A Bethesda, Maryland teen has been making a lot of news in the past week or so and his story is worth watching closely.  Colin McKenzie-Gude, is an 18-year old graduate of St. John's College High School in Washington, D.C., an up-scale prep-school.  He was a member of the JROTC program and the school air rifle team.  McKenzie-Gude was arrested at the end of July for having a “stockpile of weapons and bomb-making materials.”  He was later charged with setting off home-made bombs in a remote field in Gaithersburg, Maryland and also charged with an attempted strong-arm carjacking at a local shopping mall.  Along with the guns – several “assault rifles,” a shotgun, and a handgun – police found a fake CIA identification card and a “Geneva Convention badge” similar to ID’s issued to US contractors in Iraq.  They also found a list of several faculty members of St. John’s with home addresses and a map purported to be a motorcade map to Camp David.  The kid’s father was also arrested for “buying him the guns.”

All of this has the media, the public, and even conservative and gun rights blogs, convicting this kid of plotting to blow up his school, murder a bunch of teachers, and attempting to kill the President – all based on nothing more than the fact that there were guns and stuff in his home.

We all need to be really careful about buying into media hype based on skimpy evidence and scary pictures.  The gun owning public should be particularly skeptical about media reports of “stockpiles” and “caches” of weapons and “bomb-making materials.  Most of us could easily be accused of having weapons and ammunition “stockpiles” and I can find bomb-making chemicals in virtually any home in America.

Maybe this kid is a wack-o who needs to be locked up, but so far there has been little released in this case that suggests anything truly nefarious to me.  The car-jacking charge is the only real crime I see and I haven’t seen the evidence on which that was based.  As to the firearms, explosives, and other things; there is nothing that this kid had or did that I did not have, try to have, or attempt to do when I was a teenager.

There were always numerous guns in my bedroom along with a variety of ammunition.  We didn’t have the internet when I was a kid so I got my hands on a copy of “The Anarchist’s Cook-Book” and experimented with all sorts of home-made loud-n-boomers.  At 16 I had a doctored military ID that wouldn’t have fooled Mr. Magoo and an out-of-state driver’s license that was passable at the local beer stores (though I was too afraid to actually use it – my Mom would have killed me.)

I always worry when I see the press and public rushing to judgment based on evidence which in and of itself is not, or should not be, a crime.  Guns – even a lot of guns – are not an indication of criminal intent.  Nor are “bomb-making materials” since common household items can be considered such.

As I say, maybe this kid really is dangerous and was planning something really bad, but maybe he was just a kid playing spy and experimenting with things that go boom.  I did a lot of that when I was a kid and so did my boys.  It looks like this kid was probably taking things too far, but nothing released to this point remotely suggests that he should be considered a dangerous criminal.  It also looks like his father wasn’t supervising his activities closely enough, but again, bringing criminal charges because he let his son have access to his firearms?  That’s a bad precedent to be setting.

Only time and more information will sort this whole thing out, but unfortunately, if there really wasn’t something more sinister than possession of weapons and a vivid imagination, we’ll probably never know about it because the kid and his dad will be forced to cop a plea to some lesser charge and the assumption of guilt on all of the charges will stick with them for the rest of their lives.

   [Note: After seeing the actual language of the bill and speaking with key players, I am much more comfortable with this deal.  While I still have some concerns and mixed feelings about how this could impact Heller's new lawsuit and the way the Supreme Court's decision in Heller might be interpreted, there is absolutely nothing in this bill that could be considered a sell-out or give-away.  It's a very good bill which I can't help but support. -JAK]

    Acording to The Hill newspaper, the NRA has mad a deal with House Democrats on a "compromise" DC gun law bill. 

    The burning question now is, "Why?". 

    If the report is accurate, NRA has agreed to support a compromise bill that would force DC to minimally comply with the Supreme Court's June ruling in the Heller case.  The city has so far enacted emergency legislation which makes it very difficult for a DC resident to legally own a handgun or have it available for self-defense in the home.  Republicans have introduced a sweeping firearms reform bill for the District, but it has been bottled up by the Democrat leadership.  Republicans were trying to get pro-gun Democrats to join them in a petition to force the bill onto the House floor for a vote.  Democrats don't want to debate and vote on anything as contentious as a serious DC gun bill so pro-gun Democrats led by John Dingell (D-Michigan), Mike Ross (D-Arkansas), and Mike Tanner (D-Tennessee) reached out to NRA for a deal.

    Republicans are rightously furious over the deal as they were hoping to use the discharge petition as a wedge issue in the coming elections.  

    Again, the burning question is "Why?".  Why would NRA make this deal at this time?  What advantage does such a deal give them or the gun rights movement? 

