows: (a) gunman had an eight round magazine, (b) fired two (or possibly three) shots at former supervisor (or co-worker, it isn’t clear), holstered his weapon and walked away, (c) someone witnessed these events and security personnel followed him, (d) he appeared to unholster his weapon and aim it at the police officers, (e) NYPD officers fired approximately 14 rounds in his direction, killing him and shooting nine bystanders in the process.  In the sequence of events it is apparent at the moment that the perpetrator didn’t fire a single round at the police.

Now.  Expect the following things to happen in the MSM.  First, they will walk back the idea that a gunman shot eleven people.  They will not clealy state that the NYPD shot nine of them.  They will issue new calls for a ban on high capacity magazines even though the gunman didn’t have one.  Finally, they will call for even more stringent controls on the purchase of firearms by law abiding citizens, including increased waiting times, even though the gunman waited approximately one year from the date of the offending action to perpetrate the crime.

Watch it and see.

UPDATE #3: Thanks to Dan Riehl for the attention!

Some things are so far beyond belief that you couldn’t make them up even if you tried.  From West Virginia:

MARTINSBURG – A man wearing a ballistic vest and military camouflage, armed with a training rifle, two knives and several unloaded magazines, was arrested Monday morning after he was seen running in the area of two Martinsburg schools.

William Everett Alemar, 23, of South Raleigh Street, Martinsburg, was charged with committing a terrorist act and wearing body armor while committing a felony offense following the incident, which occurred on the first day of school for Berkeley County students. As of Monday, he was being held at Eastern Regional Jail on a $50,000 cash-only bond.

Alemar, who police said was a member of the military, later told police he was out running and jogging with his gear on, police said. His current military status is under police investigation.

No need to continue with the investigation.  Mr. Alemar is currently in Virginia National Guard’s Company B, 3rd Battalion, 116th Infantry Brigade Combat Team in Woodstock, Va., according to West Virginia National Guard spokesman Lt. Col. David Lester.  Continuing with the original report:

At about 7:17 a.m., the Martinsburg Police Department received several calls in regard to an individual running and carrying a rifle near the area of Bulldog Boulevard and Raleigh Street in Martinsburg, which is located near Martinsburg High School and South Middle School.

“One of our primary concerns was that he was sighted in the general proximity or area of the high school on Bulldog Boulevard and we also believe that’s what generated a lot of calls,” Lt. G.B. Swartwood said.

Officers responded to the scene and located Alemar near the intersection of Silver Lane and Raleigh Street. When Patrolman Michael Jones, Patrolman C.M. Richmond and Patrolman First Class Erik Herb encountered the individual, he was wearing full military desert camouflage and a ballistic vest. He also appeared to be armed with an assault rifle across his chest, which police subsequently determined was an AR-15 training rifle.

Now here’s the admirable part where the police demonstrate good muzzle and trigger discipline.

All three officers engaged Alemar at gunpoint and ordered him to his knees to be taken into custody.

“The subject was then ordered to lie prone on the ground and the officers secured his weapon, an AR-15(M-4) training rifle. The suspect also had two knives and several unloaded magazines, (and) his ballistic vest also contained ceramic panels to make it more bullet resistant,” a police news release said.

Swartwood said the training rifle Alemar was found with fires small pellet projectiles and not bullets, similar to an airsoft rifle. He said the rifle is used for training purposes, but looks exactly like a real AR-15.

“It’s heavy and it looks completely just like an AR-15 other than that red tip on it,” Swartwood said.

Alemar was handcuffed and brought to the Martinsburg Police Department. All of his accoutrements and camouflage were photographed upon his person and seized as potential evidence.

Uh huh.  Evidence.  Here is the picture.

Here is the result.

After consulting with the Berkeley County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Alemar was charged with “committing a terroristic act under 61-6-24 subsection (b) and subsection (d) of the West Virginia State Code,” police said.

“With him being in that proximity, in that area of the school, we believed that he was causing a significant threat with his actions and his gestures by his own choosing,” Swartwood said.

