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.

[archy]

You are making the same irrelevant arguement over and over and over again.

Are you going to contend that the 1st Amendment means you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, at any volume, at any time of day, to anybody you want?

You might find it particularly amusing that Supreme Court Justice James Clark McReynolds, who delivered the opinion of the Court, was a Kentucky-born attorney who graduated from Tennessee's Vanderbilt School of Law, thence to reside for some twenty years in Nashville, where he was been involved in local campaigns to clean Nashville of gambling and prostitution, having had the Police Gazette magazine banned from local newsstands as one step troward that end. A former U. S. Attorney General, McReynolds was offered his seat on the Supreme Court by President Wilson in 1914, largely as a means to quietly remove him as A.G.

McReynolds condemned unreasonable search and seizure. He was the only dissenter in another case where he argued that the President had no right to dismiss a postmaster or other similarly held positions without consent of Congress. He struck down a Hawaiian statute that sought to discourage the teaching of Japanese, and wrote the unanimous decision that invalidated an Oregon law compulsory education law, under the concept that it "unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control . . ."

McReynolds' passionate dissent in cases that tested the constitutionality of America's departure from the gold standard has to be perplexing to firearm rights advocates when comparing the Miller opinion. By confiscating private property and abrogating contracts, he argued, the government deprived the people of due process and failed to satisfy the "just compensation" clause of the Fifth Amendment. "No such power was ever granted by the framers of the Constitution," McReynolds said. "It was not there then. It was not there yesterday. It is not there today." In a 1937 dissent, he again voiced a constructionist viewpoint, finding certain provisions of the Social Security law in violation of the Tenth Amendment: "We should keep in mind that we are living under a written Constitution. No volume of words and no citation of irrelevant statistics and no appeal to feeling of humanity can expand the powers granted by Congress . . ."

[looscnnn]

No, they say that the individual right is protected period (from fed or state governments).

[looscnnn]

Also, there are 6 states that have no provisions in their Constitutions similar to the 2nd Amendment and yet their rights are still protected. How can that be? Hmmmm...because of the 2nd Amendment!

[archy]

"What could the founders have possibly meant by "Arms" other then "Guns"?"

A weapon carried by the average soldier/militia member.

Not so. The constitution also provided for letters of marque and reprisalto allow citizens to outfit private warships and operate as private military vessels. This clearly required such individuals to obtain and keep the largest and best possible naval artillery of the day.

Former Bostonian and bookseller Henry Knox was similarly an amateur artillerist, whose study and personal equipment became the foundation for George Washington's corps of artillery, The Continental Congress thereafter unanimously electing Henry Knox Colonel of the Regiment of Artillery on November 17, 1775.

The birthday of that citizen-artillerist is still celebrated by officers of the Army Artillery branch today, this year's July 22nd Observance being the 256th anniversary. Should you ever get the opportunity to attend, the party at the Artilleryman's home of Ft Sill, OK is a pretty good one. So is the one at Ft Knox, Kentucky.

[KeyesPlease]

Last I read 2A went someting like this:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

not

"...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms..."

On plain meaning alone I would have to answer "yes" to your question.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Accordng to the Militia laws the only people exempt from militia duty are persons under 16 and over 45, pilots on navigable waterways, postal clerks and certain members of the government. All others are considered unorganized militia.

I had it explained to me better.. When a the Government needs soldiers they are to be drawn from the unorganized militia by a DRAFT. We don't have a draft today which may complicate things.

[Little Ray]

Yes, it is.
Face it, its easier to kill a person with a firearm than with a machete and safer than using a bomb. A pistol is also easier to hide than a machete or most bombs, and you can kill more people with one than you could with a machete.
In the case of a bomb, there are usually plenty of other charges that go along with the bomb (its usually illegal to contruct them in the first place; owning the material is usually illegal without appropriate licenses, etc.).

Besides, murdering folks with machetes and bombs doesn't give the gun grabbers ammo for banning fire arms.

[William Tell]

El Gato said: "No, the decision made it clear that Miller need not have been registered as part of any organized militia, although the government argued thusly. The Second Amendment protects a right of the people, not of the militia, organized or not."

Some people don't seem to understand that the Miller decision by the Supreme Court was going to be the final word on how the District Court was going to conduct a trial. If Miller had been acquitted, as he certainly should have been since a short-barreled shotgun is useful to a militia, there would have been no opportunity whatever for the prosecution to appeal. And that would be true of any similarly charged individual, if the prosecution failed to show that the arm was not useful to a militia.