    We are heading into an election in which many experts are predicting major Democrat gains.  The Presidential candidates are both unappealing to GunVoters and have been somewhat lulled into a sense of security by the Heller victory.  And there have been no contentious, gun-related bills debated in Congress to fire voters up and separate the sheep from the goats in a long, long time.  Now would be an excellent time to have a loud debate about gun control and DC's outrageous response to the Heller decision is an excellent topic for such a debate.  GunVoters are all very aware of the Heller decision and DC's continuing refusal to comply with the clear intent of that decision.  Pro-gun members of Congress are pushing a discharge petition that would force the fight to the floor.  Even without this NRA deal, it is very unlikely that the 218 signatures needed on the discharge petition could be garnered, but the petition itself would be a good barometer for judging a politician's commitment to gun rights.  The fight and the grading would be over the discharge petition rather than the actual bill.  With Heller and others having filed lawsuits to force DC to comply with the ruling, action by Congress is not really desirable as it would nullify those lawsuits, but that shouldn't really be a concern as long as the core bill is strong enought in its support of gun rights to be thoroughly unpalatable to the Democrat leadership.  Nancy Pelosi is never going to allow a sweeping gun rights statement to come out of "her House."

    So that brings us back to this agreement and the question, "Why?".  With this agreement a compromise bill which very narrowly addresses the DC issues wuold be brought forward with NRA support.  This bill (which should be introduced later today) is expected to be narrow and limited enough to be acceptable to Pelosi and company.  That means it can easily pass through the House – where pro-gun members would have little choice but to vote for it – and into the Senate where, again, it ahould face little opposition.  This strategy kills the lawsuits while shielding the anti-gun and faux-pro-gun mambers of Congress thereby effectively removing the only issue around which GunVoters could have been effectively rallied…

     I recently wrote a piece for The Knox Report that described how a future "assault weapons" ban might be passed with NRA support.  The article was intended to be a warning to NRA members to keep a close eye on their organization because there is a history of the group making seriously bad compromises that they call victories.  While not as dramatic as an assault weapons ban, this appears to be another one of those mistakes.

    The town of Morton Grove, Illinois has decided to repeal its longstanding handgun ban.  The AP reports that, in a 5-1 decision, town fathers saw the writing on the wall and decided that taking the fight to court would not be a worthwhile use of the taxpayers' money.  The town is one of the named municipalities named in a lawsuit from SAF and NRA.  Repeal of the handgun ban does not get the town off the hok though.  The town still has some confusing restrictions on shotguns that need to be resolved. 

    The one member of the Town Council who voted to keep the handgun ban was a member of the original council that passed and defended the ban back in the late '70's.  He wanted the council to wait and see how the issue plays out in court before making a decision.  Other council members  suggested that the ban was always mostly symbolic and that the symbolism wasn't worth the anticipated cost.

    Meanwhile, the cities of Chicago  and San Francisco are both vowing to stick to their guns all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary… We can only hope that they do.

    One of our regular readers sent me a note that got me going and I would like to share it with all of you.

    He was referencing a recent column in which I did some prognosticating about what might happen in the future if gun rights advocates fail to hold the line and keep a close eye on NRA to make sure they do the same.  Some have accused me of NRA bashing with that piece (which can be read in its entirity by clicking here ) but I was merely pointing out how gun control has come about in the past and how it might get passed in the future if we're not very careful and vigilant.

    Here is my response to that letter.  I hope you'll find it worthwhile.

Russ,

    Anything is possible, but a revolution over firearms restrictions – especially incremental, one sub-group at a time restrictions – is highly unlikely.  It didn't happen in 1994 with the Clinton AW Ban or in 1986 with the LaPierre MG Ban, or in 1976 with the DC Gun Ban…
    What did happen in 1994 was a revolution at the polls resulting in a huge shift in Congress.  Unfortunately, the lesson learned in that revolution was only learned by the losing side.  The Democrats backed away from gun control rhetoric and have given lip-service to the Second Amendment ever since, while the Republicans failed to take any action to restore rights lost or distinguish themselves from the mealy-mouthed Democrats.  Too many Republicans who supported the ban were allowed to retain their seats and NRA was not nearly demanding enough when Republicans held control. Continue reading Thoughts on War →

    As expected, the District of Columbia has decided to obey the Supreme Court's orders in the narrowest fashion possible.  Under the new rules, all semi-auto pistols remain illegal (because according to the District, they are machineguns) as do sawed off shotguns and real machineguns.  Acquiring and registering a gun is a big line of hoops which must be jumpped through in precise order and at the gun purchaser's expense.  All guns registered must be submitted for ballistic testing and only one gun may be registered by any one owner – at least for the first 90 days of registration.  Expect to see that limitation extended indefinitely. There will be an amnesty period for residents who already own a handgun and wish to register it.  The requirement that all firearms be maintained unloaded and either disassembled or locked up, remains in effect with the additional "clarification" that this requirement does not apply when there is an actual perceived threat to someone within the home. 

