The Purpose of the Second Amendment

I wanted to clear the air in regards to some things that have come up lately.  For one, I am not rejecting one of the key purposes of the second amendment, which is to act as a final check on governmental power, and ultimately make it possible for the people to withdraw their consent to be governed.  Nor am I suggesting that this become a taboo topic, to be locked up in the attic like a crazy aunt, never to be talked about or acknowledged.

Michael Bane, in the comments brought up the eloquent dissent from Judge Alex Kozinski in Silveria:

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 reelection 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 may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Let us contrast that with what I critisized:

There are some of us “cold dead hands” types, perhaps 3 percent of gun owners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty. Don’t extrapolate from your own cowardice and assume that just because you would do anything the government told you to do that we would.

Maybe I’m more sensitive about how you say things than most, but there’s a big difference between talking to the public about why the second amendment is important, and saying if you get a political result you don’t like, you’re going to start shooting, without first exhausting the political and legal processes as a means of redressing your grievance.  Kozinski speaks of the second amendment as a doomsday provision, which it is.  I think the public can understand and accept it in that light.

I think the nut of the argument here, between myself, and the people who agree with me, and Mike V. and the people who agree with him, is that I don’t think we’re close to needing to use that doomsday provision, and I suspect many of them think we are.

There is No Us or Them

Michael Bane makes the argument that Mike’s letter to the editor was merely asking the age old question “Who Will Bell the Cat”.  As much as I want to put this whole thing behind us, I do want to address some points Michael made in his post:

The first is that there is a huge disconnect between us and them, us being the gun culture; them being the more amorphous “majority” of our society.

The problem with this outlook is that the gun culture is also quite amorphous.  At what point are you part of the gun culture?  Does merely owning a gun count?  Do you have to shoot it?  How often?  Do you have to buy in to lawful machine gun ownership to be part of the gun culture?  There are almost as many opinions on what the second amendment means in the gun culture as there are people in it.  There’s a reason this is funny, because it’s true.

There is no clean line you can draw and say people with beliefs X, Y, and Z are part of the gun culture and everyone else is not.  To the extent that you try, you only end up making your tent smaller.  In electoral politics, the size of your tent is directly proportional to your political power.  There are plenty of folks out there who would like to purify the movement; to drive out the hunters, the sportsmen, and the sunshine patriots.  That is a recipe for electoral ruin, and makes the inevitable terrible consequences more likely.

The reason I get uppity when it comes to crafting the gun rights message is because the gun culture has to overlap into the mainstream culture.  Subcultures do not fare well under electoral governments if they become unpopular.  Just ask smokers.  The larger impressions the general public has of gun owners and of the gun culture is of great importance in both the acceptance of gun ownership among the general population, and in recruiting gun owners and non-gun owners from the mainstream culture to join the fight for the second amendment.

As a hypothetical example, I give you Bob.  Bob is a pretty ordinary guy.  He’s married, has two kids, lives in a quiet suburb outside a metropolitan area.  Every day Bob gets up, and goes to his professional job.  He’s active in his kids’ sports league, and participates in a few other community groups.  He follows politics.  Not in detail, but votes in every election because he thinks it’s his civic duty.  Bob also keeps a shotgun in his closet, because he wants to be able to protect his family, and every once in a while, he likes to go to the range and break a few clays.  Bob believes in the Second Amendment, but is not active in the issue.

Bob keeps his ownership of a shotgun, and his beliefs to himself.  He is afraid of what his peers will think.  You see, Bob’s neighbors, friends and colleagues only have exposure to the parts of the gun culture that’s shown to them by the main stream media.  In that world, the NRA is extreme and crazy, and then there are those scary folks preparing for revolution.  Bob doesn’t want to be seen as crazy by his peers, so Bob shuts up.

Bob overhears a few coworkers talking about a letter to the editor they saw in the paper, and hears them speak of “gun nuts” and “whaked out extremists”  Bob disagrees, because he is a gun owner, but figures he better not speak out, for fear of being painted with that brush by those around him.