He had an Airsoft gun.  It wasn’t a real weapon.  He had some empty magazines, and for some added weight he wore his body armor including his SAPI plates, like most Marines and Soldiers train.  Now he is facing terrorism charges.

I sometimes carry concealed and sometimes openly.  My home state is a traditional open carry state and has no stop and identify statute.  I am waiting on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police to stop and question me so that I can use it as an opportunity to educate them on the law.  Thus far I have only gotten them interested enough in me to wave and smile.  I guess they are well-trained, and I guess Berkeley County isn’t as civilized as Mecklenburg County.

But we wouldn’t want people to get away with thinking that all of that tactical gear is acceptable, especially those evil ARs (er, … toy guns).  After all, they look scary, have handles and stuff, shoot bullets that aren’t any good for anything except killing cops, fire bullets and grenades fully automatic machine gun style with ammunition that splits into a thousand pieces and homes in on its target with embedded television sensors, and have that shoulder thing that goes up.

I hope Alemar’s attorney bankrupts Berkeley county with a lawsuit.  I suppose if the police and prosecutors aren’t already humiliated by the circumstances, there isn’t much we can do about that.

UPDATE #1: A followup article outlines the steps that the prosecutor is taking against Alemar.  The idiot prosecutor is actually going to go through with this, making a joke of the very statutes under which real, honest-to-God terrorism would be prosecuted.  His attorney gives us the following update from the article.

“I mean he was jogging, so the last time I checked, there’s no jogging statute near schools, but I think everyone has to be cautious in this day and age. We understand the police response was appropriate, but the question is, was there a crime and, if so, is there an explanation for his state of mind? He doesn’t want to make any statements right now, but the family is helping us, along with him, to get the military records we need to make the proper assessment to confirm his military service and to confirm his deployment,” Mills said.

If convicted of the terrorism charge, Alemar faces one to three years in prison and a $500 to $25,000 fine. He faces two to 10 years in prison if convicted of wearing body armor while committing a felony offense.

He is too nice.  Let me state very explicitly that the response of the police was not appropriate.  Pointing their weapons at a man who was not in violation of any law is thuggish, and makes them appear to be uncivilized, country-boy hicks.  I sent a note to the police department ridiculing the lack of muzzle discipline of their officers, but am shocked that I still haven’t received a response.  Shocked.

As for the PTSD defense, this is ridiculous.  How about this as a defense: He didn’t break any laws.

UPDATE #2: Additional discussion at reddit/r/guns concerning charges of intoxication that the police department intends to trot out.  To me this is evidence that they have no case.

The AR is in the news lately, much maligned, and much misunderstood.  We have already discussed the notion of the AR (most Americans purchase) being an assault rifle, explaining that it is no such thing since for a weapon to be an assault rifle it must have selective fire capability.  “Assault weapon” is a political phrase that is meant to convey the idea of weapons being scary.

But the hatred of the things that characteristize the politically-defined assault weapon (high capacity magazines, forend grips, etc.) pours from the editorial pages in newspapers all across the country today.  For a few examples consider Robert in New York:

In Colonial times, weapons for individuals were limited to flintlock rifles and pistols. These had utility for food-gathering and home defense. These weapons were powder-and-ball, single-shot, and slow to reload laboriously by hand, and of limited range and accuracy.

Nowadays we have graduated to semiautomatic assault weapons, intended for military use and the killing or maiming of as many enemies as possible in battle. They can fire hundreds of rounds per minute. There was a ban on them for private sale and use in recent years, but it has since been struck down.

Does anyone think they are critical for home defense, bringing down a rabbit, a deer, or for target practice?

Next, consider Joan in Vero Beach:

I am struck that the killer once again had an assault weapon and was able to legally purchase it and the magazines in local stores and off the Internet because of the bullying tactics of Wayne LaPierre and his gutless minions in Congress.

I have spent many a happy time with my dogs at hunt tests safely using a gun. I am not against responsible gun ownership but assault weapons have no place in the possession of anyone but law enforcement or the military and certainly not legally accessible on the Internet.

