There's No Such Thing As Sensible Gun Laws

News By Us ^ | Dec 02, 06 | John Longenecker

[neverdem]

News By Us, not news bias

This caught my eye this morning: Paul Helmke’s anti-liberty rant Guns and Governing, on The Huffington Post, December 1, 2006. Helmke is head of The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. Here is my response, December 1, 2006.

First of all, very first of all, when it comes to guns, there is no governing to be, with the exception of protection of the Bill of Rights. Since the right to bear arms is absolute, there is no governing over it. there can be only protection; you protect the rights of the people on that and that’s your oath. Simple. Anything else is an attack.

Refusal to understand this not only reflects a poor understanding of the law and practical values in America, but reveals a hidden agenda to overthrow us all. All of us, not just those who support rights, but all of us. That would include Mr. Helmke, himself, unless he wishes to own a gun secretly.

In fact, if any anti-gun activist owns positively any sort of weapon in the home for self-defense – I don’t care if it’s a baseball bat! – he/she supports self-defense and the use of up to lethal force. Or, don’t they realize what they’re saying and doing? Most anti-gun nuts do in fact own weapons. Right, Rosie? N’cest pa, Dianne?

The second amendment isn’t about guns, it’s about personal sovereignty and the use of force to back it up.

Anti-gun activists, therefore, are to be discredited utterly.

In three itemized issues, Helmke lays out mention of straw purchases, political clout of the gun rights lobbies versus election wins, and he mentions gun violence.

The first two arguments are themselves straw arguments, since straw purchases are way exaggerated as many, many writers have pointed out in the past in detail, and since the election wins and losses are not gun rights based, but far, far more based on republican disappointments, border control issues and size-of-government issues. Every voter knows it. It is silly to write that republicans lost because they listen to the NRA when voters (readers) know darned good and well their own minds and why they didn’t vote republican this time around.

The third argument got my attention: Gun Violence.

Again, there is the call for sensible gun laws, but in fact there is no such thing as a sensible gun law. Could there be such a thing as sensible censorship? The only sensible gun law exists purely as a civil right, and it is absolute. If you want sensible gun laws, try no one under eighteen owns a gun, felons don’t own a gun, and non-citizens don’t own a gun, and then, repeal all gun laws. Now, that’s sensible.

Here is my analysis as Mr. Helmke’s piece summons of me.

The Second Amendment was made absolute and impervious to due process for a reason. The Founding Fathers knew very well what they did not want any more of – no more over-reach, no more abuses of powers, no more warrants without local supervision (jury) and more – and just as certainly as the fact that they ratified it all, they knew that it all had to be backed by force forever. That force is in the hands of the People, individuals like you and me, and it is this sovereign authority that cannot be infringed. It is being infringed various different ways. It is your authority which is being infringed. Remember that gun control is attacking not guns, and it’s not attacking violence; it is attacking individual sovereign authority which is backed by lawful force.

In many ways, Americans are being bluffed out of their sovereignty.

Attacks on guns are attacks on personal sovereignty to undermine the power of the People to remain in control over the country: gun control is an attack to wrest that control from the people in an immense transfer of authority, convincing people or coercing people out of it. Remove the lawful force of the people, and the rest can simply be taken unopposed.

Many laws toward that goal come in the form of anti-crime measures, so that little by little, the people surrender – Americans cooperate – in handing over what they think will help fight crime. Americans will do a lot and put up with a lot if they believe it will help.

It’s a scam, a trap. Because of the sovereignty of the People and the People’s own lawful force to back it up, the idea of one-sided force in this country is a trap.

Helmke summarizes, “More guns are likely to make a home, a state, or a country more dangerous, not more safe.”

This is, of course, wholly untrue, and I’ll say just where.

Well, America, if you want to help fight crime and violence, listen up.

I’ve said a thousand times that police have no mandate to protect individuals. Most officers will nod and agree with this if asked. I’m surprised that some younger officers are not even aware of it. Hell, even some legislators aren’t aware of it, but it’s true. This is important for everyone willing to help to fully understand. As always, I am speaking not to gun owners, but to non-gun owners and the impartial, people looking for both sides of the issue. Heads of household who really want to understand. I know it’s hard to accept, but every head of household must come to understand that police don’t have to protect you.

Police join law enforcement to help, but in actuality, in the most critical moments of a crime emergency, you are on your own.

As benign as it might sound at first, ‘governing’ guns and people who own them means restricting before-the-fact your right to act at the moment action is needed most – when you are facing grave danger alone, and let’s be realistic: only you have the right to make that call. I support the idea of investigation for reasonableness under the circumstances, but before-the-fact restrictions (gun control) are entirely unreasonable and unlawful. It grows crime by permitting it to succeed unopposed in case after case after case, hundreds of thousands of times every year.

