Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

California has recently prohibited open carry.

Sunday night, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law two bills affecting gun owners and dealers.

Brown signed AB 144 by Assemblymsn (sic) Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada-Flintridge) to ban the open carry of handguns in California; and AB 809 by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) to close a loophole in state law that required the destruction of long gun sales and transfer records.

“The Governor has shown common sense and real courage by standing with law enforcement and victims of gun violence to make our communities safer,” said Dr. Dallas Stout, President of the California Brady Campaign Chapters.

AB 809 will require the preservation of records for long guns sold or transferred in the state after Jan. 1, 2014. Currently, only handgun purchases and transfer records are retained by the state Department of Justice.

“The retention of long gun records will enable the tracing of long guns used in crime and help law enforcement expose traffickers and sources of illegal guns,” continued Stout. Data from the state Department of Justice shows more th an half the guns recovered from armed and prohibited persons are long guns.

AB 144 will prohibit carrying in public openly displayed handguns. Last January, the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign announced their Demand Gun-free Dining – California project in response to a political movement of gun enthusiasts testing an old law — which allows the open carry of semi-automatic weapons with live ammunition magazines readily available — by holding gun gatherings in local restaurants and on public property.

“By prohibiting the open carry of guns, we can now take our families to the park or out to eat without the worry of getting shot by some untrained, unscreened, self-appointed vigilante,” Stout continued.

A gun registry is one of the stepping stones to the holy grail for the Brady Campaign, the total absence of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.  But don’t be deceived.  The Brady Campaign is lying about being able to “take families to the park or eat without the worry of getting shot by some untrained, unscreened, self-appointed vigilante.”  It isn’t really concealed carry that the Brady Campaign wants.  Not at all.  The Brady Campaign puts out so much silly propaganda that it cannot keep its own story straight.  As reported by Rock River Times (apparently reporting not too far, ironically, from Rock River Arms in Colona Illinois), the Brady Campaign is arguing for something different in Illinois.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence intends to file two amicus briefs in federal courts this week in Illinois urging dismissal of two gun lobby lawsuits challenging the validity of Illinois law restricting the public carrying of firearms.

Illinois is the only state in the nation that has yet to legalize a form of concealed carry of firearms.

“The people of Illinois have made the reasonable decision to keep deadly semi-automatic weapons off the streets,” said Brady Center Acting President Dennis Henigan. “Courts have wisely rejected the gun lobby’s argument that the Constitution provides a right to carry loaded handguns in public, and the Second Amendment does not require people to be subjected to the grave risks of more loaded guns in our communities.”

You see, the Brady Campaign doesn’t want concealed carry either.  Their faux praise for the new California law prohibiting open carry is for appearances.  They must keep up the facade of reasonableness and legitimacy on their way to their holy grail.  In reality, they want the total disarmament of the population (which can never succeed with the criminals).  In shouldn’t be able to succeed with law-abiding citizens either, which is one reason we mustn’t give one inch to the anti-firearms zealots and bigots.

I’ve discussed my open carry practices in my home state of North Carolina before, and this is another fine time to mention that my sister state of South Carolina still needs a progressive and forward-thinking congressman to carry them out of the dark ages and allow open carry.  South Carolina still agrees with California, as odd as that may sound.  They both prohibit open carry now.

Chris Brown at Media Matters gives us an amusing take on so-called “assault rifles.”

Chris wrongly assumes that the firearms community must be ashamed and embarrassed at the debate.  With Robert Farago, I think that this alleged takedown is much ado about nothing.  This is just the firearms community talking to each other.  Frankly, it doesn’t much matter to me whether one calls it an AR, a home defense weapon, a rifle, a long gun, or a modern sporting rifle.  It’s all of those things, and more.  But there is one particular myth that I want to take down once and for all, and it is given to us by someone calling himself “progressive” at Media Matters.

I’d personally consider an ‘assault rifle’ to be a weapon other than a handgun (ex: semi-automatic or revolver) or submachine gun (ex: FN Herstal P90, Tec-DC9, H&K MP5) that can fire high-powered rounds such as .223cal, .308cal, or 7.62mm with a selective fire capability. Many tend to have a lever built into the trigger assembly for selecting single-shot, multi-round burst, or safety-on.

The category especially includes military-derived rifles like the AR-15/M4 family used by many US and NATO forces, Kalashnikov-style rifles (AK-47, AKM, AK-74) that originated from the former USSR, and newer high-tech weapons from Europe like the FN Herstal SCAR, H&K G36, or SIG-Sauer 556.

I think ‘assault rifle’ is a perfectly accurate term. These rifles were all designed and mass-produced to be (quite literally) anti-personnel weapons in a combat situation. They were NOT designed with residential protection, competitive shooting, or hunting in mind- otherwise there would be no need to sell a modified version of any of the above rifles to the general public. For example, you cannot wisely use an AR-15 rifle to protect your home from a burglar who is inside- the penetration properties of a high-powered weapon would make the risk to your family in an adjacent room a serious concern. There’s a reason that police SWAT units rarely use assault rifles for operations inside an occupied building.

Oh my.  There are so many errors in this one post that it’s difficult to know where to begin, but I want to cover this notion that the AR isn’t a legitimate home defense weapon.  The acronym AR, as we all know, stands for Armalite.  My own rifle is a Rock River Arms Elite CAR A4, an M4-style variant that has a long enough barrel to be legal (the M4 does not for civilian use).  I have put many rounds through it, and never had a failure to feed or failure to eject.  Until you have shot the 5.56 round, you simply don’t get a feel for how high the muzzle velocity is (viewing through scopes at 100+ yards shows no discernible time delay between firing and observing impact on target) compared to the extremely low recoil.