LaPierre and his minions will wait for the storm of their refusal to agree to the need of rational gun laws to settle down and then they will raise their usual baseless arguments against any laws that prohibit people from freely purchasing assault weapons even as the families of victims in Aurora, Tucson and Columbine daily grieve the loss of their loved ones, who were only doing the things that we all do every day.

Finally, consider Roland Martin, CNN contributor:

To all of you gun lovers, feel free to go buy your Glock, shotgun, hunting rifle, .22 pistol, .357 Magnum or any of the other guns at your disposal.

But you do not need an AK-47.

For some, it’s too soon to discuss gun reform, a little more than one week after the mass killings in Aurora, Colorado. I disagree. Too many Americans are being killed by guns every day; this most recent heinous tragedy should not keep us from having a rational debate.

[ … ]

Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn’t a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Well, since Mr. Martin demanded, let’s engage that debate with him.  As I have pointed out, it simply isn’t true that America is refusing to engage in debate over guns.  That’s all we’ve been doing for more than a week now.  It’s just that anti-firearms folks are losing the argument, so it gets louder with each day and for each new commentary.

Regarding defense of my person and my home and family, what happens if Robert, or Joan or Roland restrict me to a muzzle loading weapon and I miss my assailant?  After all, shooting your weapon is a perishable skill and I only get to the range once a week or every two weeks.  What happens if I neglect to practice my “fail to stop” drills or my first or second or third shot miss my assailant?  What happens if I am using my AR and neglect to compensate my aim for sight “height over bore” and miss my assailant badly enough to wound him but not kill him, and he keeps coming after me?

What happens if the threat is from a multiple-assailant home invasion and I must produce a large volume of fire very rapidly in order to effect proper self defense?  Consider this five-man home invasion in Tulsa.

A second suspect in the attack on a Tulsa minister was arrested Tuesday night, Tulsa police said.

Markedrik Delmar Wilson, 26, was arrested about 8:40 p.m. after a witness identified him as one of five men who forced their way into the Rev. Kenneth Brooks’ home in the 2700 block of North Denver Avenue shortly before 2 a.m. Tuesday, according to police and reports.

One of the men shot Brooks point-blank in the chest and then the group fled, police said.

Or perhaps consider this home invasion in Wareham, Massachusetts.

Five men accused of a home invasion in Wareham where two women say they were raped are now facing Superior Court charges.

All five are charged with four counts of masked armed robbery and one count of armed home invasion. Santiago and Gomes are charged with aggravated rape and Williams is being charged with unlawful possession of a firearm without an FID card.

Is this enough to demonstrate the point?  Perhaps not.  Then consider yet another five-man home invasion in Glenolden, Pennsylvania.

A group of men – at least one armed with a gun – invaded a borough home early Wednesday and terrorized several people inside, including one who was pistol-whipped, according to NBC-10.

The violence incident unfolded about 1:45 a.m., when a group of four or five men broke into a at near the intersection of Elmwood and Ashland avenues, police said. At least one of the intruders was armed with a handgun.

Four people were inside the home at the time and one of the residents was pistol-whipped, police said.

Have you considered this four-man home invasion in Philadelphia?  Or how about this three-man home invasion in Charlotte, North Carolina?  Or this three-man home invasion in Franklin Country, Alabama?  Or this three-man home invasion in Pawtucket?

Shaun Connell defends the right to own an AR under the constitution, and I think rightly so under the rubric of self defense.  I may in fact have to produce a large volume of fire very quickly and effectively.  But there is more.  Ownership of weapons is the surest defense against tyranny.  This doctrine is so well rehearsed in American history that it should have been given its due consideration in Supreme Court rulings (Heller and McDonald).  It surely is well rehearsed in lower courts.  Ken Klukowski, a research fellow at Liberty University School of Law, observes:

This right has two purposes. One is so Americans can defend themselves from criminals. Another — talked up by the Tea Party but ridiculed by the liberal elite — is that the Second Amendment protects citizens against our own government.