Many folks would say Bob is a coward, because Bob is not willing to stand up for himself or his beliefs.  They would say Bob is useless, worthless, and not good enough for them.  But you know what?  There are a lot of Bobs out there.  A lot of them.  And I want them all to start speaking.  Because what happens when Bob speaks?  Many of his coworkers, perhaps aghast at first, suddenly realize “Bob is a normal guy.  I like Bob.  Maybe all those things I see on TV and read the papers about gun owners aren’t always true.”

That is how you start to break down image the media has built of gun owners.  There is no inside the gun culture, or outside it.  The gun culture is not an insular community that doesn’t participate in the greater national community.  It can’t be.  Not if we want to win the battle for gun rights.  Given that, I see no reason for gun owners to provide the media with more tools they can use to create an image of gun owners are being dangerous, and far outside the main stream.  In fact, we need to work very hard to foster the opposite impression in the media.  You and I, who are neck deep in the gun culture, understand what we mean when we talk about lines in the sand.  Bob and his peers do not, and if Bob is afraid to speak, we’re finished.

Things You Never Want to Find Yourself …

saying to the police.

“I can do that, it’s my lawn mower and my yard so I can shoot it if I want.”

He’s being charged with possession of a short barreled shotgun and disorderly conduct with a firearm.  No doubt the Bradys will be highlighting this guy shortly.

Washington Post’s Constitution

The WaPo has an editorial today decrying Congress’ attempts to force the Washington DC into compliance with the Heller ruling.

Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) is pushing a measure that seeks to usurp efforts by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and the D.C. Council to comply with the Supreme Court ruling overturning the District’s long-standing ban on handguns.

Except that the Mayor and Council are doing everything they can to not comply with the ruling.  The Court ruled that handguns are protected arms under the second amendment, and DC is still enforcing a partial ban on them, and by maintaining their trigger lock provision which the Supreme Court also ruled a violation of the second amendment.

It matters not a whit to Mr. Souder or the NRA that District residents have a right of self-governance. Once again, lawmakers are willing to impose on the District something they wouldn’t contemplate for their home districts. Local officials — not Congress — are the best arbiters of their community’s needs and priorities.

Yes, except that firearms are legal in the areas Mr. Souder represents.  And let’s not forget the constitution:

[Congress shall have the Power To] exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings[.]

This power is expressly granted to Congress, not to the DC City Council.  DC’s entire city government serves at the pleasure of Congress.  It apparently matters not a whit to the WaPo that Congress has plenary authority over the District of Colombia.  That’s not some abstract home rule argument, it’s in The Constitution.

Calling out the Pragmatists

David Codrea has authored a response to the happenings in the gun blogosphere lately.  I do not agree with everything he says, but it’s well done, serious criticism of our branch of the gun rights movement, and something I think folks should read no matter what side of the issue they are on.

Chicago Sticking to Its Gun Ban

The City of Chicago has vowed to fight the lawsuits against their gun ban, and to keep enforcing it while the case is pending:

“Chicago’s gun ordinance was not invalidated by the . . . decision. Three prior Supreme Court decisions have found that the Second Amendment does not apply to states and municipalities,” Georges said. “The decision did not change that case law.”

And all three of those prior cases existed prior to the Supreme Court’s decisions in the early 20th century that apply many provisions in the Bill of Rights to the states.  Fortunately for gun owners in the Chicago area, Wilmette and Morton Grove decided that discretion was the better part of valor, and repealed their bans.  Mayor Daley would obviously not suffer such an indignaty from anyone who dared challenge his authorty in Chicago.  The Daleys own that town.  Hopefully the Supreme Court didn’t get that memo.

Update on Defensive Shooting in New Jersey

And update to the case we talked about last week.  The man shot by a senior citizen homeowner during a home invasion has died from his wounds.

The homeowner has not been charged, Mohel said.

“The investigation is continuing,” he said.

A homeowner, when under the “reasonable belief” that force is immediately necessary to protect himself or others against the use of unlawful force by an intruder, can shoot, said Ronald F. DeLigney, First Assistant Ocean County Prosecutor.