Miller's individual right to keep and bear arms that are useful to a militia was affirmed by the Supreme Court's decision. The individual right of anyone charged with keeping and bearing an arm useful to a militia was also affirmed by the Miller decision. The "collective right" nonsense was sought by the prosecution and WAS NOT GRANTED.

[robertpaulsen]

"Miller's individual right to keep and bear arms that are useful to a militia was affirmed by the Supreme Court's decision."

It was not affirmed. The Supreme Court made no decision. They didn't even know if the weapon was protected by the second amendment.

"since a short-barreled shotgun is useful to a militia"

Under 18"? Show me where it was standard equipment for a militia or a military. Maybe a couple of guys carried them around during the Civil War, but standard equipment? Please.

Even if we assume this weapon was suitable, who's to say that Miller has any right to challenge that? Wouldn't the state bring the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, not an individual?

By remanding to the lower court the Supreme Court could have been saying, "Is this a militia weapon? If so, then only the state may challenge the NFA as violating the second amendment."

[robertpaulsen]

"by codifying the unorganized militia, referred to as the "well regualted" in the 2A."

Congress defined a "well regulated Militia" in the Militia Act of 1792. It's spelled out very clearly what they had in mind.

Now you come along and cite the Militia Act of 1903 and attempt to make some connection to the second amendment. The Militia Act of 1903 lists the organized militia and the unorganized militia. Now, which of those two would be considered "well regulated" and protected by the second amendment?

"There is no requirement for registering members and/or their weapons either in the 2A or the Militia Act."

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia"
-- Militia Act of 1792

[supercat]

Dude, the 1st Amendment is incorporated to the states a long time ago.

Your argument was that the First Amendment wasn't intended be absolute in cases of libel, theater-fire-yelling, etc. I would suggest that since Congress would have had no legitimate concern with such things, there would have been no need to recognize exceptions for them.

There is a tendency to use the fact that it would be absurd to completely prevent states from doing anything that might infringe speech, to in turn argue that the First Amendment couldn't have been meant as absolute. I would suggest that it is the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the First, which is not absolute, though current jurisprudence is absurd in the exceptions it does and does not recognize.

[tpaine]

El Gato said:

"No, the decision made it clear that Miller need not have been registered as part of any organized militia, although the government argued thusly. The Second Amendment protects a right of the people, not of the militia, organized or not."



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


W. Tell adds:

"-- Miller's individual right to keep and bear arms that are useful to a militia was affirmed by the Supreme Court's decision.
The individual right of anyone charged with keeping and bearing an arm useful to a militia was also affirmed by the Miller decision.

The "collective right" nonsense was sought by the prosecution and WAS NOT GRANTED."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Gentlemen, as we see, the 'collective rights' faction on FR is frantic to point out that somehow the SCOTUS made no affirmative decision, which leaves open their hope for California type bans on arms throughout the land.

Fighting on, they nitpick about short-barreled shotgun length, as if there is something inherantly evil in under 18" tubes. Bizarre obsession.


But the kicker is in the assumption that a person does not have a right to demand redress when his RKBA's is infringed.
Apparently collectivists think that "the right of the people" can only be defended by a State. - A State like California? -- Ludicrous reasoning.

[supercat]

Under 18"? Show me where it was standard equipment for a militia or a military.

The question is not whether the exact make and model of firearm possessed was used in the military, but rather whether the type of firearm possessed would be suitable for use as a weapon in a military situation.

Otherwise the government could outlaw all inexpensive (affordable by serfs) weapons by declaring that they're not protected since the army only uses more expensive weapons.

[Candor7]

The explaination is that Vermont is largely a rural state with two large liberal socialist moonbat population centers: Burlington and Rutland. We folk who live outside these two citiies, both Liberals and Conservatives will not be parted from our weapons. Theat tradirion goes all the way back to Ethan Allen and the militia that created the state...and we are NOT going away. Anyone who tries to bring in gun legislation is asking for a torrent of bipartisan ridicule and verbal violence.

The crime rate is low in Vermont for the reason that we ALL have guns out in the countryside, and we know how to use them.Only in the cities, where there is a paucity of arms, is there a lot of violent crime.....go figure?