Equally realistic is the fact that some Americans believe preparedness in self-defense to be an unwanted burden. Their over-reaction of being expected to grow up and protect loved ones manifests itself as name-calling gun owners as Cowboys and Vigilantes. It’s merely a denial or a refusal to take responsibility for something that unavoidably belongs only to them.

For an example of this, please visit the YouTube Video Confession Of A Rat: An anti-gun newspaperman admits to his wife (and to himself) that he can’t be counted on to protect her life.

‘Governance’ over guns and people who rise to meet their responsibility is a ruse to disarm individuals to pave the way to grow crime to the advantage of officials. In a very obvious way, the anti-gun crowd uses the crowd who refuse this burden to increase numbers of anti-gun voters. Minions. Minions by the millions.

As I say often – very often – personal disarmament is a trap for the American household and a payday for officials.

Who is the real thief in this issue?

Why is the Second Amendment absolute and made impervious to due process? Why can there be no such thing as so-called sensible gun laws?

Because the individual victim of crime is the first line of defense, and no matter what law you write, we always will be. Gun control takes away the power but leaves the ultimate accountability, the typical bureaucratic trap. This is anti-violence? This is American? Is it good for your household to be denied the power, but left with the responsibility anyway?

The individual is now and always will be the first line of defense. And when crime is an excuse to transfer liberty and authority out of the hands of the people, this then makes the citizen the first line of defense for the entire nation. Taking away that anywhere/anytime, instance-by-instance defense is in no way sensible.

[Constantine XI Palaeologus]

Whoops, I meant to post this in response to the article, not the comments made by groanup. Sorry, Groanup

[groanup]

The prevailing leftist view is that the 2nd Amendment only limits the Federal government, and that "the people" meant the States collectively.

Don't most state consitutions provide language similar to the 2A but at the same time preserve the state's right to regulate concealed weapons?

[Cobra64]

Were Thomas Jefferson or any of the Framers alive today they'd feel free to carry concealed in NYC or Washington, D.C.

Ummm. I doubt they would carry concealed. Rewind about 100 years ago when dual Colt single sixes were worn.

[Neil E. Wright]

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

Click here to read the report BY THE SENATE that finds an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

---

±

"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty."
Toward FREEDOM

[supercat]

I don't have a problem with someone with a record of violence not being allowed to carry a handgun

I would consider disarmament of criminals to be lawful when, and only when, those criminals are slaves of the state. The Second Amendment clearly never applied to slaves, and the Thirteenth Amendment allows states to enslave criminals.

Otherwise, those with violent tendencies would be advised against cerrying firearms as doing so might prompt them to do something deadly foolish, but generally the people who shouldn't have guns don't try to get them, and those that do try will often get them regardless of what the law says.

[KeyesPlease]

The question the Supremes were asked to answer in the Miller case was whether or not a sawed off shotgun was appropriate for militia use.

The implication being that if a sawed off shotgun was found to be appropriate for militia use then Miller's conviction would be overturned.

Unfortunately, and I don't recall the specifics as to why, Miller didn't present any evidence of a sawed off shotgun's utility as a militia weapon. The court found, because of a lack of evidence to the contrary, that such a shotgun was not appropriate for militia use.

Tha antis try to twist what is clearly written in the opinion to suit their own "collective right" interpretive wishes.

[supercat]

Ummm. I doubt they would carry concealed. Rewind about 100 years ago when dual Colt single sixes were worn.

Firearms would more likely have been carried openly in the days when doing so wouldn't cause hysterical panic, but I would expect carry (especially of blades) was often somewhere between open and concealed. Not trying to hide one's armament, but not trying to overly advertise it either.

[robertpaulsen]

"So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right."

All governments? I thought the second amendment only applied to the federal government -- in other words, the federal government could not infringe the RKBA.

I also thought each state has their own gun laws, guided by their state constitution. This is why some states have concealed carry, for example, and why some don't.

Am I wrong?

[AndyTheBear]

Don't most state consitutions provide language similar to the 2A but at the same time preserve the state's right to regulate concealed weapons?

I don't know. The critical question is whether the language of such constitutions presupposed they had the power to legislate such matters, or like the 2nd Amendment presumed it was already an inherent right beyond their interference -- at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified.

[robertpaulsen]

"Miller didn't present any evidence of a sawed off shotgun's utility as a militia weapon."

He wasn't there. He flew the coop.

"The court found, because of a lack of evidence to the contrary, that such a shotgun was not appropriate for militia use."

The U.S. Supreme Court, not having the authority to make that determination, kicked it back to the lower court for them to hear testimony. Since Miller was gone to parts unknown, they let it drop.