The 5.56 mm is a high velocity round with superior terminal ballistics, yawing upon impact and leaving an enlarged trail of tissue damage.  Yet this idea that it will kill people one or two houses away or that it is more dangerous to people in adjacent rooms than other rounds, even pistol caliber rounds, is entirely wrong.  Tests have demonstrated that the 5.56 mm penetrates less drywall than most of the pistol caliber rounds (depending upon the specific brand and type).

My AR is fabricated (with its quad rail) to hold attachments such as a forend grip and a tactical light, and upon meeting a home intruder in the dark, without a tactical light you may as well be blind.  Sending the wife to the movies for the night lends a wonderful chance to darken the home and practice clearing tactics from room to room.  The light weight of the rifle along with its collapsible stock make it a great weapon for maneuverability around doorways, and so it makes a great CQB firearm.  Finally, while the round does yaw and tend to fragment (causing tissue damage or conversely beginning the process of disintegration if it misses), it does well if the home intruder is wearing soft body armor, a trend in the more violent home invasions in urban areas.  While there are those who disagree, I believe that Eugene Stoner was a genius.

Tiger McKee sums it up it well.

When people ask, “What do you keep beside your bed at night,” I tell them it’s an AR. Usually their first response is, “Yeah, but you live in the middle of Alafrickinbama.” Which is true, but that doesn’t mean the .223/5.56 carbine isn’t an excellent weapon for home defense, even in urban environments.

When it comes to terminal ballistics high velocity rifle rounds perform much better than pistol rounds. Another advantage of the .223/5.56 round is its limited penetration, unless you’re firing steel core rounds specifically designed for penetration. Numerous tests show the .223/5.56 round penetrating through less interior walls than 9mm, .40 and .45 ACP rounds. This is even true for hollow-point pistol rounds, which fill up with sheetrock and such and never expand the way they are supposed to, and buckshot. If you’re shooting, the possibility of missing shots exists. Limited penetration of errant rounds is a good thing.

The carbine allows you to place one bullet exactly where you want it to go, as opposed to a shotgun. Even though great advances have occurred in shotgun rounds, you still have to be concerned with distance and pattern, and wads and spacers, which at close distances can injure or kill. In a hostage situation, an AR and the proper skills allow you to place one round with surgical precision. The AR is accurate from three yards to three hundred. Not that you could justify to a grand jury shooting someone at an extended distance, but this means it’s no problem to hit at thirty yards, which could be necessary.

The AR is lightweight, has limited recoil, and simple to operate. Anyone in the family of age can learn how to use it, effectively, in a short amount of time. A lot of people, even hard-core operators, will flinch when pressing off a magnum round of twelve-gauge buck. After firing the shotgun you have to pump it, which a lot of people forget or fumble under stress. When firing a semi-auto without getting a good aggressive position there’s a chance the shooter will be clearing a malfunction. With an AR you slip off the safety, get a good sight picture, press the trigger, follow through, and repeat as necessary.

While most self-defense problems only require a few rounds to solve, the AR’s high capacity magazine does allow you to stay in an extended fight for longer periods of time without having to reload. Just keep in mind Clint Smith’s saying that a higher capacity magazine isn’t a license to shoot more, it just means you have to manipulate the weapon less.

We also can’t ignore the psychological advantages of the carbine. I’ve seen people with pistols pointed at them who really didn’t seem to care. A carbine normally commands much respect.

The AR may not be the weapon for your home defense, but don’t discount it without serious consideration. When attacked, your task is to stop the threat as efficiently as possible. With the proper training and practice the .223/5.56 carbine is an excellent tool for this task.

Lastly, there is always the threat of bear in Pennsylvania, bear in Idaho, mountain lions in Sierra Madre, feral hogs in South Carolina, Georgia, or frankly anywhere in the Southeast running children indoors (if they don’t harm or kill them first), or rabid  Coyotes in suburban Charlotte (McAlpine Greenway near where I live and  walk my dog).  Even if you want something more hefty for bear, you may not have ready access to it.  The AR platform provides a ready and reliable means of defense against nearly all threats (confession: I don’t carry my AR while I walk my dog, I open carry my XDm .45).

Where else can you get 3100 fps muzzle velocity, rounds yawing upon impact, almost non-existent recoil, light weight, rails for needed attachments, ability to penetrate soft body armor during home invasions, relative safety for adjacent rooms compared to large shotgun shot, relatively short barrel and rapid ability to attain a viable sight picture?

It may not be the weapon for everyone, but while it isn’t the only weapon I use, it sits under my bed at night.  Media Matters can supply us with laughs, chuckles and snortles, but a serious assessment of the matter shows that the AR is not only a legitimate home defense weapon, it is a superior one.  Enough with the notion that this weapon is around only so that psychopathic kooks can “kill large numbers of innocent people.”  It’s high capacity magazine has turned out useful in defensive engagements before and will so in the future.  Besides, as I’ve said before, a high capacity magazine is an aluminum parallelepiped with a spring and follower.  Anyone with a little ambition can build one in his garage.  Prohibiting them from sale is both silly and deceiving.

I withhold my counsel on use of the AR for Chris Brown and Progressive at Media Matters.  I strongly advise that upon sensing a threat of any kind they call and wait for the police to arrive.  That should happen on the order of 8 – 20 minutes from placement of the call.

Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has a post up on Presbyterianism and gun rights concerning “Presbyterian” leadership and anti-gun advocacy.  I like the spirit of his post, but there are two very problematic aspects to his post.

First, he conflates the PCUSA with Presbyterians.  Not so.  Not at all.  There is the PCA, the OPC, the RPCNA, the ARP, and so on.  Presbyterianism isn’t a monolith, and the PCUSA is noted as the very left wing of Presbyterianism.