The Supreme Court declared in its landmark 2008 D.C. v. Heller decision — a decision praised by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz. — that the Second Amendment was enshrined in the Constitution because when vast numbers of citizens have guns and know how to use them, “they are better able to resist tyranny.”

When serving on the California Supreme Court, now-D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown observed, “political writings of the [Founding Fathers] repeatedly expressed a dual concern: facilitating the natural right of self-defense and assuring an armed citizenry capable of repelling foreign invaders and quelling tyrannical leaders.”

Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain explained the Second Amendment “right contains both a political component — it is a means to protect the public from tyranny — and a personal component — it is a means to protect the individual from threats to life or limb.”

The most sobering words come from Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit, who wrote, “the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.”

The son of Holocaust survivors, Kozinski continued, “The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

Scalia has made his views known on weapons that are “affrighting.”  He hasn’t given any public acknowledgement of the point I made concerning tyranny, but this view isn’t that odd.  David Codrea makes similar points to Klukowski.

For someone represented by the establishment as an “originalist,” Scalia’s views are anything but. In “A View of the Constitution,” which colleague Brian Puckett writes “was the standard constitutional law text at Harvard until 1845 and at Dartmouth until 1860,” William Rawle, “a contemporary of the Founders and the man to whom George Washington offered an appointment as the first U.S. Attorney General,” offered a vastly different opinion.

“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people,” Rawle wrote in Chapter X, “OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.”

“Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature,” Rawle continued. “But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

The only thing that even approaches forcing me to rethink my position on so-called assault weapons is a tradeoff where I never, ever have to look again at a picture of Dianne Feinstein holding an AR.

But I said approaches – I’m not there.  Like David Condrea, I wasn’t surprised at Scalia’s comments and have always held that Heller was a weak ruling.  A better picture to show the silliness of the assault weapons ban (that Feinstein wants to reintroduce) is of me getting back from walking my dog, a 74 pound Doberman named Heidi.

Just like I always do when walking my dog, I’m carrying a weapon, in this case my S&W M&P .40, Flat Dark Earth finish, Viking Tactics sights.  Because the magazine holds 15 rounds it is considered an “assault weapon” under the expired rule.  Yes, the assault weapons ban is just that stupid because Feinstein and others consider this to be an affrighting weapon.

Considering the issue of self defense, it is clear that a so-called assault weapon suits the need of the moment in many circumstances.  Evan Nappen gives us 101 more reasons to own an assault weapon.  But I want to return to the issue of tyranny for a moment.

Gone are the days when only the lawyers are able to get access to court proceedings and opinions.  They are publicly available and we all read them.  If Scalia is right and there is much more to come on weapons in the courts, we’ll be watching and listening.  We’ll pour over each and every word of the opinion(s).  We’ll examine them for coherence and consistency, and the degree to which they honestly address the historical issues.

If the court wants to avoid the issue of suppression of tyranny – so-called “second amendment remedy” – in its rulings, then so be it.  Judges and Justices are advised, however, to be completely transparent about it.  Say that you no longer believe in such a thing, and explain why.  Explain why it was acceptable to use arms against British tyranny but that they serve no such purpose today, or better, explain why they cannot possibly serve any such purpose anywhere or at any time in the future.

If you ignore the issue we’ll consider you to be cowards.  When the recent ruling on health care was issued, the workplace discussion focused on ridicule and mockery over the duplicity and mental contortions necessary to come up with a ruling like that one.  It badly affected the reputation and legitimacy of the court.

Does the Supreme Court really want to add to the problem of legitimacy by avoiding a frank and open discussion of the role of arms in the prevention of state tyranny?  Does the court really want to appear cowardly?  We’re watching.  I concur with our liberal friends: it’s time for an open discussion.