[Candor7]

Now I can think how it might be if we had a few thousand of these Davy Crocketts pointed at Iran from the Iraqi border.

[wku man]

Sheesh...you really are hopeless.

"Congress defined a "well regulated Militia" in the Militia Act of 1792. It's spelled out very clearly what they had in mind."

So, do you really think the militia of today should be armed with muskets or firelocks, and that its officers should be armed with sabers? That's what's spelled out in the Militia Act of 1792, after all. Do we re-organize the military to bring back regiments to fit between battalions and brigades in the organizational structure? Should each company have a drummer and a fifer? All that is in the 1792 Act, after all. Yes, I have read the Act of 1792, and understand it well. There is still no requirement that any militia member has to be registered with any governmental body. But more on that follows.

"Now you come along and cite the Militia Act of 1903 and attempt to make some connection to the second amendment. The Militia Act of 1903 lists the organized militia and the unorganized militia. Now, which of those two would be considered "well regulated" and protected by the second amendment?"

No, Bob, I easily made the connection, because it is very clear to anyone with a room temperature IQ that both laws deal with the miliiiiiitia. I see you're confused, so just nod your head "yeeeees". That's good.

Now, unless you just haven't read any more of this thread than your own inane posts, you would have seen it has been clearly established that the phrase "well organized" had a completely different meaning in the 18th Century than it does now. Again, just nod your head "yes". Back then, it meant "well trained" and/or "well disciplined".

(Just as a quick aside, you do understand, don't you, that words sometimes change meanings over time? After all today's words "liberal" and "conservative" meant the complete opposite in the 18th Century than they do today. If you're confused, think of it this way: Thomas Jefferson, was a well-known liberal, and you would have been quite the conservative back then, Bob. But I digress.)

It didn't mean that farmer Roy had to go and register himself or his rifle with the town, county, state or national government. It meant he had to show up for drills, with the prescribed equipment, and follow the orders of his superiors. It meant that each militia unit would be drilled on the prescribed manual of arms, formations and tactics, so that if federalized, the could assimilate that much quicker into the Regular Army. There...do you understand it now, Bob? Good...we'll continue.

As clearly spelled out in the Dick Act of 1903, the "unorganized" militia consists of all militia members not in the "organized" militia. "Organized" militia is defined in the Act as the National Guard and the Naval Militia. Okay, now this is going to require some mental effort on your part...ready? Here goes...therefore the "unorganized" militia referred to in the Dick Act is the same as the "well regulated" militia in the 2A! Yes! I think you're starting to get it! Good for you...help yourself to a cookie.

""That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia" -- Militia Act of 1792"

So, does that mean that all non-whites are free from militia duty today? After all, you said before that Congress made its intent clear in the Act of 1792. So, expanding on that sentiment, according to you, only white men are required to serve in the militia, they have to be armed with muskets or firelocks, their officers have to carry sabers, each division has to have a company of horse cavalry, and each artillery company has to include a drummer and a fifer. It's all in the Act of 1792, around which you seem to be basing your entire argument, after all.

And incidnetally, the paragraph you quoted from the Act of 1792 is pretty much the same as spelled out in the Act of 1903, except that the age requirement was changed to 17-45, from 18-45. Furthermore, there is still no verbage requiring any sort of a registration of any militia member and/or his weapon(s). Small towns being what they were back then, I'm prety sure everyone knew who was in the local militia company, who didn't show up for drill, who the officers and NCOs were, etc. I would even be willing to bet that "enrolled" back then meant something closer to "participate in" rather than giving name, home address and phone number, SSN, mother's maiden name, shoe size and oh yeah, the serial number and type of all weapons in the minuteman's home. Again, like it or not, words change meanings over time. That's why it's important to know something about the original intent of the Founders.

Look, I say again, you're either a gadfly or some anti-gun zealot who's trying to hammer out some sort of (ill)logical anti-gun argument. In the first case, you're a pain in the a**, in the second case you're my enemy. Either way, I have wasted more than enough time on you. Good night, and good riddance.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[William Tell]

tpaine said: "Gentlemen, as we see, the 'collective rights' faction on FR is frantic to point out that somehow the SCOTUS made no affirmative decision, which leaves open their hope for California type bans on arms throughout the land."

The faction you describe fail to acknowledge that the lack of guidance regarding Miller's membership in a militia WAS an affirmative decision that such membership is irrelevant and was not required to be addressed during trial.