Second, and most important, Sebastian argues thusly:

I really don’t like it when churches insert themselves into political matters under the guise that these are really spiritual matters. Murder, rage, and vengeance — these are all matters of the spirit. Gun control is a matter of politics

And that, my friends, is exactly how to lose the gun rights argument.  Make it a political debate where, with enough pressure, votes and power, a man can take away what God has granted.  There is more background in Let Him Who Has No Gun Sell His Robe and Buy One, and Dr. Greg Bahnsen has much more.  But the short version is that the right to self defense is a right seen by our forefathers as inalienable.  That  means that it isn’t subject to the ebb and flow of politics.

My right to firearms ownership is granted by God, no  matter what the PCUSA says.  They’re just wrong.  But the way to defeat wrongheaded arguments is not to remove our rights from the framework of righteousness and morality.  It is to prove our opponents wrong on this very basis.

The problem is that while Sebastian claims that gun control is a matter of politics rather than religion (“spirit”), it really is a matter of religion and righteousness and morality rather than politics.  He has it exactly backwards.  I’m not being critical.  I’m trying to ground our rights in something other than the machinations of the political animal.

The Police Department of the City of Warren, Michigan, behaved badly towards a citizen engaged in open carry.

A Warren man who is an advocate for firearm “open carry” practices is suing the city and its police department, claiming officers violated his Second Amendment  right to bear arms.

Jeffery Haman, 54, seeks a $100,000 judgment and $500,000 in punitive or exemplary damages, as part of the lawsuit he filed recently in U.S. District Court.

With a semi-automatic pistol holstered at his waist, Haman, a former firearms dealer, was walking home from a local drug store at 12 Mile and Hoover roads in August 2009 when a patrolman quickly drove up to him.

“At the first instant where I could see through the open passenger window, he had a gun pointed at me,” he said. “Then he came to a stop. As soon as I saw the gun, I put my hands up.”

Haman was ordered to lie on his stomach, with his hands outstretched. The officer handcuffed him and three additional officers in two patrol cars arrived.

“I asked him what his reason was for stopping me. He said, ‘You’re walking down the street with a gun.’ I said, ‘That’s perfectly legal, I’m open carrying.’”

Police took the .45 caliber handgun and his ammunition, and asked if he had documentation for the weapon. Haman said he showed a purchase receipt and a concealed-weapon permit although it’s not required for open carry.

In a police video of the incident, an officer is heard telling Haman: “You should at least call us and tell us what you’re doing. Walking around like this is just going to get you hurt somehow.

“You’re just asking for trouble, brother.”

[ … ]

Warren Police Commissioner Jere Green, who along with former commissioner William Dwyer are defendants in the lawsuit, said Friday he had just received a copy but had not read it yet …

“We have to train and educate our troops when things like this happen,” said Green, “and we certainly do.”

Emphasizing that he was not commenting on the Haman case, the city’s top police administrator said any officer who sees a person carrying a firearm must quickly assess any potential threat.

“I don’t think a citizen would just want us to drive by and assume it’s an open carry situation,” Green said.

“Safety’s first.”

Haman explained the two-year lapse between the incident and the lawsuit was due to finding the right lawyer and unsuccessful efforts to try to meet with the city attorney in the hope of convincing the legal department to issue a memorandum to police on how to address open carry situations in public.

There are some very telling quotes in the article – gems that get to the heart of the problem.  “You should at least call us and tell us what you’re doing” … “Walking around like this is just going to get you hurt somehow” … “You’re just asking for trouble, brother” … “any officer who sees a person carrying a firearm must quickly assess any potential threat” … “I don’t think a citizen would just want us to drive by and assume it’s an open carry situation” … “Safety’s first.”

“Safety’s first.”  Right.  So lets’ examine some of these positions in a little more detail after a few questions.  Before we exercise our right to free speech or religion, must we contact law enforcement to inform them?  Has the police commissioner polled the citizens to see what they expect concerning open carry, or has he just assumed that he knows?  How will walking around with a weapon get someone hurt?  Who will hurt them and for what purpose?  Why didn’t the police commissioner educate his officers (not “troops”) to understand that Michigan is a traditional open carry state?  Why didn’t the police commissioner educate his officers to understand that Michigan has no stop and identify statute?  Do his officers routinely unholster and aim their weapons at people who are not violating any law?

A bit more background before I make several observations.  I open carry, and it’s not because I am trying to make some sort of political point.  I walk my dog, and in the afternoons here in Charlotte, N.C., it can reach 100 degrees F in the summer, even late in the afternoon.  I got tired of sweating all over my weapon when I concealed it.  I suppose I could use something that lifted my weapon off of my body like a super-tuck holster, but the last thing I want on a 100 F day is to put a slab of leather next to my body to get wet and salty and make me more hot than I already am.

So I have been open carrying for a number of  months now.  Women and children don’t go running home and screaming in fear for their lives.  People don’t scatter when they see me.  On the contrary, many people stop to talk and pet my dog.  The Charlotte-Mecklenburg police (Baker 2) drive by often, smile, and wave – or simply ignore me.  My time open carrying has been completely uneventful.  No one has been harmed, no one has sought to harm me, and most importantly, no out-of-control police officer has unholstered his weapon and aimed it at me.

In fact, I use extreme discipline when I carry my weapon.  I have never unholstered it when I am in public.  If I did, someone could charge me with brandishing a weapon, and properly so.  Not so for the Warren Police, apparently.  If safety is first for the Warren Police, then why did this officer unholster his weapon and aim it at someone who wasn’t violating any statue or law?