UPDATE: #1: Linked to reddit/r/guns

Commenter Montysaurus says:

David French says:

The New York Times is in the midst of an editorial crusade against guns, and it’s doing it in standard New York Times fashion: supplementing its own house editorial with classic counterintuitive op-eds — in this case an infantry officer and a cop weigh in on behalf of the paper’s position. (Note to young writers: The absolute best way to get prime space in America’s most famous newspaper is to write a leftist op-ed while holding down a stereotypically conservative job). While I certainly respect his experience with weapons, I daresay that the infantry officer represents a minority viewpoint amongst his own brothers-in-arms …

Well, I don’t know enough to respect this officer’s experience with weapons.  I respect my son’s experience with weapons.  He was in the 2/6 Marines, Golf Company, 3rd Platoon, combat tour of Fallujah in 2007.  He thinks this officer’s opinion is ridiculous and juvenile.  Besides, in discussing the issue he toils mightily over such notions as understanding collateral damage because of the backstop behind your target.  These are basic issues to the firearms owner, and you simply don’t shoot if you can harm innocent victims in an urban setting in America.

But the most juvenile statement is this.

Those who truly believe that need to be carrying a gun right now, wherever they are. They need to keep it closer than I kept my weapon in Iraq. In Iraq my fellow soldiers’ lives were on the line. Soldiers’ lives are important — but our families’ safety is even more precious.

Those who truly believe that anyone should be able to buy semiautomatic weapons will need a gun at soccer practice, at church, at “Batman” movies. That’s the only logical choice. And civilian life will feel almost like being in Iraq.

I carry my weapon from room to room with me at home, to church, and so on like he says.  And I don’t feel at all like I’m in Iraq.  My son doesn’t feel like he is still in Iraq.  In fact, I think the officer is lying about this.  I don’t really think he feels like he is in Iraq.  I think he is using this as a dishonest literary device.

On to other lies.  Joy Ann-Reid is all in a fit.  She says:

… how many Rocky Mountain hunters deem it necessary to stockpile 6,000 rounds of ammunition and enough military-style assault weaponry to take on the Taliban? I’m guessing not many.

… the NRA has morphed from a supporter of responsible gun ownership into a lobbying and fundraising juggernaut, and some would argue, a handmaiden of mass murder.

LaPierre specializes in extremism: calling the federal agents who took part in Waco and Ruby Ridge “jackbooted thugs,” prompting former President George H.W. Bush to quit the NRA in protest in 1995.

He has earned a veritable Ph.D. in paranoia; fantasizing that the United Nations was plotting to somehow confiscate every gun in the United States …

The door has been slammed on the gun debate right up to the White House, except for billionaire New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who has no political party, is terming out and doesn’t need, or fear, the gun lobby’s money.

Regarding the issue of U.N. confiscatory measures, Joy hasn’t read my U.N. Arms Treaty: Dreams Of International Gun Control.  She also needs to read my category on SWAT Raids to learn about jackbooted thugs.  But I don’t believe that she really believes that the NRA, which is comprised of and gets its funding from citizens, is a hand maiden of mass murder.  I think she is lying, and using this as a dishonest literary device.  And I think Joy knows that just about the only thing America is doing right now is debating guns.  I don’t think she really believes that the “door has been slammed” on gun debate.  I think Joy is using that as a dishonest literary device too.

Finally, Stewart Patrick really wants the U.N. Arms Treaty to be ratified.  He says:

An international arms treaty would work to stem the flow of licit and illicit arms into unstable countries and regions, and prevent such weapons from falling into the wrong hands. However, despite three years of preparations and nearly a decade of advocacy campaigns, there remains a lack of consensus on the scope, criteria, and implementation of the treaty. The usual suspects, Russia, China, and—to a certain extent—the United States, are among the most influential of a handful of countries raising objections, particularly over the proposed inclusion of small arms and ammunition, human rights criteria, and regulatory measures. And to compound matters, the United States continues to face domestic opposition to its participation in the treaty negotiations.

