There's No Such Thing As Sensible Gun Laws

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

There's No Such Thing As Sensible Gun Laws

Laws that require ownership of firearms, which were common in the early days of the Republic, are pretty sensible.

Not so long ago, you couldn't vote in Switzerland unless you showed up with your military rifle. Also a very sensible firearms law.

IMHO of course.

The problem is Miller v. US.

At worst, Miller stands for the proposition that only keeping and bearing of militarily useful arms are protected by the second amendment.

The government argued that since Miller was not a member of any militia, his ownership of an NFA weapon (short barreled shotgun) was not protected by the second amendment). (You can read the government brief and other documents on the case at the NFA List site. The Court did not even acknowledge that argument, but only ruled that the lower court should not have taken "judicial notice" that the weapon in question, a short barreled shotgun "could" be used in a military or militia context. (They'd be great in CCB, and single barrel, or double barrel shotguns had been used by the military in the days before the introduction of repeating shotguns) without taking evidence to that effect.

It's a terrible case for setting any precedent, since only one size argued before the court, the government of course. It's also faulty in it's citation and interpretation of the (state court) cases it relied on for a certain amount of precedence.

zbigreddogz said: "Would you advocate average citizens being able to buy nuclear weapons? "

No. Therefore, there is a need to amend the Constitution. Anti-tank weaponry is EXACTLY the type of arms that should be protected. You may wish to surrender your rights without constitutional protection, but I don't wish to do so.

We should remember that the US is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons in war. If Japan had successfully occupied the US and civilians had then obtained atomic bombs, smuggled them to Japan, and used them to end the war, would that have been a bad thing?

Would the insurgency in Iraq be justified in using atomic weapons to rid themselves of US forces? Will they be stopped by laws prohibiting them from using such weapons?

As I understand it, the technology exists to make tactical weapons using nuclear technology. The explosive power can be generated with less than critical mass or with less than the full yield of critical mass. Certainly the higher yielding nuclear weapons would find little use. But the US is using, I think, 2000 pound bombs to take out individuals in Iraq. Sometimes individuals are legitimate targets and sometimes it takes quite a weapon to take them out.

Some of the same people who argue that virtually all weapons should be "regulated" because there is no way that a citizen militia could take on our military, are arguing that we can never win in Iraq against forces which are using AK-47s and improvised explosive devices. I don't agree with either of their claims.

My take is that the states reserved for themselves the right to regulate concealed carry.

Open carry cannot be infringed. IMHO. ???

Many did, more after the 14th amendment than before, but after the 14th they had no power to do so. Keeping and bearing arms being one of the "immunities" of US citizenship.

The theory behind banned concealed carry was that anyone concealing a firearm was obviously up to no good. Now, if you carried openly in many states and localities, they'd arrest you for "brandishing" or "causing alarm".

El Gato said: "The Court did not even acknowledge that argument, [that Miller needed to be a member of a militia]"

I don't agree. The Court pointed out that people were expected to appear for militia duty bearing arms supplied by themselves. The Court had a duty to consider both of the arguments presented by the prosecution. Had they agreed with the argument regarding militia membership, they had a duty to say so, else they created the possibility the Miller and any similarly charged individual would be acquitted despite NOT being a member of a militia.

After any such acquittal, the prosecution would NOT be allowed to appeal because of double jeopardy protections.

"But so far I don't see anyone better on the Repub side, at least no one who wants it. And, in fact, she says she doesn't want it either. But for now there isn't anyone else."

Which means we must find a Republican Second Amendment Absolutist (two of 'em since one has to be VP) and draft them!

"Hear hear. Ya know, having grown up with things like that - I have even more respect for her. Condi's got my vote."

The history of her family and neighborhood made such a permanent impression on her that she still proclaims that she is a "Second Amendment absolutist". When she said of her father that "he and his friends kind of organized a little brigade." Condi was defining the original intent of a "militia".

"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."

Condi does definitely understand, unlike McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and others who want a variety of restrictions or infringements to suit the political crowd of the day. Such RINO's do not understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed".

"Thanks. I didn't know that about Condi"

You're welcome. Many people, even a lot of Republicans, do not know how strongly Condi has said that she supports our Second Amendment rights. The Larry King interview has been buried -- by the anti-gun MSM. That and other info showing Condi's developing stands should be made more public, or at least posted for Freepers.

"Awesome post, thanks for the ping."

You're welcome!

You again. Still spouting the leftist drivel I see...

Don't you ever get tired of trying to hash out the same tired, oft refuted argument?

I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdicts the abuse of certain powers in the state legislatures, some other provisions of equal if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, &c." were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the state governments than by the government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controuled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no state shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know in some of the state constitutions the power of the government is controuled by such a declaration, but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the state governments are as liable to attack these invaluable privileges as the general government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against. - James Madison Proposing Bill of Rights to House, June 8, 1789

No. He isn't right.

"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers 12:440

"It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses." --Thomas Jefferson to Noah Webster, 1790. ME 8:112

The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. [82] The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right.... T he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the foederal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. [83]-- Tench Coxe http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/hk-coxe.htm#FN;F71

"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."

The Second Amendment, like Amendments II through XIII, unlike the First Amendment, specifically do not say "Congress shall make no law" and thus apply to all governments or, for that matter, to any organization which could mean that a company or business can not infringe on our Second Amendment rights either. Thus a business or church or school can not say "gun-bearers are not welcome". Thus even a homeowners association or town or county can not, according to the Second Amendment, infringe on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Here is what was said by the US Supreme Court in 1856 about the right to bear arms.

Dred Scott vs Sanford

*** It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHEREVER THEY WENT.

(and more)

A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.

For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

Nor can Congress deny to the people THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

Once again: Gun control is a smoke screen to conceal a nonexistent position on crime. Not one gun has ever leapt out of a holster and shot someone of its own volition. These mayors and groups (and Rudy Guiliani) who support gun control are nothing more than advocates for criminals.

In fact I begin to question if money isn't flowing into the crime advocates' coffers from criminal entities. Must be nice to peddle crack on the street and allow for your clients to rob others to pay for the product. Punishing criminals for their behavior (and I'm talking real punishment here; no more "corrections", that doesn't work) would pretty much dry up the drug money. I wonder how long the crime advocate groups would last after that.

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?

Yes you are. State governments cannot write laws contradicting the US constitution. No more on the second amendment than the first.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.