There are two cardinal sins for any firearm owner.  Lack of muzzle discipline, and lack of trigger discipline.  Sweeping someone with a muzzle is forbidden in the superlative, and this officer pointed his at an innocent citizen.  If he had been lacking trigger discipline – like other incompetent LEOs – he might just have killed someone with a negligent discharge.

So the salient question is this.  Who is the one who supplied the safety in the situation; Mr. Haman who held up his hands, or the police officer?  I think that the answer is clear to any thinking man.  And with a little more thought, it isn’t hard to ascertain the cultural basis for this kind of behavior.

It’s okay if an officer has a negligent discharge and kills an innocent man (we’ll just find “analysts” who say that it was something procedural).  It’s okay if police officers fire off 71 stray bullets in a shootout and kill an innocent bystander (whereas I would have been charged with second degree murder if I attempted to defend myself and ended up shooting a bystander).  It’s okay if a SWAT team terrorizes the Guerena family, killing former Marine Jose Guerena, and fail to recover a single shred of incriminating evidence for the raid.  And it’s okay if a Warren police officer unholsters his weapon on an innocent citizen who is obeying all laws.  We shouldn’t expect him to know or understand the law, whereas I would be jailed for brandishing a weapon if I did something like that.

You see, they are sworn law enforcement officers, and they are entitled to these things.  I, on the other hand, cannot be trusted with a firearm, any more than Mr. Haman.  How disciplined I am with a firearm has nothing to do with it.  I’m not a sworn LEO.

So there you have it.  Prejudice and bigotry on display.  It is the intellectual edifice they have built for so many years.  This officer overreacted during the incident by unholstering his weapon and losing his muzzle discipline.  I could never get away with that.  But the real problem is manifest by the refusal properly to educate the officers on the open carry tradition and (lack of) stop and identify statutes.  Did you catch that?  The police commission refuses to issue a memorandum.

A memorandum to educate his officers.  Good grief.  A memorandum could have made this whole ugly scene go away, and they are too proud to do it.  Prejudice and bigotry.

And speaking of prejudice and bigotry, I notice that my sister state, South Carolina, forbids open carry (causing me some moderate inconveniences).  It’s about time for some thoughtful congressman to put forward a bill to bring S.C. into the 21st century.  Michigan is already there, even if their police aren’t.

In what may be the best line … ever … on gun control, Rick Perry weighs in on his position to a crowd in South Carolina:

Republican presidential hopeful Gov. Rick Perry on Monday turned a South Carolina forum question into a quip, on an issue where no Texas politician dare be caught on the “wrong side.”

“Honestly, the next question is so easy that I don’t even want to ask it: Are you for gun control?” asked Rep. Tim Scott, R-South Carolina.

“I am actually for gun control: Use both hands,” Perry shot back.  He put on a wide old-boy grin and gave thumbs-up to his listeners.

In his book Fed Up, Perry describes himself as “the kind of guy who goes jogging in the morning packing a Ruger .380 with laser sights, loaded with hollow point bullets, and shoots a coyote that is threatening his daughter’s dog.”

By way of full disclosure, I have been supportive of Perry (if only vocally), although I think that his positions on illegal immigration and border control are deplorable.  But this one line will stick with his campaign until the end, and it’s similar to a tactic that I recommended he pursue in South Carolina.  I advised that if Romney temporarily surges when he begins campaigning in S.C., all Governor Perry has to do is show up at the shooting range in Pickens County, S.C., where I often shoot, carry along some reporters with him, and then inform his fellow shooters that Governor Romney signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts (and would do so again).

Speaking of Romney and his assault weapons ban, Yvonne Abraham with The Boston Globe defends his position.

Now, I’ve been critical of Romney at times. But he looks better every time Perry says something dense, which is often (Evolution is just one theory! Global warming is a hoax by greedy scientists!).

Romney is a Second Amendment guy, but as governor, he wasn’t an absolutist. In 2004, he signed into law a permanent ban on assault weapons in Massachusetts. Everybody seemed pretty happy with it at the time, even National Rifle Association types, who extracted some concessions in return for the ban on AK-47s, Uzis, and other exotics.

Since then, the national electorate has lurched to the right, forcing Romney into inelegant contortions to explain even positions considered firmly Republican a few years ago. Shortly after Romney signed the bill, Congress, most of which is owned by – or terrified of – the gun lobby, allowed the federal assault weapons ban to expire. That’s why Jared Loughner was able to so easily obtain (sic) the semiautomatic weapon he used to kill six people and injure a gun rights-supporting congresswoman in Arizona earlier this year.

Poor analysis, this is.  Ms. Abraham makes several mistakes, one of which is thinking that gun owners are a monolithic group represented by the NRA.  Many of us believe that the NRA made mistakes in the past when they didn’t oppose government intrusions into second amendment rights.  Furthermore, the background may very well have been that the bill was going to pass anyway, so the NRA bargained for inclusion of relaxation of some existing laws.

Either way, Romney isn’t a second amendment man if he signed into law a so-called “assault weapons” ban.  Finally, Loughner didn’t purchase an “assault weapon.”  He had a hand gun.  It had a high capacity magazine, and Ms. Abraham assumes (because she apparently knows nothing about firearms) that Loughner wouldn’t have been able to master rapid magazine changeout similar to the way it’s done at IDPA competitions.  She also assumes that Loughner wouldn’t have been able to fabricate a high capacity magazine in his garage.  After all, it’s only a parallelepiped, made of aluminum, a spring and follower.  This isn’t rocket science.  But don’t tell the progressives that making more laws won’t affect law abiding citizens.  It gets in the way of their world view.

Speaking of that, Zach Brooke writing for The UWM Post is more than willing to step in the way of constitutional rights in a commentary entitled Happiness is No Guns.