[ … ]

In response to the charges that the treaty would coopt U.S. national sovereignty, arms control experts argue that the treaty would have “little to no impact” on existing regulatory processes, and that American businesses would not assume any additional regulatory burdens. The United States already has in place a rigorous export control system, defined as the “gold standard.” Instead, the treaty is primarily aimed at countries in which rigorous controls and oversight are absent, in an attempt to harmonize and coordinate standards worldwide.

I think Mr. Patrick is a liar.  I think he knows that the treaty wouldn’t do anything at all to stem the tide of weapons from rogue nations, and I think he also knows that it would affect the ownership of weapons within the U.S.

Andy Ostroy wants to get rid of the damn guns.

This is a simple issue, people. It’s a choice between allowing mass killers to easily purchase assault weapons and ammunition… or not. We can stick our collective heads in the sand and “come together” to talk about God, prayer, healing and sing Kumbaya, but none of that — let me repeat…none of that — will stop the blood from spilling again.

And let me say that we can confiscate every known, legal weapon in America and it will not, let me repeat, it will not affect the fact that criminals violate the law and commit crimes, sometimes violent crimes.  Andy isn’t considering the price of gun control.

So instead of getting rid of the damn guns, I say we keep the guns and get rid of the damn lies.

In Salt Lake City:

A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith’s store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith’s employee Dorothy Espinoza says, “He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people.”

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. “There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms.”

Then, before the suspect could find another victim – a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. “A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith’s grabbed him.”

By the time officers arrived the suspect had been subdued by employees and shoppers. Police had high praise for gun carrying man who ended the hysteria. Lt. Brian Purvis said, “This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time.”

Dozens of other shoppers, who too could have become victims, are also thankful for the gun carrying man. And many, like Danylle Julian, are still in shock from the experience. “Scary actually. Really scary. Five minutes before I walk out to my car. It could have been me.”

As has been pointed out befrore, gun free zones are premised on a fantasy, i.e., that criminals will obey the law.  No one who is sane actually wants to endure this kind of confrontation, and in a knife fight, even as a weapon carrier (sometimes concealed, sometimes open), my own rules are based on three E’s: Evasion, Egress and Escape.  Get out of the way of the attack, egress from the area, and escape the danger.  But this may not work, and when it doesn’t, a gun is your best bet.  And in this case the concealed carrier potentially saved lives other than his own.

In spite of the new appeals for gun control, law abiding people must not be disarmed.  Nothing good comes from it.

The Colorado shooting has brought out the worst in analytical reasoning in what I had called (in a different context) confused and goofy Christians who “forgot all about their theology and think that a new regulation, law or treaty will bring peace on earth and good will toward men.”  There is David Gibson at Huffington Post, and Chuck Currie at Huffington Post, and others.  Gun control is certainly a religious issue (at least for me), as I discussed in Let He Who Has No Gun Sell His Robe And Buy One.  The question “what would Jesus do” if he had the chance to have weapons or jettison them is easily answered.  Jesus advocated weapons.

But it was in this context that a church in Georgia went to court to request legal relief from Georgia’s law that forbids the carrying of weapons in places of worship.  About one and a half years ago:

A gun rights group filed a notice Wednesday that it will appeal a federal judge’s dismissal of a suit challenging a state law banning weapons in churches, mosques and synagogues.

John Monroe, the attorney for GeorgiaCarry.org, filed a notice that he plans to ask the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review U.S. District Judge Ashley Royal’s decision. Royal ruled Monday that a 2010 law that lists places of worship among locations where guns are not allowed did not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion or the Second Amendment guarantee of a right to bear arms.

The lawsuit — brought by GeorgiaCarry.org, the organization’s past president and  the minister at the Baptist Tabernacle of Thomaston — challenged the inclusion of places of worship on a list of places where guns are not allowed –  government buildings, courthouses, jails and prisons, state mental hospitals, nuclear power plants, bars without the owner’s permission and polling places.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has made their decision.

