Oldsmoblogger does an excellent job of dismantling Elizabeth Sullivan's (Cleveland Plain Dealer) column, "Want safer schools? Update gun laws; it's been 800 years." (also see War on Guns, for a quicker, but equally biting, treatment).

Sullivan's argument, as best I can decipher, is that the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms is based on 12th century English common law . . . and is therefore silly in our enlightened age. Apparently (who knew?), fundamental human rights go bad after a certain length of time. Evidently, modernity has rendered liberty obsolete. My, ain't progress wonderful?

Rather than trying to repeat the work that Oldsmoblogger and War on Guns have already done–better than I'll ever manage–in rebutting Sullivan's call to join our more enlightened, modern cousins in disarming the citizenry, I'll urge folks to check out WoG and Oldsmoblogger–it's definitely worth the time. In the meantime, I submit that Sullivan's attack on the Second Amendment is a good thing for us.

Why? Because she attacks the Second Amendment, instead of trying to twist it into what it clearly isn't–a meaningless affirmation of a mythical "collective right." The "collective right" interpretation has been a staple of the citizen disarmament movement for years now, and is starting to show some severe cracks. Those cracks have been there all along, of course, but until fairly recently, the citizen disarmament lobby has managed to ignore them.

In the "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment, the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment reigns supreme (conveniently ignoring that it's "the right of the people that "shall not be infringed," not "the right of the militia"–as a prime example, check out this Brady Bunch video clip, in which Brady Bunch legal director Dennis Henigan recites the Second Amendment–except that he forgets, I guess, the part about "of the people"). In this interpretation, the Second Amendment protects a right of the states (and only the states) to maintain arms, for defense against an overreaching federal government. Furthermore, the function of the state militia is now served by the National Guard (meaning, apparently, that the Second Amendment exists to protect the right to arm soldiers–something that would seem to not need such explicit Constitutional protection).

Over a year ago, I talked about what I see as one of the biggest problems with that argument. In the 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich v. Department of Defense, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich sued the Department of Defense for mobilizing the Minnesota National Guard without his consent (or that of the state legislature) for operations outside the state. Perpich lost his case, because the Supreme Court ruled that the National Guard is not a "state militia," and is instead part of the U.S. Army Reserve system–in other words, part of the federally controlled military. If the Second Amendment is intended to provide the means for states to protect themselves from the federal government, to argue that it serves this function by arming troops under federal authority is clearly not going to work.

I do not claim that it was the above that convinced Sullivan (and others) to admit that the Second Amendment means what it says, rather than what the citizen disarmers wish it said (a fair amount of recent legal scholarship has been building that case, and Parker/Heller v. DC has brought a lot of attention to the Second Amendment's meaning). Whatever the reason for this change in strategy, if it signals that the rhetorical gymnastics of arguing the "collective right" myth have become too exhausing to sustain, our position has gotten considerably stronger.

Don't like that the Second Amendment provides Constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms–then remove it, if you can (by the way, the fundamental human right that it protects will still be there–and there's nothing that will remove it). We'll be waiting, armed and free–and safe 😉 .

The other night I began to write about what the ATF is doing to our Second Amendment to our Senators and I mean ALL 100 of our Senators. I went from Alabama to Wyoming following this GOA Link: http://www.gunowners.org/cci.htm and copying and pasting this message:

ATF using Back Door attacks to shut down our Second Amendment

Dear Senator,

I wanted to make you aware of the back door attack that the ATF is conducting on our Second Amendment. From 1994-2005 the number of dealers has decreased nearly 80%; from 2001-06 the number of license revocations had increased nearly 6 times.

Furthermore, the number of Firearms manufacturers from 2001-06 has decreased nearly 85%. These numbers are very alarming and I hope that you will look into this and stop this Back Door assault on our Second Amendment.

Respectfully,

I figure that we greatly out number those who wish to destroy our rights but it is time for the Sleeping Giant to get up and speak out. So here is my challenge to you: Send this message to all 100 Senators (it took me a little over an hour) and then contact me and I will send you a Red's Trading Post Translucent tumbler (Fancy word for Traveling Mug). Good Luck and encourage others to do so as well.

Alot of things are said in the media about gunowners that are not very nice, but I have to say after spending whole weekend last week at the gun rights policy conference with the so-called gun nuts. I have to say they are the nicest bunch of people on of any group you would ever want to meet. Now I've known that for quite a long time. But by getting so many people together in such a confined area and such a long day could be unnerving for most other groups. But everybody was polite and nice. There were no pushing and shoving during meals, and everyone waited their turn to talk to a lot of the famous leaders in the gun rights community. So the next time you hear the media call one of us a gun nut. It's time to stand up and say I'm one to.