Now that concealed carry has been approved for all University of Wisconsin system campuses, each college must decide whether to ban guns, tasers, billy clubs and various types of dangerous knives from campus buildings. It is our belief that UW-Milwaukee should follow UW-Madison’s lead and prohibit weapons from all campus buildings, including all residence halls and Engelmann Field …

We advocate the prohibition of weapons not out of a desire to curb second amendment rights. As an independent press, we have a healthy respect for all freedoms afforded by the Bill of Rights and consider each amendment as sacrosanct as the first, which all newspapers claim as birthright.

But we believe freedoms must be balanced against their potential for significant harm. No right is absolute, but rather is subject to limitations based on the probable consequences of abuse. If the Post abuses its first amendment privileges, we print a retraction. If an individual discharges their weapon into a crowd, several lives are irreparably damaged.

Strange apology, appearing out of nowhere.  ” … not out of a desire to curb second amendment rights … but we believe freedoms must be balanced against their potential for significant harm.”  In other words, Mr. Brooke doesn’t want to intrude into second amendment rights, but that’s exactly what he advocates, and not only that, he justifies it based on some vague variant of utilitarianism.

Forget for a moment whether gun control actually accomplishes its intention.  There is plenty of evidence that it does not.  The more  important point is that like most statists, Mr. Brooke sees the government in the role of granting and legitimizing rights.  If that is so, then it’s a short step to governmental stipulations on the extent of their exercise.

But if our rights are granted by God rather than the state, then it is immoral for the state to sanction their removal or impede their free exercise.  As for Mr. Brooke and Ms. Abraham, they are worrying over things that they have no legitimate right to control.  My right to self defense and protection of my family is incorrigible.

UPDATE: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the attention to this article.

In the Southern district of New York, Judge Cathy Seibel has taken draconian action regarding second amendment rights, but before we get to that, let’s briefly rehearse just where the decisions in Heller and McDonald have left us.

In Revisiting the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, we discussed how state judges in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York have ruled recently that there is no constitutional right to carry a loaded gun for self-defense. And in Virginia, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal conviction of a man who fell asleep in his car near Washington’s Reagan National Airport with a loaded gun.  This last case of falling asleep in a car is the case of Sean Masciandaro, who was on National Park land and didn’t remove ammunition from his weapon and move it from the proximity of his weapon (e.g., place it in a remote location such as the trunk).  In the Petition for Write of Certiorari to the Supreme Court on his behalf, it is observed that:

Heller and McDonald left open important questions regarding the scope of the self-defense right beyond the home and the appropriate method for evaluating government regulations affecting it. The lower courts have struggled mightily with these issues. See, e.g., Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 467 (“But a considerable degree of uncertainty remains as to the scope of that right beyond the home and the standards for determining whether and how the right can be burdened by governmental regulation.”); United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Skoien II”) (Heller creates an individual right that includes keeping operable handguns at home for self-defense but “[w]hat other entitlements the Second Amendment creates, and what regulations legislatures may establish, were left open.”), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1674 (2011).

The highest state courts that have considered the issue unanimously decided that the Second Amendment right is limited to the home. Maryland, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Kansas have all limited Heller to its holding. 9 For example, the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s firearm permitting statute, concluding that the right is unavailable outside the home. Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 496 (Md. 2011) (stating that “[i]f the Supreme Court, in this [Heller] dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly”), petition for cert. filed, 79 U.S.L.W. 3594 (Apr. 5, 2011). That court noted that Illinois, the District of Columbia, and California also limited the right in similar cases. Id. at 496-99. Given this trend, state courts that confront Second Amendment issues in the future will likely limit its protection to the home.

Other state and federal courts have held that even if the right might exist outside the home, it is substantially weaker than the right enjoyed in the home.

But if the stolid state courts believe personal possession (outside of your domicile) is an open question in the wake of Heller and McDonald, Judge Cathy Seibel has gotten rather assertive concerning what she believes concerning our rights.

In a precedent setting case, a federal judge has ruled that individuals do not have a constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The decision was rendered in the case of Kachalsky, et.al v. Cacace, et.al in the Southern District of New York.

The Attorney General’s office represented four state court judges who had been named as defendants in the case. who also serve as “licensing officers” under the New York statute.

Five individual plaintiffs residing in Westchester County, and one organization, the Second Amendment Foundation Inc., argued that the “proper cause” provision of the New York law governing the issuance of licenses to carry concealed handguns in public violates their rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as defined in two recent landmark decisions by the United States Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.

The “proper cause” provision requires a license applicant to show “a special need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.”

The Attorney General’s office argued that the “proper cause” provision of the New York law did not violate the Second Amendment as described by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald.

Judge Cathy Seibel agreed, ruling that the Second Amendment provides the right to keep arms for the purpose of self defense in the home, but does not extend to a right to carry concealed handguns in public.

The judge further ruled that even if the Second Amendment were read to cover such a right, the New York”proper cause” provision passes constitutional muster under the Heller and McDonald rulings because the law is substantially related to important governmental interests, namely the promotion of public safety and the prevention of crimes perpetrated with concealed handguns.

Possession of firearms isn’t a right, it’s a privilege granted by state review of your specific need.  The combination of progressive judges, the failure of the public to assert constitutional rights, and muddled, short-sighted decisions by the Supreme Court has led us to a state of near anarchy in lower court decisions concerning the second amendment.  The need of hour is for citizens to be diligent, and for the Supreme Court to be clear in their next ruling on the second amendment.

Daniel Hammarberg, writing at American Daily Herald, gives us an absolutely must-read article and commentary on Swedish gun control, its laws, the evolution of the thinking behind Swedish gun control, and lastly, a serious warning.  After outlining the recent history of the laws, Hammarberg discusses the push for still stricter controls.