A federal appeals court has upheld Georgia’s law banning guns in churches and other places of worship.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, published Friday, upholds a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the law. The lawsuit was filed by a gun rights organization — GeorgiaCarry.org — and the Rev. Jonathan Wilkins of the Baptist Tabernacle of Thomaston. Wilkins had said he wanted to have a gun for protection while working in the church office.

The 11th Circuit rejected arguments that Georgia’s ban violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion and Second Amendment right to bear arms.

John Monroe, a lawyer for Georgia Carry, said Monday the plaintiffs hadn’t decided whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We’re looking at it,” Monroe said of the 11th Circuit decision. “We respect the court’s decision, but we were disappointed.”

[ … ]

“We conclude that the Second Amendment does not give an individual a right to carry a firearm on a place of worship’s premises against the owner’s wishes because such right did not pre-exist the Amendment’s adoption,” the opinion says. “Enforcing the Carry Law against a license holder who carries a firearm on private property against the owner’s instructions would therefore be constitutional.”

This last part is very important, because the news report has, in my opinion, hit the core of the court’s argument.  It says:

A place of worship’s right, rooted in the common law, to forbid possession of firearms on its property is entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.  Surely, given the Court’s pronouncement that the Second Amendment merely “codified a pre-existing right,” Plaintiffs cannot contend that the Second Amendment in any way abrogated the well established property law, tort law, and criminal law that embodies a private property owner’s exclusive right to be king of his own castle. By codifying a pre-existing right, the Second Amendment did not expand, extend, or enlarge the individual right to bear arms at the expense of other fundamental rights; rather, the Second Amendment merely preserved the status quo of the right that existed at the time.42 Indeed, numerous colonial leaders, as well as scholars whose work influenced the Founding Fathers, embraced the concept that a man’s (or woman’s) right to control his (or her) own private property occupied a special role in American society and in our freedom.

Regardless of one’s views on weapons on private property, this might be a compelling argument if it had anything to do with the case.  This isn’t a case about concealed carry permit holders wishing to carry their weapons when the church authorities had a policy against such actions.

The original complaint states that “The Tabernacle would like to have members armed for the protection of its members attending worship services and other events at the Tabernacle’s place of worship, but is in fear of arrest and prosecution of such members under the Carry Ban for doing so.”

In fact, the church is a plaintiff in the complaint.  So in addressing (under the rubric of the second amendment) the issue of whether weapons may be carried on private property where there is a policy against it, the court has erected and knocked down a straw man.  Instead they could have granted the plaintiff’s petition and still left intact the prohibition for private property when the owner’s policy went contrary to the plaintiff’s desire.  They avoided the core issue in their cowardly ruling – they cut and ran when faced with people who wish exercise their constitutional rights.  Typical American workers can’t get away with such foolishness in the work place and still retain a job.

(H/T Instapundit)

Nothing original to add here, but this posting I picked up from Instapundit is well worth passing along, particularly in light of the typical, knee-jerk, Statist reactions to the horrific Aurora CO shootings:

Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10” list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Now all this statistical and factual information isn’t going to mean anything to Lefty’s and Statists, but it is always good to know that reality backs up the conservative position on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. 

Capital Hill is under pressure to adopt the approaching U.N. arms treaty, from the New York Times, to Reuters, to confused and goofy Christians who forgot all about their theology and think that a new regulation, law or treaty will bring peace on earth and good will toward men.

We have been informed that this administration will not allow the U.N. to impose any restrictions on American’s gun rights.  But then again, this is the same administration that: [1] Sent Donald Verrilli and Lanny Breuer to argue against Sean Masciandaro concerning the possession of firearms on National Park land, [2] Nominated Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court (who testified that Heller was settled law, and then dissented in McDonald versus Chicago, agreeing with Breyer who argued for overturning Heller), and [3] Named Rose Gottemoeller to head the U.S. delegation to the U.N. arms control negotiations, the very same Rose Gottemoeller who informed Moscow that the U.S. was open to significant compromise on U.S. missile defense.

