I am very concerned about what essential constitutes last week’s Supreme Court con job on the Second Amendment. Bottom line, the ruling is the Supreme Court’s go-ahead for gun control on a major scale.Anyone who’s tracked the articles and watched the newscasts can see the flop in calling this a "victory" for the individual right to bear arms. What really is happening is that gun owners are being made the victim of an underhanded attack on the second amendment. There is a telling article in the March 19, 2008 USA today written by lawyers from Gun Owners of America pointing out how the second amendment is the very bedrock of America and shouldn’t even be the subject of a Supreme Court debate. The Founding Fathers said that this right should not be infringed. Legal dictionaries clearly point out that this means that it is not to be touched. Most of the nine Supreme Court justices say that the right to bear arms is a "general right." That’s not the case; it is an absolute right, up there with the Fourth Amendment right to privacy, which, unfortunately has also been pretty much obliterated by the Military Commission Act passed two years ago. Just sit down and track this on the Internet.Language that the Justices used allows introducing new regulations on owning hand guns for sure. The NY Law Journal writes: Justice Kennedy’s comments appeared to spell trouble for efforts by the District of Columbia to revive its strict handgun ban, although lawyers for both the Bush administration and gun-rights advocates acknowledged that some lesser regulation of the right would be acceptable.Counting Justice Kennedy, it appeared that five or more justices were ready to recognize some form of an individual right to keep and bear arms that is only loosely tethered, if at all, to the functioning of militias. What kind of regulation of that individual right will be allowed by those justices is uncertain . . . The USA Today op-ed piece written by Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson, attorneys for Gun Owners of America, point out that the Second Amendment was designed to apply to private individuals; this is the primary reason was for the purposes of defense against a tyrannical state or invading army. The second amendment, they write, was not designed to be secure the right of the people to keep and bear Arms — not simply “to protect deer hunters and skeet shooters, but to guarantee to themselves and their posterity the blessings of ‘a free State.’" The Constitution grants ultimate sovereignty to the people, with the Second Amendment demolishing a monopoly by the government on weapons, which is a guarantee to the people to have the firearms needed to defend against government infringement on their unalienable rights as had been done by the British. So the Second Amendment "keep and bear Arms" guarantees the right, the lawyers say, even fully-automatic rifles, which are both the "lineal descendant(s) of … founding-era weapon(s)" (Their statement was an application of a court of appeals’ test from 2007), and "ordinary military equipment" (applying a 1939 Supreme Court standard).Amazingly, the Bush Administration says that federal gun control measures should not be limited and President Bush has even said he would re-sign President Clinton’s previous ban on guns. That bothers me. http://Gunowners.org is the perfect place to go to get an accurate take on the whole situation. The organization even looks at the NRA as being a “Judas goat” in accepting the ruling by the Supreme Court as a “victory.”Fourteenth District Texas Congressman Ron Paul, called for the Clement/Bush administration brief to be withdrawn as it sets a precedent for further erosion of individuals’ Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. He wrote: "If the Supreme Court finds that the D.C. gun ban is a "reasonable" limitation of Second Amendment rights, the Court could create a dangerous precedent for the nation in the future. Such a decision could open the door to further regulation on American citizens’ Second Amendment rights on a large scale." Bottom line any reasonable use of language interprets this as the government saying, "You have the right to bear arms, unless we say so."The Founding Fathers understood that individual ownership of weapons spoke for liberty. Where does not exist, there is tyranny because powerful organizations and governments will have a monopoly on it. The Supreme Court decision is NOT a "victory" for the second amendment, rather, the decision undoes a most fundamental right.
Bloomberg Shoots McCain
Anti-gun Mayor (and potential presidential candidate) Mike Bloomberg and his group “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” have created a television commercial purportedly intended to generate momentum for closing the so called “gun show loophole.” What the ad will do more than anything else is highlight Sen. John McCains betrayal of gunowners when he made a commercial on behalf of Citizens for Gun Safety supporting legislation to close the imaginary loophole several years ago. From a political standpoint, only McCain is damaged with this new ad which is scheduled to air in candidates home states and in Pennsylvania prior to their April 22 Primary. It is a safe bet that GunVoters will respond negatively to the spot and it will make it even harder for McCain in his efforts to woo this important voting block. The timing of the Bloomberg spot suggests that it is intended to damage John McCain and remove GunVoters from the election equation in November. Could this be a proverbial artillery barrage to soften up the beach before Bloomberg launches his own campaign for president? Maybe, or perhaps it is a payback for some perceived wrong of the past. Whatever the reason, McCain is going to discover that it is painful to shoot yourself in the foot – especially when that foot is firmly planted in your own mouth. McCain supplied the gun and ammo and put his own foot in his mouth and now Bloomberg is pulling the trigger.