The anti-gunners act as if the prosecution was somehow going to get a do-over at the Supreme Court after people are acquitted. If Miller was expected by the Supreme Court to be a member of a militia, then it would be absolutely irrelevant what type of weapon he possessed. The presumption is that the Supreme Court committed judicial error by failing to properly guide the lower court.

We are expected to believe that the prosecution will magically appeal an acquittal of Miller without legal justification, then the Supreme Court will agree to hear the same case that they already ruled on, and then finally the Supreme Court will agree with a prosecution argument which they previously rejected. The Supreme Court recognized that people were expected to appear for militia duty bearing arms supplied by themselves.

[robertpaulsen]

"The question is not whether the exact make and model of firearm possessed was used in the military, but rather whether the type of firearm possessed would be suitable for use as a weapon in a military situation."

Suitable for use as a weapon in a military situation? Who's definition?

From an individual's point of view, that applies everything including rocks and pointed sticks. From the military's point of view, we need to look at what the military HAS used in combat. Shotguns, yes, certainly. But not shotguns with barrels less than 18". Which was why the NFA was very specific as to the length.

"Otherwise the government could outlaw all inexpensive (affordable by serfs) weapons by declaring that they're not protected since the army only uses more expensive weapons."

Well, let's just say that those weapons would not be protected from federal infringement under the second amendment. It doesn't automatically mean that something not protected is, by default, outlawed. The states could certainly protect those weapons under their state constitution if they so desired.

[robertpaulsen]

"Yes, I have read the Act of 1792, and understand it well. There is still no requirement that any militia member has to be registered with any governmental body."

IF you indeed read it, and IF you indeed understood it, you would have noted that the Act stated that it was the "duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company to enroll every such citizen ... and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment".

How is that "not registered"? Are you playing word games? Is your argument so weak that you must resort to this tactic? "Oh, robertpaulsen, I said 'registered', not 'enrolled'."

Lame.

"Back then, it meant "well trained" and/or "well disciplined"."

Yes. And it meant "with officers appointed by the state" and a whole bunch of other things you conveniently left out. They're all there in the Militia Act of 1792 which you CLAIM to have read and understood well. Even the U.S. Constitution acknowledges that the Militia has officers appointed by the state.

"words sometimes change meanings over time"

In reading your posts, THAT'S becoming obvious.

"therefore the "unorganized" militia referred to in the Dick Act is the same as the "well regulated" militia in the 2A!"

The "well regulated Militia of the 1792 Act" was replaced by the National Guard and the Naval Militia.

"So, does that mean that all non-whites are free from militia duty today?"

It depends. Do you believe in original intent? Then yes. (Of course, then it follows that only muskets are allowed. Oops.)

"Look, I say again, you're either a gadfly or some anti-gun zealot who's trying to hammer out some sort of (ill)logical anti-gun argument."

You feel it necessary to analyze me? To question me? Why? Because you canoot dispute my arguments so you dispute my motives?

YOU'RE the one who should be questioned. YOU'RE the one who's claiming that the second amendment protects our individual right to own any gun we please. YOU'RE the one telling us not to worry -- the second amendment will protect all of us.

You're a stooge for Sarah Brady. That's what she and her group want us to believe, thereby allowing her to undermine our rights at the state level where our gun rights ARE protected.

You look at the second amendment and attempt to convince me what YOU think it says, all the while that every lower federal court in every single gun case (save one) has ruled that A) the second amendment only applies to the federal government, and B) the second amendment protects a collective (militia) right, not an individual right.

I'm a pain in the a$$ for saying so? So be it. Someone has to wake you up.

[tpaine]

Gentlemen, as we see, the 'collective rights' faction on FR is frantic to point out that somehow the SCOTUS made no affirmative decision, which leaves open their hope for California type bans on arms throughout the land.

The faction you describe fail to acknowledge that the lack of guidance regarding Miller's membership in a militia WAS an affirmative decision that such membership is irrelevant and was not required to be addressed during trial.

wku man comments on that faction bear repetition:

"-- Look, I say again, you're either a gadfly or some anti-gun zealot who's trying to hammer out some sort of (ill)logical anti-gun argument.
In the first case, you're a pain in the a**, in the second case you're my enemy.
Either way, I have wasted more than enough time on you. Good night, and good riddance. --"