In fact, a short tour through the U.N. schemes shows that international tracing, combined with nationalized regulations and controls on the manufacture, transfer and sell of small arms, is the central feature of the plan.  The U.N. program for implementation includes such requirements as no “military style” weapons should be possessed by civilians, a registered and traceable lifetime for every weapon, and so on.  Courtesy of reddit/guns, here is a marked-up listing of the kinds of regulations envisioned by the U.N.

As we have discussed before, the distinction between civilian and military weapons is meaningless today, and wasn’t ever very useful.  Bolt action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, tactical shotguns and a whole host of other kinds of weapons are being used in both civilian and military applications, and have been for a very long time.  A U.N. distinction between civilian and military weapons would yield regulations more onerous than the assault weapons ban (sunset provision on September 13, 2004) ever could.  A U.N. distinction between civilian and military owners achieves nothing beyond what the U.N. already wants, i.e., an international gun registry and lack of weapons transferability, and thus is this distinction a disingenuous subterfuge.  Promises to exempt “civilians” – whatever that means – doesn’t make this treaty any less dangerous to firearms ownership in America.

Missives on why treaties do not obviate or supersede the constitution, while well intentioned and informative, miss the point entirely.  Even in the wake of the Heller and McDonald rulings, there are still four justices on the Supreme Court who fundamentally do not believe in the second amendment, and then at least one who sees reversal of Heller on the horizon with a “future, wiser court.”  Furthermore, the decisions in Heller and McDonald do not address issues such as a gun registry, further controls on transfer of weapons across state lines or even within states, or other meaningless and intrusive ATF regulations.  There is a pregnant field of un-litigated second amendment issues in America, and the existence of an international treaty only complicates gun ownership.  It isn’t obvious that any court, much less the Supreme Court, would find stipulations similar to the ones in the U.N. treaty to be unconstitutional.

Finally, take note that international luminaries such as Iran – known to supply weapons to insurgents in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria – have been appointed to a post negotiating the treaty.  The very real possibility exists that legitimate weapons sales from the U.S. to allies (such as Israel) would become problematic under the treaty.  Taiwan, for instance, is concerned that the treaty could undercut weapons imports.

The silliness of the treaty and its effect on other nations is outlined fairly well by David Bosco at Foreign Policy (even if Bosco is willing to overlook its silliness).

There was a lot of talk at the session about the absurdity that sales of bananas are more regulated internationally than sales of assault rifles and about the need for more states to enact domestic legislation regulating arms transfers. The assembled activists did leaven their optimism with a dose of reality. They acknowledged that the treaty almost certainly would not contain any binding language or enforcement mechanisms. Instead, every country will determine for itself whether an arms sale or transfer is likely to contribute to human rights violations. (Under the ATT likely to emerge, Russia could report that it has duly considered whether arming Syrian forces would lead to violations and decided that it would not. Nobody would be able to gainsay the Kremlin, at least not through the treaty mechanism.)  What’s more, the treaty negotiations will be conducted on a consensus basis (Washington insisted on that), which means that any state can block adoption of a text it doesn’t like.

So civilians in America would be subject to onerous new regulations since America is a law abiding nation, while rogue nations would be free to export weapons as they see fit.  Or in other words, the criminals have the guns while the law abiding citizens are disarmed, sort of like gun control in America.  As I have previously observed, the U.N. arms treaty is a solution in search of a problem.

Not only does this treaty intrude on the second amendment rights of American citizens, and not only is it hypocritical in its intent, it would target the very country who abides by its laws and allow the perpetrators justification for their own actions.  The treaty is just one more progressive, micromanaging, over-controlling, statist solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.  We’ve seen ten thousand like it, and as long as the U.N. gets funding and a home from the U.S. government, we will see many more instances of this kind of busy-body meddling into the affairs of American citizens.

Regardless of what kind of language is included in the treaty concerning military and civilian weapons, it does nothing to address the real problem of weapons traffickers such as Iran, and there is no reason to ratify it.

UPDATE: Thanks to David Codrea for the attention to this.

UPDATE #2: Glenn Reynolds says bring it!

Prior:

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty