Category: Gun Rights

Thanks to Bearing Arms for pointing to Dick Metcalf digging ever deeper whining about the premature demise of his career. He also shows a poor understanding of the standard model of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Metcalf noted, “not that it shall not be regulated.” Rather the first four words of the amendment, “a well regulated militia,” not only allow but mandate regulation.

We’ve been over and over this, again and again. The prefatory clause is simply a justification for acknowledging the right. There are other such prefatory clauses in the Constitution, such as:

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

People have argued, in front of the Supreme Court, that the prefatory clause meaningfully modifies the nature of the power in question, and the Supreme Court rejected the idea. Only two justices tried to argue that the prefatory clause limited the power to only those things which promoted the progress of science and useful arts. The structure of the Second Amendment is nearly identical. The prefatory clause, which states the case for acknowledging the right, does not meaningfully limit it, anymore than the patent and copyright prefatory clause limits Congress’ power. That’s without even needing dissect the 18th century meaning of “well-regulated,” which in this case means regulated like a clock, and not regulated like a chemical plant.

“Everything is regulated, but everything is not infringed. Not all regulation is infringement. Is your right to drive a car being infringed by a speed limit?”

There is no right to drive a car. Some may say there ought to be, and I would be among those who would agree with that, but current law treats the “right” to drive a car on public roads as a “privilege.” If it was recognized as a right, things might be different. Also, a speed limit only regulates what you may do with a car. No one would argue the Second Amendment is so absolute as to preclude how one may employ a firearm. You have no Second Amendment right to rob a bank with a gun. No one would argue that you have a Second Amendment right to shoot across your neighbor’s yard, or shoot across a public road or waterway absent any exigent circumstances. That’s very different than some of the regulations Metcalf has advocated for, which would amount to a prior restraint when it comes to other rights.

Those are debates we can have. Some have argued that the prior restraint doctrine from First Amendment law might not be completely applicable to Second Amendment law, and I don’t see people calling for Dave Kopel’s career on a platter. The problem with Metcalf’s article, and his continuing statements in the media was/is ignorance. I can point to numerous examples of people getting away with the kind of things he’s been saying without getting skewered. Metcalf’s problem is he’s adopted many of the shopworn arguments of our opponents. No one argues the Second Amendment is absolute, or that we could reasonably expect the courts to find it as such. There’s plenty of room to argue about this or that. But when you adopt the same rhetoric and tired arguments as our opponents, people are going to react badly. That’s what Metcalf did, and has been continuing to do.

The Volokh Conspiracy invited guest blogger Ivan Perkins to talk about his book, “Vanishing Coup.” Judging from the comments, this went over like a lead balloon with Volokh readers:

Thus, new gun regulations are necessary for many reasons, including the long-term preservation of our Constitution. The widespread availability of high-powered military-grade weaponry does not keep us secure from tyranny — in fact, it increases the probability that one day, our great-grandchildren will live under thuggish warlords and tyrants.

It’s funny, because if you look at his analysis of countries that haven’t had coups, most of them have strong traditions of allowing civilians to be armed. The United States and Canada have among the most armed civilian populations in the world. Britain’s population, which he holds out as an example of guns not making a difference in stability, have until only very recently been well armed, and still rank in terms of world standards.

Britain had one of the strongest traditions of armed citizens until the past few decades. Norway, Sweden and Finland have strong traditions of civilian gun ownership. South Africa’s restrictions on firearms are also very recent. Traditionally South Africa put few restrictions on civilians owning and carrying firearms. None of these countries, save Japan and possibly the Benelux countries have the kind of gun free populations he imagines. In fact, these stable countries contain some of the most heavily armed populations on the planet.

He also uses the specter of what’s going on in Mexico as an example of where widespread gun ownership leads. Is he joking? Legally, guns are difficult to obtain in Mexico. The only progress the government has been able to make against the cartels has been when local communities, sick of being terrorized, armed themselves illegally and started fighting back against the cartels. Mexico is not a shining example of the effectiveness gun control has on a nation’s stability, unless you’re living in a cave, or perhaps an ivory tower.