Though most people would consider these laws outright draconian, there are plenty of calls for even more strict legislation; something that just as in the USA also takes place in Sweden when there’s a tragedy involving guns, such as the recent massacre by Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik. On the 9th of August, an opinion piece by a child physician published in one of Sweden’s largest newspapers, called for a complete ban even on pistols. Measures such as these have strong support in the country’s medical community and among the political establishment. After another man had gone on a shooting spree last year in Malmö, with five attempted murders and one actual homicide, there was a complete media frenzy, and Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask took the opportunity to present her view on how one could come to terms with the problem of gun violence.

“Beatrice Ask also feels that an overhaul has to be made of the weapons regulations, that gun permits for example have to be subject to inspection and review.”

The health authorities also added their two cents:

“The National Board of Health and Welfare has previously forwarded requests both for review of gun permits and that everyone applying for one shall also have to present a doctor’s certificate. There the Minister feels that mental illness is a factor that shall mean that you’re denied a gun permit.”

Following this, on 16 November, Ask also announced before the parliament that a new, stricter weapons law was in the works. To quote:

“The police shall also be able to request a statement from the social welfare board and the prison service along with a doctor’s certificate to determine whether someone is fit to own firearms.”

Hence, what this means is that you might have to show your criminal record sheet, whatever journal notes the social services has kept on you (and they play a significant role in Swedish society), as well as produce a certificate from a psychiatrist that you are indeed mentally competent (guilty until proven innocent).

In order to obtain a Concealed Handgun Permit in my home state of North Carolina, a background check was conducted, and I had to sign over rights to my medical records to the Sheriff of my county.  Any history of substance abuse or mental illness would have disqualified me.  Of course, there were no problems and I have the permit, but this is really beyond agreeable limits as far as I am concerned.  It places the decision-making for suitableness to carry a weapon for self defense in the hands of someone who may adjudicate the matter based on subjective feelings, variable rules for mental health from county to county or state to state, or for any number of other non-scientific, non-quantifiable reasons.  Yet, Sweden now requires a psychiatric evaluation, and without clearer opinions from the Supreme Court, the U.S. may be headed there.  Continuing with Hammarberg’s analysis (and this is the important part).

In spite of the tyrannical control of firearms, this has had little effect on the explosion in the violent crime rate the country has been suffering from during the last couple of decades, with a homicide rate that’s now at an historic all-time high, with 333 reported cases during 2010, or about 2/3 of the American rate; rape and assault rates are over twice as high as the American ones (Editorial note: Gun control never really accomplishes the stated justification of reducing violence; this is always a veneer or pretense for the laws).

And whilst the government has always attempted to tighten the noose around legal gun owners after every incident of this sort, the vast majority of violent crimes are committed through the use of illicit weapons. The control of these illicit weapons isn’t nearly as successful as the one of their legal counterparts, as admitted in a police interview from 2005. To quote:

“The police estimate that thousands of firearms are smuggled into Sweden ever year. Every day on average, three serious crimes are committed with illicit firearms. Yet Customs has a hard time intercepting the gun smugglers. During 2003 and 2004, fewer than twenty firearms were seized by Swedish Customs workers.”

One of the most publicized shooting sprees in Swedish history, during which a man in mass media labeled Lasermannen — “The Laser Man” – shot at eleven immigrants and killed one of them, was also committed with an illicit weapon, and hence would not have been affected by these control efforts. This doesn’t seem to bother the police though — somehow everything becomes a matter of preventing any sort of unlicensed gun ownership:

“According to Sonny Björk at the Stockholm county police, the cooperation is necessary. But he also feels the law needs to change to get at the growing smuggling.

“We have to up the sentencing guidelines for illicit weapons ownership so it doesn’t become appealing carrying a firearm. Today you gladly accept a prison sentence for the advantage of owning a firearm, Sonny Björk says.”

One thing you can count on never hearing in the public debate is criticism of the gun laws in place here. There is lamentation over that big crazy country in the west, however, where the people own all of these guns. In an editorial in Sydsvenskan shortly after Seung-Hui Cho shot up Virginia Tech, Lennart Pehrson expresses his grievances over what he believes is essentially unrestricted gun ownership in the USA. Sweden is also the country where the infamous Michael Moore is hailed as a truth-teller and a hero, where the state-TV is always keen on showing his documentaries repeatedly, and with Bowling for Columbine being one of the movies promoted on its web page.

Hammarberg then warns about Swedish style gun control laws coming to the shores of America.  There are various commentaries asserting the need for ratification of the coming U.S. arms control treaty, some of them simply indignant and insulting.  But here is a fact that none of the advocates of the U.S. arms treaty will admit.  In order to interdict illegal arms sales and control proliferation of arms into second and third world countries, they do not need for the U.S. government to know the location of and register every serial number for every weapon in the U.S.  It’s simply an unnecessary intrusion into U.S. constitutional protections.  A national register is a possible first step towards confiscation, and the U.N. doesn’t actually need any other information or controls in the U.S. to accomplish their stated goals.  The U.S. is not the problem.

Confiscation.  Could such a think happen?  Would such a thing happen?  Well, it’s important to realize where we are.  The lower courts have piled on the SCOTUS for failure to explain the extent to which ownership of a firearm is legal and constitutional beyond the confines of one’s domicile.  According to the lower courts, all the decisions in Heller and McDonald accomplished was to justify ownership of a weapon within your own home, not outside the home – not anywhere – not anytime – not for any reason whatsoever.

And these decisions passed by a bare 5-4 vote.  Note.  Four justices on the U.S. Supreme Court (and that tally will probably hold with Kagan’s history of disrespect for the second amendment) do not even believe that U.S. citizens have a right to own a weapon within their own home.  Within their own home.