A sixty six year old man, within twenty one feet of a much younger thirty one year old man who had unlawfully entered his home?  In most states, this is the only evidence that would be necessary for prosecutors to rule it justifiable.  Even in Pennsylvania, where technically there is a duty to retreat inside your home (but not from your home), no prosecutor would take this case forward because you won’t find a jury that’ll convict a homeowner of shooting a home invader.  Yet a week later, the Ocean County Prosecutor isn’t sure, even though it’s pretty obvious the man was in the homeowners dwelling unlawfully, and at a distance where he was an immediate threat.

UPDATE: According to this article, he’s retained Evan Nappen as his attorney.

It’s the 1930s All Over Again?

Another one from the thread that just won’t die:

When I was in West Germany,  during My active duty. I had a chance to talk to many of the Older German citizens, at the gast houses.  Many of these wise Old man spoke of the early 30’s etc. And how horrified they were to see what was being done to some people by the Gestapo.  But their Loyalty to their government stopped them,  from speaking out against the abuses.  Even though it put utter shivers down their spine and many said it Infuriated them. To see people( Their own neighbors in some instances/Very good friends) being arrested and taken away without due process of law.  But it happens everyday in America Now!  Not in such a gross context as Germany was then. But it is getting there.  And it will continue too! Because abuse by government does not get the proper scrutiny by the People, it deserves.  Or held to account for such abuses, by Law.

Get that?  Every day in America the Gestapo head out to snatch up political undesirables, and the Olofson case is proof of it!  Olofson, on whom the government served a lawfully obtained search warrant, gathered evidence against, permitted the assistance of counsel, and tried by a jury of his peers.  Yet this apparently means we’re precariously close to 1930s Germany.  It’s a shame you can’t order a sense of perspective on Amazon.

I have said before that I am no fan of the tactics the ATF used to convict Olofson, and I am certainly no fan of the laws that he was convicted of violating.  If the jury had walked him, I would have considered that justice done.  That a man like Olofson, who harmed no one, is rotting in a federal prison right now is exactly why these laws are wrong.

But because I advocate reigning in the ATF through legislation rather than gunfire, I am not an ally, but an enemy.  Because I propose we ought to repeal, or at the very least reform the regulations on automatic weapons in this country, rather than shooting any federal bastard who gets tasked with enforcing them, I am a coward, and sullying the cause.

Any “revolution” prosecuted by folks like this will not be one I will join.  Call me a coward, call me what you will, but I don’t see any good place it can possibly go.  An anonymous commenter made a very cogent point:

The point of revolt should be to win. And you won’t win… you CAN’T win, unless you have won the hearts and minds of a significant amount of We the People. This is, after all, your goal… right? The restoration of the Republic? Do you propose to “impose liberty” on a majority who don’t agree with your definition? Sounds more Che Guevara than George Washington to me.

“Leave me alone or I’m going to shoot” isn’t an argument. It’s a threat. It doesn’t win converts to your side, because it ultimately doesn’t offer any answers. If we’re to take you seriously, that you believe a Revolution can and will happen, then you should be able to answer this question: what would your post-Revolution society be like? If you can’t articulate a vision for this country other than “leave me alone”, then you’re not a believer in Locke (who saw a need for government), you’re just a garden variety anarchist.

The restoration of a constitutional republic isn’t going to happen when the same people who elected the government before the revolution will be electing it after.  After and during the first American revolution, things were made quite uncomfortable for loyalists.  By uncomfortable, I mean more than a few of them were dragged out of their homes, tarred, feathered, hung in some cases, shot in others.  Some of them were merely disarmed.  About ten to fifteen percent of loyalists emigrated.  In today’s terms, that would be about 45 million refugees.  Where are they all going to go?  Are we going to pass laws denying them citizenship?  Are we going to take their property?  If the answer is no, then the same people will elect another government that will look a lot like this one.  If the answer is yes, then you can count me out of that nonsense unless there’s absolutely, positively no other choice.  Revolution is nasty business.  It should not be undertaken or threatened lightly.  Many of these people do not speak like people who really, truly think that violence is an absolute last resort.

Link from NRA

Looks like I’ve been linked by NRA publications, in an article by Chris Cox.  But to me the neat thing is that the article appears in American Rifleman and America’s First Freedom.  If only dead tree media could drive click throughs, I’d be doing well traffic wise this month, I’d imagine.