Still billing at the client this week, so blog time will still be tight this week. I hate having to give you guys the short shrift, but if our clients didn’t have crises they needed to be saved from, we wouldn’t have business. At least the commute is pretty good. The client is in New Jersey, only about 25 minutes away on a route that doesn’t clog with traffic during rush hour. My normal office, which I go to twice a week is an hour away with no traffic. Except that there’s rarely no traffic. Today I’m working from home so I have a bit more schedule flex, so I can give you a news dump:

Harry Reid might bring up gun control again in the Senate. Go for it Harry. I’d suggest right before the election.

Democrats in pro-gun states don’t want any help from Gabby.

Hey, it turns out gun control wasn’t so popular in Colorado after all. Now the Guv’s saying his staff made him do it.

Why are anti-gunners so violent? I don’t like the OCT people either, but I don’t wish death on them.

The tin foil hat crowd is going to have a field day with this one. He must have discovered too much, like how the CIA is training mass shooters, or something like that.

Miguel describes the CSGV philosophy quite accurately.

Civil Rights victory in Florida.

Turns out the disparity in school blocking software between pro and anti-gun sites is because people actually read pro-gun sites.

A new gun blog. Not often I get to say that these days. I don’t know if fewer people are bothering, or it’s just harder for them to come to my attention.

Andrew Cuomo’s troubles continue. A lot of his troubles are coming from the left, but gun control isn’t going to save him.

Remember, where the government thinks gun ownership is a privilege, it’s probably most wise not to screw around.

Another bill that Chris Christie needs to veto, an ivory ban. No grandfathering. Even mammoth ivory would be banned. We must do what we can to save the mammoths!

I think the idea of an enhanced permit to carry is OK for some states. In others, I’d worry it would immediately start the discussion of why it wouldn’t be a good idea to just require it for everybody. I’d be wary of it in Pennsylvania. This state is not as pro-gun as people think it is.

Remember, this is what our opponents think of us.

Open Carry in Texas is already being used in Florida as a reason not to legalize it there.

Throwing good money after bad in Illinois. Most politicians want to be seen as “doing something.” What they count on is that voters won’t look hard enough to realize that “something” is complete bullcrap. Sadly, in most cases, this works.

Preemption in Florida is working. We’re trying to get a similar law passed here in Pennsylvania. Our bill doesn’t go as far as Florida, but it does give incentives for local communities to get their illegal ordinances off the books.

A review of the latest book disparaging the Second Amendment. I have a copy, and I plan to review it as soon as I finish it.

Salon and hew and haw all they want, but the media had to backpedal from their earlier statements. Everyone knows when you use school shootings in a certain context it implies a mass shooting. It was dishonest, the way it was presented, and Everytown got called out on it.

Judge dismissed charges against a Maryland homeowner who shot a home invader. They argued he should have called 9-1-1. It never should have even gotten that far.

High-capacity, 1855 style.

What do you do if you’re Mike Bloomberg and Everytown, and have a boatload of money but not really any substantial grassroots? Well, you buy phone calls to Congress:

The majority of the money paid for the call goes to a gun safety movement called Everytown. Sometimes, organizations benefitting from a campaign (like Everytown) make the calls themselves, but individuals can also sign up to become paid callers for campaigns, garnering a base rate of $1 per call.

Unfortunately this is working. NRA is currently noting Congress is only hearing from their side. I think there’s a tendency among gun owners to think if we got through Sandy Hook, this latest wave of mass shootings shouldn’t be a concern. But that is unfortunately not how this works. The other side has been fired up, in my opinion through a combination of the latest mass shootings and the nonsense going on in Texas. They money being dumped into the issue is all helping as well.

A lot of gun owners have no idea how tenuous this stuff can be. The gun control crowd made a lot of mistakes after Sandy Hook. They’ve learned. They are going to be less ambitious, less bombastic, and will build support slowly going forward. They will keep at this until they get what they want. A Republican Congress is not a guarantee nothing gets passed. They will turn on us in a heartbeat if they think they’ll get away with it. We have to call.

See www.nraila.org/writeyourreps or call 202-225-3121. We benefitted greatly in the past decade by there being no money in the gun control movement. Bloomberg can single handedly dump more money into the issue than all of us combined. We have to pay mortgages and feed families. The only thing we have he can’t compete with is our collective voices, but we have to exercise it to make a difference.