We truly are one vote away from loss of the second amendment.  No further intrusions by the U.N. are needed.  The U.N. should concern itself with … oh, I don’t know … underwater basket weaving or something to occupy its time so that it won’t be a hazard to the balance of the world.

Bill Keller wants to get down and dirty into the weeds of the candidate’s faith.  I’ll let you read his list of questions if you want, but of particular interest to me was this one posed to Michele Bachmann.

You have said that watching the film series “How Should We Then Live?” by the evangelist Francis Schaeffer was a life-altering event for you. That series stresses the “inerrancy” ­— the literal truth — of the Bible. Do you believe the Bible consists of literal truths, or that it is to be taken more metaphorically?

Good grief.  Keller isn’t educated enough even to pose the question the right way.  As he has posed it he blunders into the fallacy of the false dilemma.  Let’s see if I can help out.  Any thinking Christian has to answer Keller’s question, yes and yes.  It is both-and, not either-or.

The Bible contains simile, metaphor (which is extended simile), allegory, data and facts, parables (Jesus taught us in stories), wisdom literature (Psalms and Proverbs, Song of Solomon) and so on and so forth.  Different rules of hermeneutics must be followed based on the kind of literature.  Isaiah 46:9-10 and Ephesians 1:4-5,11 must be taken quite literally.  The book of Daniel, quite obviously, is comprised of much that has to be taken figuratively.

If Keller is referring to whether one believes in the historicity of miracles, then he should have posed the question specifically that way.  Asking whether one believes in the inerrancy of the Bible is, equally stolid and incomplete.  The Christian doctrine pertains to the infallibility of the autographs.  These kinds of things – hermeneutics, doctrine – are taught in classes usually held in places such as seminaries.  Keller might want to attend one before he tries to play ball in the major league again.  He struck out this time.

But I’m glad that Keller opened up the floor for discussion.  Now it’s my turn.  Mr. Keller is no defender of the second amendment, and the New York Times is usually considered to be the enemy of gun ownership.  Very well.  Here is the set of questions for Keller.

Do you believe in individual gun ownership?  If you don’t, is it based on a belief that mankind is too variable and prone to fits of rage to prevent himself from being a danger to those around him?  Depending upon the answer to this last one, there are two followup questions.  If the answer is yes, then please explain the moral flaw in your character that makes you this way.  If the answer is no, then please explain to us why you would relinquish a tool that could be used to defend your family and loved ones from danger and death if in fact your are not susceptible to this moral flaw (also explain why this moral flaw affects everyone else but not you).  As a related issue, why would you force others to relinquish these same tools to defend and protect their loved ones unless you were certain that they too suffered from moral flaws.  Finally, if you do not believe in any system of faith at all, please explain your conception of this moral flaw.  What is a moral flaw?

I’m glad that we could have this conversation.  I look forward to your responses.

David Savage with The LA Times:

The 2nd Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms” is proving to be a right to keep a gun at home, but so far not a right to bear a loaded firearm in public.

The Supreme Court breathed new life into the amendment when it struck down strict handgun bans in Washington and Chicago and spoke of the “inherent right of self-defense.”

But to the dismay of gun rights advocates, judges in recent months have read those decisions narrowly and rejected claims from those who said they had a constitutional right to carry a loaded gun on their person or in their car. Instead, these judges from California to Maryland have said the “core right” to a gun is limited to the home.

Now, the National Rifle Assn. is asking the high court to take up the issue this fall and “correct the widespread misapprehension that the 2nd Amendment’s scope does not extend beyond the home.”

Stephen Halbrook, an NRA lawyer, said “some judges have buried their heads in the sand and have refused to go one step further” than saying there is a right to have a gun at home.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence hailed the trend and called the high court’s rulings a “hollow victory” for gun enthusiasts. “The gun lobby has tried to expand [the 2nd Amendment] into a broad right to carry any type of gun anywhere. And they have been almost unanimously rejected by the courts,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of legal action. He conceded, however, that “this battle is far from over.”

The uncertainty began with the Supreme Court itself. In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia said the history of the 2nd Amendment shows it “guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” But other parts of his 5-4 opinion stressed there is no right to “carry any weapon in any manner,” and that bans on “carrying concealed weapons were lawful” in the 19th century.

Since then, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed to challenge gun restrictions. In California, federal judges in San Diego and Yolo counties rejected suits from law-abiding gun owners who were denied “concealed carry” permits.

“The 2nd Amendment does not create a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon in public,” U.S. District Judge Morrison England ruled in May.

“That’s the cutting-edge issue: whether the 2nd Amendment applies outside the home,” said Chuck Michel, an NRA lawyer in Long Beach who has appealed the question to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

State judges in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York have also ruled recently that there is no constitutional right to carry a loaded gun for self-defense. And in Virginia, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal conviction of a man who fell asleep in his car near Washington’s Reagan National Airport with a loaded gun.

So what is Savage talking about?  The best summary statement can be found directly in the Petition for Write of Certiorari to the Supreme Court on behalf of Sean Masciandaro.

Heller and McDonald left open important questions regarding the scope of the self-defense right beyond the home and the appropriate method for evaluating government regulations affecting it. The lower courts have struggled mightily with these issues. See, e.g., Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 467 (“But a considerable degree of uncertainty remains as to the scope of that right beyond the home and the standards for determining whether and how the right can be burdened by governmental regulation.”); United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Skoien II”) (Heller creates an individual right that includes keeping operable handguns at home for self-defense but “[w]hat other entitlements the Second Amendment creates, and what regulations legislatures may establish, were left open.”), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1674 (2011).

