Posted on 04/09/2002 12:17:54 PM PDT by RCW2001
News stories from around the nation identifying gun control as a trip-wire issue dividing conservatives and liberals don't surprise. The events of September 11 have heightened the resolution of the "individual rights" interpreters of the Second Amendment. These are distinguished from the "collective rights" faction. The former stare the language in the face and come away with a reading different from the collective crowd. At issue is the interpretation of a single sentence: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Opponents of comprehensive gun-control laws view this as a constitutional guarantee of the right of Americans to own guns. An easy to way to put it is that they view the amendment as if the initial clause were irrelevant, leaving us simply with a guarantee against federal gun control that challenges the right of citizens to own weapons. By contrast, of course, there are those (roughly speaking, the nation's intelligentsia) who insist that the Second Amendment goes no further than to say that Congress may not legislate against the right of individual states to organize militias of arms-bearing citizens.
The learned arguments go on and on. The gun-control lobby has suffered two severe blows in the recent period. One of them is that Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard, much esteemed by American liberals, in part because of his enthusiasm for abortion rights, having examined the historical documents, opines that indeed the people who framed the Bill of Rights intended to guarantee individual, not merely collective, gun-ownership rights. And the Fifth Circuit ruled in the same direction in United States v. Emerson.
As with other contentions requiring constitutional interpretation, the division over gun control is only one part historical (What did the framers intend?). Another, more significant part, is political (What does the American public want?) But it's better, and safer, to ask the question: What do the American people reasonably want? It probably could be established by polling that the American people would be happy to hang anybody who burns the U.S. flag, but such sentiments are not likely to be codified.
It's more fruitful to argue reasonable limitations on gun ownership. A comic routine in Las Vegas in 1980 featured a debate between presidential contenders Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter on the matter of gun control, Walter Cronkite presiding. "What about atom bombs, Governor Reagan? Do you believe the Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to have atom bombs?"
"Well, Mr. Cronkite," the comedian answered pensively, "just small atom bombs."
The assertion of a right at ridiculous lengths the absolutization of it, in the manner of the American Civil Liberties Union is a way of undermining it. If the Constitution says you can say anything you want under any circumstances, then you can shout fire! in a crowded movie theater. If you have the right to remain silent in all circumstance, then you can decline to give testimony vital to another citizen's freedom and rights. If you insist that a citizen has the right to own a machine gun, you discredit his right to own a pistol or a rifle.
What ripened in the aftermath of September 11 was a sensibility of the individual citizen's dependence, at the margin, on his own resources. George Will put it pithily (as ever), when he asked, Call for a cop, an ambulance, and a pizza, and ask which is likelier to get to you first. A rifle in the closet wouldn't have been useful against the swooping 767s that struck the Twin Towers. But a sense of the implications of chaos and anarchy was sharpened. An analyst 20 years ago remarked that an 82-year-old couple living in an apartment in the Bronx, after twice being assaulted, found it possible to sleep at night only after acquiring a pistol and advertising its presence on a note pinned to the outside door.
Both sides will find it useful to temper extreme expressions of their positions. But it is certainly true that at this moment it is likelier that congressmen running for election or reelection in November will not press the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Not in NYC or Westchester. Nassau used to be pretty good about CCW, though I don't know about now. I know NOTHING about upstate, so I will take your word for it.
We have a group up here called ConcealCarry.org, but upon looking them over closely, they gave me a serious case of the heebee jeebee's. Their membership requirements looked more like a Amway / Ponzi thing, and the guy's newsletter read more like a rant than a newsletter. Needless to say I will be avoiding them.
Most of the counties without major cities are pretty good, with the exception of Amo Houghton's home district, which is for all practical matters, no-issue district. Of course, that makes sense: Houghton is a RINO's RINO, who was one of the crucial swing votes to get the 1994 'Assault Weapon' ban through.
"A well educated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Books, shall not be infringed."
Would liberals claim that only the government could own books?
From Warning: Actual NY Laws are much more complex, but this is a good summary.
Note the "posseses Ammunition" clause.
Wont looser licensing restrictions make it easier for criminals to get weapons? "Every criminal who wants a weapon already has one," said another retired Israeli police officer in a radio interview. End of argument. In two sentences, the most cherished dogmas of anti-gun groups such as the Brady Campaign and Gun Industry Watch have been dismissed.
Israel is Arming Its Civilians - Why Aren't We?
That said, I've been in the RKBA fight since about 1967, and these people never, ever give up. Never. They are merely regrouping, and trying stuff like the .50 calibre ban and "gunshow loopholes" as another Camel's Head under the tent.
They're like the two tribes, "Truth-Tellers" and "Liars" who inhabit the land of logic puzzles.
These are distinguished from the "collective rights" faction.
Should obviously be...
These are distinguished from the "collective rights" fiction.
Loaning a pistol to a fellow permit holder is a felony. In order for you to share a pistol it must be iterated by serial number on the back of both of your permits.
In Europe and Asia, during the last century, by Governments against their own unarmed citizens, probably tens of millions.
But it may be out of date.
April 8 Update -- Congress came back this week and one of the first items on the House agenda is Rep. Jim Gibbons' (R-Nev.) H.R. 2937, which would cede three 320 acre parcels and six 640-acre parcels of Federal land to Clark County (Las Vegas), Nevada for use as police and civilian shooting ranges.
It's on the "Suspension Calendar," a spot usually reserved for non-controversial bills, and could come up today.