No decisions were made one way or the other. But since the U.S. Supreme Court asked the question, that gives us an idea what they were thinking.

[supercat]

The question the Supremes were asked to answer in the Miller case was whether or not a sawed off shotgun was appropriate for militia use... Unfortunately, and I don't recall the specifics as to why, Miller didn't present any evidence of a sawed off shotgun's utility as a militia weapon.

Miller and Layton were not under indictment at the time of U.S. v. Miller. Basically, the question before the Court was "Is there any combination of evidence that might conceivably be presented which would allow a conviction consistent with the Second Amendment." Judges must make such determination must be made without relying upon any personal knowledge that might be controversial. The Court ruled that it was conceivable that such a combination of evidence might be offered.

What should have then happened would have been for the indictment against Layton to have been reinstated (Miller was dead at that point), and for Layton to have introduced at trial evidence of the shotgun's military usefulness. Unless the state could rebut such evidence (doubtful), Layton would then have been acquitted.

Instead, however, as soon as it won the right to indict Layton, the government decided to offer a plea-bargain instead. I'm unaware of any other time the government has offered a plea-bargain after winning a court case. Are there other examples?

[supercat]

He wasn't there. He flew the coop.

Since he wasn't under indictment, he had no obligation to show up.

Since Miller was gone to parts unknown, they let it drop.

Miller was dead. His co-defendant was not, however; the government for some reason decided to offer a plea-bargain instead of going ahead with prosecution and have some creative reporting fill in the gaps.

[robertpaulsen]

"To make the argument complete, this notion needs to be discredited"

If the second amendment applied to the states, wouldn't all the states have to have the same laws? Wouldn't they all have to allow concealed carry, for example? Doesn't due process mean that all citizens are treated equitably -- that we don't have two sets of laws?

Think of the first amendment. Or the fourth amendment. Don't they apply to all citizens in all states equally?

[Solitar]

Ping to those who might support Condi Rice

Of all the potential Presidential Candidates in the Republican Party, only Condoleezza Rice would understand and agree with the above article and defend our Second Amendment rights. She is a self-described "Second Amendment absolutist".

From her interview with Larry King on May 11, 2005

KING: "We have a Second Amendment. People can own guns. By the way, what do you think about gun control?"

RICE: "The way I come out of my own personal experience, in which in Birmingham, Alabama, my father and his friends defended our community in 1962 and 1963 against White Knight Riders by going to the head of the community, the head of the cul-de-sac, and sitting there, armed. And so I'm very concerned about any abridgement of the Second Amendment. I'll tell you that I know that if Bull Conner had had lists of -- of registered weapons, I don't think my father and his friends would have been sitting at the head of the community, defending the community."

KING: "So you would not change the Second Amendment? You would not..."

RICE: "I also don't think we get to pick and choose from the Constitution. The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment."

KING: "But doesn't having the guns, while it's protection, also leads to people killing people?"

RICE: "Well, obviously, the sources of violence are many, and we need to -- to get at the source of the violence. Obviously, I'm very much in favor of things like background checks, and you know, controlling it at gun shows. And there are lots of things we can do. But we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that our Founding Fathers thought very important. On this one, I think that they understood that there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Alabama, when in fact, the police weren't going to protect you."

KING: "Did you see him take the gun?"

RICE: "Oh, absolutely. Every -- every night he and his -- he and his friends kind of organized a little brigade."

[Silly]

Awesome post, thanks for the ping.

[Kakaze]

Thanks. I din't know that about Condi, since god knows I can't stomach larry king:)

[Candor7]

In Vermont we have sensible gun laws: NONE!

[umgud]

Good and accurate summary.

[elhombrelibre]

Thanks for the Ping. Generally, I've a high regard for her, and I am very much impressed with her support for the whole constitution. It's good to see an academic defend the 2nd Amendment with personal, existential, realistic examples of what the heck we're talking about when we say don't truncate the constitutions for the latest fashion. I'm a little troubled that her support for Israel lately has been tepid, but I'm impressed with her support for Iraqis freedom. And, finally, I think she's cute.

[robertpaulsen]

"Unless the state could rebut such evidence (doubtful)"

Let's see. A) We have a federal law saying that <18" shotguns need a stamp, the reason being that they're used by criminals.

B) You're saying that Layton would go to court and somehow present evidence that his <18" shotgun was useful to a militia and therefore protected by the second amendment.

C) Let's say that happens. Then what? Same thing? The lower court dismisses the case then the prosecution takes it back to the Supreme Court?

Does that one lower court judge have the authority to rule that, based on the evidence, a <18" shotgun is indeed a militia weapon and thereby negate a federal statute? Doesn't Congress make that determination?