Category: 2nd Amendment

Ahab here, sitting in for Sebastian as he travels back from the Gun Blogger’s Rendezvous. On a side note, thank god for Firefox’s built in spellchecker, because without it I would never spell “rendezvous” correctly.

Anyway, I was going to post about The Governator signing the microstamping bill, but Sebastian beat me to it, and with some strong words as well. I pretty much agree with him on that – it’s a retarded bill that will do nothing to fight crime. We’ve got until 2010 to get it overturned; so the fight isn’t completely lost yet.

However, on to the actual topic of today’s blog, which is those dirty Frenchies – admittedly in this case they’re not “really” French, they’re actually from Quebec. Quebec, for those that don’t know is a province in Canada which doesn’t want to be part of Canada, but still wants to enjoy the benefits of being part of Canada. Now, this may surprise you, but I’m not going to say bad things about the folks from Quebec in this blog post; in fact I have many complimentary things to say about them.

The reason for that is this editorial, which I found in Le Quebecois Libre, which translates to “Free Quebecois”, with Quebecois being the word for a person from Quebec. From what I can tell, Le Quebecois Libre is a strongly libertarian publication, so I can only imagine that it doesn’t represent a huge number of the Quebecois. That notwithstanding, it is refreshing to read this sort of editorial coming from north of the border.

The article was clearly written with the US in mind, since it directly references the 2nd Amendment; and what I really enjoy about the piece is the slightly sarcastic tone it takes. The author has a clear disdain for the proponents and ideals of gun control, as he reveals in paragraphs like this:

Digging deeper into their repertoire of justifications, gun control advocates will pull out a favorite claim – that guns are responsible for a vast number of deaths from domestic violence. Indeed, some might even cite dubious statistics claiming that there exist more gun-related killings within families than instances in which private gun use repelled a criminal. But this argument, too, has its assumptions. One such assumption is that, aside from guns, there exist no deadly objects within anybody’s home – such that if one member of a family wanted to kill another, he or she would simply be out of luck for a lack of means. This, of course, implies that the five drowned children of Andrea Yates are still alive and well, that all food is eaten solely using spoons and spatulas, and that human beings are all limbless torsos who have no arms or legs to deliver deadly punches or kicks.

It’s harsh, but it’s true. The author continues the essay, and eventually reaches the ultimate point – that gun control isn’t really about guns, or saving lives. It’s about control. The entire article is definitely worth reading – and it reinforces the title of this entry, that Canada is not a lost cause.

How would the “doomsday provision” the second amendment is meant to be, work in this country? We’ve had some good discussion in some previous threads, but I think on both sides it’s being a bit oversimplified.

Things aren’t as black and white as either side makes them out to be. An en-mass uncoordinated resistance to a rouge government, absent any overall structure, isn’t likely to happen, or be successful, which is why our founding fathers spent so much time bickering about the militia.

Any resistance to a perceived tyranny on the part of a state government is going to result in people leaving that state, or in the federal government marching in to enforce the constitution.

Any resistance to federal tyranny is going to result in states seceding from the union, and invalidating federal authority within their borders. Once that’s done, the states can work on raising an army to resist the inevitable assertion by the feds that they do have authority.

When you find yourself in that situation, as a state, or groups of states, it helps if you have an armed body of people that are proficient in small arms. It helps even more if you’ve drilled your militia so that they have some basic military training as well.

It’s not a guarantee that you win; you might lose. The last time this happened, the seceding states lost. That time, the seceding states were wrong. They might not always be. The second amendment exists to make such things easier. It doesn’t guarantee that the government will always lose, or that the people will always win. It just raises the cost of enforcing a political hegemony. Sometimes that’s enough. It very nearly worked for The South, the last time this happened.

That’s not to say the second amendment can’t work on a more local level. It’s worthwhile to remember the Battle of Athens, which occurred in 1946, when a group of returning World War II veterans decided they had had quite enough of their corrupt and oppressive county government, and decided to do something about it.

Also worth noting are the Deacons for Defense. Not to mention the dozens of civil rights workers who regularly carried firearms while working in The South. Both these groups were battling what amounted to a domestic terrorist operation. Would The South have been better off if only the Klan had guns? Considering the Klan and the government were sometimes inseparable in the Jim Crow era, and considering Southern gun laws were seldom enforced against whites, this would seem to make a pretty strong case for the 14th amendment’s vision of our rights, including the second amendment, being applied to everyone, equally.

I suspected this was the case, but according to this article, it seems that it was actually the case:

Helmke, of the Brady Campaign, said the group suggested to Washington that it rework its gun laws rather than press on with an appeal. A broad Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment could jeopardize a variety of laws, including waiting periods for handgun sales and California’s machine gun ban, he said.

I understand why The Brady Campaign would want that to happen.  Strategically, it made sense to reword the laws to be near-prohibition, similar to NYC, and force us to go back to court with a weaker case.

But Fenty had to do what he had to do, politically.  Fenty isn’t President of The Brady Campaign, he’s Mayor of Washington DC.  It might not be the rational thing for their side, but politics are seldom rational.

“This is the capital of the United States of America,” Barnes said. “What kind of message are we sending when you say we want more guns?”

We’re sending a message that we take our constitution seriously.

Hat tip to Cam Edwards.

I was hoping we’d hear about whether cert would be granted today, since today was the day it was supposedly due.  I noticed the docket says it’ll still come out by today, but the the attorneys in the case say November.

The geek reports The Supreme Court may have taken Heller based on this article from MS-NBC.  I’m not sure MS-NBC knows what they are talking about here.  I can’t find any other source for this, including the one run by the attorneys in the case.

I’m pretty sure this is a case of sloppy reporting.

UPDATE: Looks like it is:

The headline “SCOTUS takes HELLER!” is hereby demoted. I got suckered by sucky reporting @ MSNBC…aparently, deciding whether to take the case counts as “consider”.

This from the docket site.

We’ll just have to wait and see.

I was almost ready to have a beer in honor.  I guess I’ll just have to have a beer because… I want to have a beer instead.

It seems that DC draft state constitution has a right to keep and bear arms provision.

Looks like Alan Gura has decided to file for lifting the stay of mandate in Parker v. DC case, which is preventing the circuit courts ruling from having full effect.  If granted, DC would no longer be able to enforce the provisions in its law as they relate to trigger locks or disassembly.

The District of Colombia is basically misrepresenting itself here before The Court.   One has to believe that’s not going to go unnoticed, nor shine a positive light on The District’s case in the eyes of the justices.

It seems to be the buzz on the blogosphere from people who are in the know is that the cert. petition in DC v. Heller is rather unusual, in that it discusses at length the merits of The Districts position, rather than discussing why it’s important for the Supreme Court to hear the case.

I almost have to wonder if DC doesn’t want the Supreme Court to actually hear the case.   For political reasons, Fenty had to file for cert., because he has to be seen as standing up for his city’s position on their gun ban.  But you can bet the anti-gun groups don’t want to cast this die.   If Fenty appealed with a crappy petition, it would get him off the hook, he did everything he had, after all, but the anti-gun movement as a whole wouldn’t risk putting their entire future in jeopardy by having to go before The Court, and quite possibly losing.

I have to wonder.

It’s important to remember what they mean when it comes to reasonable regulation.

“It is eminently reasonable to permit private ownership of other types of weapons, including shotguns and rifles, but ban the easily concealed and uniquely dangerous modern handgun,”

– DC v. Heller Writ of Certiorari

DC has filed the petition for cert. with the Supreme Court for DC v. Heller (formerly Parker v. DC). Dave Hardy has the petition.