NRA’s Heroes
The Knox Report
From the Firearms Coalition
NRA’s Heroes
By Jeff Knox
(April 8, 2008) Over the years I have often run into people who have withdrawn their membership in the National Rifle Association because they are angry about a position NRA has taken, or failed to take, on some piece of legislation. These folks are often surprised when I encourage them to renew their membership and learn that I am an Endowment, Life Member myself. Many people have withdrawn from the NRA based solely on the terrible treatment my father suffered at the hands of NRA officials, but even with the malicious personal attacks Dad suffered, he never stopped supporting the organization and its goals because he understood that NRA isn’t the suits at Headquarters; NRA is millions of shooters and gunowners all around this country and Neal Knox would never abandon them.
The recent death of Charlton Heston was widely reported and his loss will be prominently grieved at the coming NRA Meeting of Members. I will say that, though I didn’t always agree with him, I had the utmost respect for Mr. Heston and appreciate what he did for the NRA and the gun rights movement, but I will leave it to the NRA and his publicists to eulogize him. I would rather tell you about another hero of gun rights we lost recently.
Armed Pilots “Security” Video
You’ve probably heard that a pilot accidentally shot a hole in his airplane recently. A pilots’ group blames dangerous security rules and equipment, but others say that the pilot in question had to violate several of the most basic security procedures for this to happen. Most importantly, Only handle the gun when the plane is parked. Here is a video explaining and demonstrating the "security" procedures Federal Flight Deck Officers (armed pilots) must go through. Specifics about all of the FFDO firearm procedures are not available to the public, but the suggestion in this video that the gun must be removed and locked every time the cabin door is opened is apparently not accurate.
Notice that the gun is often pointed directly at the demonstrator during the process. I don’t want to go shooting with this guy.
Pilot group blames TSA carry rules for AD
The US Air pilot who experienced an accidental discharge was following TSA's "ill-conceived" weapon handing rules, according to a press release from Airline Pilots Security Alliance. The group, formed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, advocates for pilots who choose to be able to retain command of their aircraft by force if necessary. Read their press release here. And you might want to visit their web site here.
What ATF Stands For
ATF – Always Think Forfeiture
A very dangerous mindset was revealed recently when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) filed an Invitation for Bids to purchase 2000 Leatherman multi-tools engraved with the words “ATF – Asset Forfeiture” and “Always Think Forfeiture.” (emphasis added)
Imagine you had a job picking up defective widgets and the definition of exactly what constitutes a defect is rather subjective. You have the authority to simply dust off a widget that some might call defective and put it back, or you can pick up a widget that seems to be perfectly good and, by poking and prodding a bit, find some minor discrepancy that you can call a defect and drop that one in your bag. Now imagine that you get paid a bonus and get brownie points based on the value of the widgets you collect and some of the widgets are made of lead while others are made of gold. You’re supposed to be focused on finding and removing the widgets with the worst defects, but do you think you might be tempted to instead focus on the gold widgets? Might you pass over seriously flawed lead widgets in favor of questionably flawed gold widgets?
That’s basically the position the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives puts their agents in when they send them out to enforce firearms laws. While the agency claims that they do not set quotas for their agents’ prosecutions, the agency uses successful prosecutions as the primary measure of their field agents’ performance. Add to that the temptation of asset forfeiture – where the agency gets to keep seized assets and prosecuting agents get bonuses and “atta-boys” based on the value of assets seized – and there is clear potential for conflict of interest and abuse.
Is it possible that government enforcers would target a business or individual specifically because that entity had valuable assets that would be forfeited in a successful prosecution? (And actually a prosecution can be unsuccessful and still result in forfeiture.) If the agency gets to keep forfeited assets, use them to bolster their budget, and reward agents who successfully instigate actions that result in these windfalls, isn’t this creating conflict of interest and literally inviting abuse?
Of course the ATF, like all other government agencies, is only interested in seeing that laws are obeyed and justice is done. They would never seek to grow their agency just for the sake of growth and institutional ego or intentionally look for ways to pad their budget. No doubt their focus in every investigation is always on finding criminal activity, stopping that activity, and bringing the perpetrators to justice. If in that process, it turns out that the criminals have some ill-gotten gains that should be forfeited, it is only right that the agency and agents that successfully brought an end to the criminal enterprise should be rewarded… They’re from the government and they’re here to help.
Update: The original link disappered. You can read the archived bid request and award announcement here.
The contract was awarded to Freedom (sic) Enterprises of Spokane, Washington in the amount of $37,460.00.