    It is to be hoped that the Supreme Court or the lower court administering all of this will take these new rules from the District and slap the Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, and Police Chief up-side the head with them since they almost follow the letter of the Supreme Court's order, but are at complete odds with the spirit and intent.

    Another interesting question is the specific order as it relates to Dick Heller.  The Court ordered that the District must allow Heller to register his gun and issue him a license to carry it in his own home.  As I recall, the specific gun Heller attempted to register and was denied – thus laying the foundation for the case – was a Beretta 92.  Under the new rules, DC still considers a Beretta 92 a machinegun and bans their possession.  But the Court did not order that Heller be allowed to register "a" handgun, they ordered that he be allowed to register "his" handgun.  I sincerely hope that Alan Gura and Robert Levy are preparing all sorts of legal actions to slap DC with contempt of court and personal civil rights violations.

    ** Note: It turns out that the specific gun Heller attempted to register was actually a .22 revolver.  Too bad… It would have made forcing repeal of DC's "machinegun" ban much easier if Heller had tried to register a semi-auto.  Even so, DC's new regulations will be challenged in court and taken apart piece by piece.

     Here is a description of DC's new rules from DC itself:

Continue reading DC’s New Rules →

    The District of Columbia Metropolitain Police, complaining that they are outgunned by criminals in their "Gun Free" community, has added 500 AR-15 rifles to their arsenal.  Chief Cathy Lanier says that only senior officers who complete 40 hours of specialized training will be issued the rifles.  Those officers will be required to requalify with the rifles twice each year.

    While the police with their Glock pistols and AR-15 rifles complain of being outgunned by criminals, the city is working on their new handgun registration rules in response to the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller case.  Early indications are that the District will limit legal private handguns to revolvers only, restricted to the home only, and further limited to only one handgun per person.

Welcome to the capitol of the free world. 

       I have to apologize for not posting a more thorough analysis of the Heller decision.  I was holding space for the story in the next Hard Corps Report which I delayed publishing waiting for the decision to come down.  I have been focused on getting the newsletter put together – and overcoming some technical disasters – and failed to be thorough here on the site.

        I'm afraid that's going to continue for another day or two as I finish up the news letter and get it in the mail.  I did take a minute to put some clarification notes in the original story and will do my best to have more information soon.

         In the mean time, let me just say that in the current climate I think that the decision that was rendered is absolutely as good as we could have hoped for and there are some subtle nuances in the language Justice Scalia used that I believe purposely leave certain doors open wider than my first quick reading indicated.  I believe that some of the bothersome thoughts in the opinion were necessitated by one or more "squeamish" members of the majority – possibly the Chief Justice – who wanted to provide some cover for some existing laws.  Most of that was phrased in such a way as to leave a hole though.

        The bottom line is that according to the syllabus there were three main points that the Court "Held":

            1. The Second Amendment protects an Individual Right for self-defense and other lawful purposes and without a requirement of some sort of militia connection beyond, the militia is us.

            2. Like most other Rights, some limits can be placed on it (and they offer examples of what they are not saying are unconstitutional, which does not make those things, by default, constitutional – one of the cracks in the door.  I also don't see how this – or at least most of it – could be considered part of the "Holding" since it doesn't address any specific question in the case.  The question was basically, "Do these two laws in the District of Columbia violate the Second Amendment?"  Answering that by saying Yes, because the 2A protects an individual right to arms such as these laws deny.  Everything else – including this section – is just explaination of their thinking to reach their conclusion.)

            3. DC laws banning handguns and requiring all guns to be unavailable for defense violate the Second Amendment. 

        The suggestion that the Court's order; " the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home," is a defacto stamp of approval on licensing and registration (an early assumption of my own,) is not true.  The Court specifically declined to consider the constitutionality of such laws in the context of this case and practically invited a future challenge of those laws.  Such a challenge will, of course, have to wait until people are actually issued or denied licenses so they can have standing.

        This ruling is a good solid foundation and now the bricks that can restore the Second Amendment can be laid on this foundation one tier at a time with each level setting up the next.  It is a slow and tedious process and there will be setbacks, but it can be done and is being done.

        We need to look at this ruling in the best possible light and interpret every word of it to our best advantage, conceding nothing.  We must stick our collective foot into every crack in every door that the opinion left available and not let the opposition slam any of them shut without a bloody battle.

        Now back to the Hard Corps Report.  If you don't subscribe, I would encourage you to do so.  It is our primary source of revenue and I think you'll find it very worthwhile.  No hype, just facts and well reasoned analysis – if I do say so myself.

Drop us a note if you'd like to receive a review copy or just send us the cost of a box of ammo (or the ammo itself – pretty much any gauge or caliber will do) and we'll put you on the list.

Yours for the Second Amendment,

Jeff Knox