-------------
The news isn't as good on the Senate side, where anti-gunners and their allies appear to be gearing up worsening amendments to the already-outrageous Lautenberg gun show bill, which Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) has said will be brought up "this session."
Yesterday Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (both D-N.Y.) went to the steps of a Catholic Church where an apparently mentally deranged man had killed a priest and parishioner last month.
They announced a bill to require state mental health agencies to report involuntary mental hospital commitments to the FBI National Instant Check System and to expand the prohibition against gun possession by anyone under a domestic restraining order to include anyone under any restraining order within five years.
The man, Peter Troy, had been twice committed involuntarily and was last year ordered released by a judge -- who will not be blamed. Troy bought the .22 rimfire semi-auto rifle four days before the killings.
When the Gun Control Act of 1968 proposed including a ban on possession by adjudicated "mental incompetents," the mental health community strongly opposed that section, citing evidence that persons with mental problems had lower incidence of violence than the public at large.
But few mental health groups are saying anything now and a spokesman for New York Republican Gov. George Pataki said mental health commitments will be reported to NICS whether or not the Schumer bill passes.
Almost all the 89,000 mental history records now in NICS were supplied by the Veterans Administration, under a Bill Clinton Executive Order.
The expansion of the ban on gun rights to anyone under any restraining order for five years (despite the fact that restraining orders are often routinely issued in even non-opposed divorces) is part of the incremental ("non-existent slippery slope") effort to ban as much gun ownership as possible until such time as all can be banned.
-------------------
In addition to the Schumer mental health reporting bill, I expect other Senate anti-gunners to attempt to add amendments to "close the newspaper loophole," if not the "loophole" allowing any private firearms transfers. Both "loopholes" -- technically defined as any firearms restriction not presently in the law -- have been discussed by politicians and newspaper editorial writers in recent weeks.
The anti-gun crowd, particularly in the Senate, is confident of passage of the 1999 Lautenberg amendment (reintroduced by Sen. Jack Reed [D-R.I.]) broadly defining gun shows, requiring all transfers at "shows" to be run through NICS and requiring all sellers -- even individuals who bring a gun to trade -- to be reported to BATF.
Since an NRA-backed softer bill requiring background checks at gun shows also passed the House in 1999, and anti-gunners are stronger now in both sides of Congress, anti-gunners are determined to significantly broaden the bill, starting in the Senate.
The lengthy article in the April 8 issue of American Prospect, a generally "Liberal" publication describes the dissension between anti-gun factions and anger at Andrew McKelvey's "Americans For Gun Safety" -- which, despite being staffed by virulent anti-gunners -- portrays itself as a "moderate" organization.
The rest of the anti-gun groups (with the exception of Josh Sugarmann's Violence Policy Center, which recently reaffirmed its gun-banning philosophy) also portrays themselves as merely seeking "reasonable" gun control laws. Even the Methodist Church-inspired Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (which started as the National Coalition To Ban Handguns) has downplayed its "ban-em" predilections.
Like anti-gun politicians who claim to support the Second Amendment while supporting every gun law with a chance of enactment, AGS says it "recognizes the right to bear arms" -- which infuriates the rest of the "gun control moderates."
American Prospect claims that McKelvey's efforts to "give gun control a shot in the arm... may give it a shot in the head." That would be nice, but it's exceedingly doubtful.
When Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Ct.) rolled out their softened-but-in-some-ways-worse "middle way" bill with AGS backing, the hard left came unglued. Lieberman said it was only an alternative in case the Reed/Lautenberg bill failed.
Leader Daschle said the first vote would be on the Reed bill, eliminating any need for a vote on McCain-Lieberman. He likely wants to bring up the bill closer to the elections, for maximum political impact. But McCain notified colleagues just before Thanksgiving that he would offer his bill as an amendment to the first "appropriate vehicle" in this session. Now that his Campaign Finance Bill has been signed, I suspect that's the next item on his agenda, and it could come up quickly, because if McCain waits for Daschle to bring up the bill McCain won't get a vote on the bill bearing his name.
-------------
There are exceptions to every rule and perhaps this is one of them. I also know that out-of-staters are exempt from the possession prohibition provided they can demonstrate they are en route to a shooting competition in New York or states beyond New York, provided the firearm is unloaded and in a locked, inaccessible case.
It really depends on leadership. MCRGO isn't a "good ole boys' club. The founders were are activists with a set goal. We went through some growing pains, but we got an NRA board member to help us out. Later on, we got the NRA deputy director for the area to join us and he's a board member and always in Lansing. We work as a team with the NRA. The NRA sent a letter to every Michigander that is a member, asking them to join MCRGO. I think our results speak for itself.
ConcealCarry.org looks to me like a POORLY run website. Not a good first impression. Granted I'm a little spoiled here, but MCRGO has had a good website even when we had 3000 people.
Maryland requires that all handguns be delivered by the manufacturer to the dealer with a pre-fired bullet, which is then sent to the state police for permanent filing in the forensics lab after sale of the firearm.
I had heard that several manufacturers were disinterested in Maryland's requirement, so they don't sell guns there.
Check out the memberships!!! $120 a YEAR, and if you recruit more members, you get PAID.
Like Amway.
Its not about concealed carry in Illinois, its about getting the leader of this group some money.
Really unfortunate; people should raid the group, take over, kick the creep on the top out, and run it like a legitimate pro-2a organization!!!
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.