Supremely Frustrating
I'm not as thrilled as some with the oral arguments in the Heller case. I was very bothered by some of the statements made and some of the things left unsaid. Of course, this was just the oral arguments – 30 minutes per side with the Solicitor General getting 15 minutes of his own – and there were many, very thorough briefs submitted in the case. I didn't like the way our side threw machineguns away (in an attempt to head off the Solicitor General's plan for lowered scrutiny) and I wasn't happy with the suggestion that the word "unreasonable" could reasonably be inserted in front of "infringed" in the Second Amendment. I understand that some of this was gamesmanship, but I dislike it none the less. As a matter of fact, I dislike the whole system that places so much weight on what prior courts have said and done. I said before the arguments and I say it now, it is not a question of whether the Court recognizes an individual right, but how much weasel-room they allow to usurp that right.
Based on their questions and comments during oral arguments and on prior statements regarding the right to bear arms, it is pretty clear that at least 5 and probably six or more Justices will agree that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right of the people of the United States.
Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy all made it pretty clear that they were convinced that the Second amendment references an individual right. Justice Thomas was silent during the arguments, but past comments make it almost certain that he will join those 4 to seal a majority of the Court. Justices Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens all asked questions trying to either support a position that the militia clause held some supremacy over the rest of the Amendment, or that some “reasonable” restrictions were permissible even under an individual rights interpretation, but even with their comments, it is quite possible that any or even all of them could come down on the side of an individual right. Stevens and Breyer were the most openly hostile. Souter was reaching, but not really arguing against the individual rights position, and Ginsburg was very focused on the question of reasonable restrictions. Souter and Ginsburg could both end up going the right way on the individual versus collective question and if they do, it is possible that Stevens and Breyer will follow suit. Any Justice that does stick with the Continued…
Heller Case Goes Better Than Expected
I've again taken the liberty of appropriating Alan's report. Sounds like it was a great day for gun rights. As we've said before, the fight goes on regardless which way the Supremes rule, but if they go our way, it's better.
Thanks for a great report, Alan. — Chris
Here's a link to yesterday's report.
To listen to all of the Supreme Court arguments in Heller courtesy of DownRangeTV.com, click here.
++++++++++++++++++++
Unfortunately I do not share Alan's enthusiasm. While I am convinced – as I have been all along – that the Court must and will agree that the Second Amendment references an individual right to arms, comments and questions in the arguments leave me with deep concerns about how the Court will come down on the issue of "reasonable restrictions."
I should have a comprehensive analysis posted later tonight. — Jeff Knox
++++++++++++++++++++
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Full contact info at end
DATELINE: Washington, D.C. 3/18/08
Recovering from the Whirlwind of the Day
Heller Case Goes Better Than Expected
by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases
The bottom line is, I think we’re going to be OK.
When Justice Kennedy flat out said he believes in an individual right under the Second Amendment, there were no gasps in the hush of the High Court, but you could tell the greatest stellar array of gun-rights experts ever assembled, all there in that one room, breathed a sigh of relief — we had five votes to affirm the human and civil right to arms.
24 Hours Prior to Heller Case
Friend Alan Korwin, publisher and architect of The Gun Owner's Guide series and co-author of Supreme Court Gun Cases dropped this note to his email list. I'm taking the liberty of posting it here. Hats off to him and the guys in line tonight.
Chris Knox
======================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Full contact info at end
DATELINE: Washington, D.C. 3/17/08
24 Hours Prior to Heller Case
by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases
More people are on line in front of the U.S. Supreme Court for the D.C.
gun ban case tomorrow than seats are available, and the temperature is
hovering above freezing, but that's not stopping them.
Bob Blackmer and I were the first to arrive, Sunday night about 5 p.m.,
answering the big question of — Would two nights in advance be enough
— aside from did we have endurance to pull that off. Continue reading 24 Hours Prior to Heller Case
Shooting Back Works!
The Knox Report
From the Firearms Coalition
Shooting Back Works
By Jeff Knox
(March 11, 2008) The media and gun control advocates insist that the easy availability of firearms is a problem; that increased firepower equals increased death toll; that the key to stopping armed violence is restricting gun sales and prohibiting lawful firearm possession in certain public places. They’re wrong. They have always been wrong and their misguided tampering comes with a very high price – people’s lives.
In the past year there have been a number of very high profile cases of a lone lunatic walking into a public place and indiscriminately shooting people. Such incidents are aberrations, unpredictable, unstoppable, and relatively unusual. The best indicator that someone might attempt such an atrocity is not how available guns are or how efficiently background checks are conducted, but the level of news coverage generated by the last such tragedy because so many of these cowards are motivated by a desire for their own 15 minutes of fame. Since the media refuses to stop rewarding these murderers, the best that can be hoped for is to mitigate the damage when they strike. In the final analysis, the difference between a crazed bad guy killing several people and a crazed bad guy killing dozens of people is almost always the length of time it takes for good guys with guns to arrive on the scene. Three attacks in the past year offer graphic proof of this fact.