The highest state courts that have considered the issue unanimously decided that the Second Amendment right is limited to the home. Maryland, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Kansas have all limited Heller to its holding. 9 For example, the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s firearm permitting statute, concluding that the right is unavailable outside the home. Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 496 (Md. 2011) (stating that “[i]f the Supreme Court, in this [Heller] dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly”), petition for cert. filed, 79 U.S.L.W. 3594 (Apr. 5, 2011). That court noted that Illinois, the District of Columbia, and California also limited the right in similar cases. Id. at 496-99. Given this trend, state courts that confront Second Amendment issues in the future will likely limit its protection to the home.

Other state and federal courts have held that even if the right might exist outside the home, it is substantially weaker than the right enjoyed in the home.

So there are massive problems with Heller and McDonald.  While I am a huge fan of Justice Scalia, he let America down on the issue of gun rights.  Heller was too narrowly decided.  To be sure, there is a second amendment right, and it applies to individuals, personally, and not just in the home, but everywhere else as well.  I see bans on concealed carry, bans on high capacity magazines (e.g., California), bans on firearms based on type or function, bans on carry in places of worship, and so on, in the same category.  They all violate the Second Amendment.

The lower courts’ confusion is simply because they are confused.  The Supreme Court shouldn’t have to spell it out that this extent.  But moderately vague language in the SCOTUS decisions, progressive tendencies among the judiciary, and laziness of the American people to assert their constitutional rights, have led us to the point again where the stolid judges, lawyers, politicians and law enforcement officials everywhere must be told that Americans have a God-given right to self defense, at all times, in all circumstances, and by any means.

Dennis A. Henigan, acting President of the Brady Campaign, waxes breathless in his most recent hysterical rant at Huffington Post.

Remember two summers ago when most Americans were appalled by the sight of guns openly carried by protesters at presidential speaking events and town hall forums on the health care issue? Now it’s not just the protesters bringing guns to political events. Now it may be the candidates themselves.

Texas governor and newly-announced presidential candidate Rick Perry has taken the incendiary mixture of guns and politics to a new level. When it comes to carrying concealed weapons, Perry certainly walks the walk. He has a concealed carry permit and proudly says that he carries a gun when he is out jogging.

Briefly commenting at this point, I’ll observe that I don’t ever recall in my entire life being appalled at the sight of weapons being carried by anyone, at any time.  But as for the concealed carry of weapons while jogging, I guess I have to weigh in with Henigan on this one.  I don’t jog.  I do lift weights and engage in open carry while I’m walking my dog.  But continuing:

Perry recently was asked if he is armed while campaigning. He didn’t respond by saying the question is ridiculous. He didn’t say that in the close quarters of a rope line, with a multitude of people pulling and tugging at him, a gun could easily drop to the ground or be taken from him. He didn’t say that an armed candidate would be a nightmare for the Secret Service. He didn’t say any of those things. Instead, he smiled and refused to say whether or not he carried while campaigning. He added, “That’s why it’s called concealed.”

Rick Perry apparently doesn’t think the question is ridiculous. In fact, his sarcasm suggests he has no objection to political candidates carrying guns to campaign events; he seems to imply that he may do so himself. One thing is clear. The governor has been so thoroughly marinated in pro-gun ideology that he is unashamed about taking it to its logical extreme. If it is true that more guns in public places make us safer, why shouldn’t political candidates carry guns? Isn’t it the least they can do for their own safety?

Something tells me that Perry wouldn’t be ashamed of taking gun ownership to its logical end, whether Henigan wants to call that “extreme” or not.  But Henigan is getting increasingly worked up and hysterical over things, and he eventually drops this bomb.

Yes, it is a good thing that senators can’t carry guns onto the Senate floor because the presence of guns, even carried by well-meaning, law-abiding citizens, increases the risk that arguments and conflicts will escalate to lethal violence. It is the same reason that our national parks are less safe because (due to legislation sponsored by Senator Coburn himself) concealed carry of weapons is now permitted within their borders.

There you have it.  There in a nut shell is the Faustian bargain that gun control advocates are willing to make.  They don’t really believe that an individual cannot protect him or herself or family with a weapon.  They don’t really believe that an individual is less safe with a weapon, regardless of what they might claim.  What they believe is that there is a greater good to be served, and that greater good lies in not allowing provocations to escalate into deadly incidents.  It’s their solution to original sin.  Allow weapons and violence escalates.  Remove weapons and utopia flourishes.

But even here, Henigan cannot help but spuriously link an article that does nothing more than report that weapons are now legal in national parks.  He claims that our national parks are less safe than they were because of this new latitude.  And the article has nothing to do with this claim.

Oh, but he has no evidence.  In fact, I do.  Several months ago I completed a FOIA request to the national parks service, and they returned to me an Excel spreadsheet with crimes outlined by type and delineated per year in the national parks.

11-409 Smith NPS&USPP LE CRIME REPORT 1995-2010

It doesn’t show what Henigan wants it to.  In fact, our national parks are not less safe than they were prior to 2010 when firearms were made legal.  And I did research most of the homicides (through local news accounts) and they mostly have to do with situation-specific (and sometimes bizarre) incidents involving individuals who had no right to carry a firearms anywhere because they were convicted felons, or prisoners on the run, or other such exigencies.  Not one incident that I researched had to do with an otherwise law-abiding citizen who suddenly went berserk because he had a gun in a national park.

Myths die hard.  They are usually built on lies, and Henigan and the Brady Campaign freely traffics in them.  Something as simple as a FOIA request can usually dispel silly myths like this one, and yet we know of at least one instance in which a man’s life was saved from a bear attack because of the new rule in national parks.  He used a .45 handgun to drive the bear away.  I’ll side with the new rule and gun ownership any day.