Mark Vanderberg

http://gunrights.us 

The ATF Seattle Field Division, which has relentlessly pursued us, was caught exaggerating about their gang sweep and the 77 arrests made. Although the reporter caught them in their exaggeration, they still have not removed it from their web site. This is the same office that exaggerated that we Harassed and Intimidated them, despite a really messed up time line. The Judge already noted how they exaggerated our violations by Double Counting them. This is also the same office that:

• Exaggerated about Rocket Launchers in Alaska
• Exaggerated about a Short Barreled rifle in the Kwan case
• Exaggerated about illegal weapons with Survival Enterprises
• Exaggerated in revoking the license of a Blind Dealer
• Exaggerated in a dealer making serious weapons
• Exaggerated in the Ruby Ridge case

Here is the decline of dealers in states within the ATF Seattle jurisdiction from 1994-2005:

• Alaska has lost 73% of its dealers
• Hawaii has lost 88% of its dealers
• Idaho has lost 70% of its dealers
• Oregon has lost 70% of its dealers
• Washington has lost 84% of its dealers

_{. . . Because I don't have a license to express my views. What's that you say? I don't need a license to express myself? The Constitution guarantees my right to do so, thereby precluding the need for a license, and indeed, prohibiting the requirement for one?}

But wait a minute–I was thinking that there was something else the Constitution guaranteed, some other fundamental human right. Something, in fact, that shall not be infringed–what could it be? Oh, yes–I think I have it. Something called the right to keep and bear arms–no, not bare arms, although I reserve the right to wear short sleeves when I want to.

But wait another minute–are there not myriad laws in this country that apply to the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession, storage, and bearing of arms? Do we not, as gun rights activists, call it a "victory" every time we manage to successfully persuade another state to allow us the privilege of paying for a license to bear arms (a rather conditional license, at that–subject to further restrictions)? Do we not pat ourselves on the back every time a state throws us a bone and loosens the restrictions on the exercise of this fundamental right?

It seems that we do all of those things, oddly enough. When you think about it, we have no room to complain about the civilian disarmament advocates' refusal to acknowledge our Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, when we ourselves insist on treating it as a privilege. Some of us bemoan the Wayne Finchers of the world, for "making us look bad," by not being "law-abiding gun owners." Some of us criticize those who would carry a firearm illegally, for the same reason. Some of us opine that gun shops under siege by the BATFE "have nothing to worry about," if they follow the BATFE's rules (all of them, despite their self-contradictory and ever-changing nature).

I am, despite my disdain for the idea of going to the bureaucrats, hat in hand, hoping for the privilege of carrying the means to defend myself, involved (to the extent my extremely limited abilities allow) with the fight to bring concealed carry to Illinois (I can talk the talk, but I still don't want to go to jail–I'm a hypocrite, but at least I can admit it). In arguing for concealed carry laws, it is common to point out that concealed carry licensees can be counted on to be responsible citizens, because the people who would pose a threat to society are unlikely to jump through the regulatory hoops required for such a license. While no doubt true, that's an argument for which I have little affection. I reject the idea that any unit of government is justified in putting up such hoops in the first place. I reject the idea that my right to bear arms (whether concealed or not) is in any way contingent on my somehow demonstrating, in advance, that I will never use them improperly. I utterly reject, in the final analysis, the notion that a fundamental human right can be subject to licensing.

I'll continue to fight to make gun laws less strict, but I may never shake the nagging feeling that in doing so, I am granting legitimacy to the existence of any gun laws–in effect, assisting in my own oppression (and in everyone else's).

So I guess the blog will stick around after all, because that right is not subject to licensing . . . yet.

Many have asked what the response has been like from some of our Senators and Representatives regarding the ATF's actions. Most have been curious as to the reaction of Senator Larry Craig, who also serves on the Board of Directors for the NRA and also is well aware of the past actions of the ATF in Idaho with the murder of Vicki and Sammy Weaver at Ruby Ridge; which our Judge presided over. Senator Craig was also the one who sought answers when ATF D.I.O. Richard Van Loan refused to allow our competitor Blue Lakes Sporting Goods an appeal, after he revoked their license. The attached letter was sent to one of our supporters prior to the ordeal that Craig is currently in, I am still in contact with his staff who follow our fight. In the letter Craig promises to remain active on this issue, Please contact him and encourage him to continue to do so. If you have written your Congressional Delegates regarding the ATF Shutting down Firearms Manufacturers and Dealers or opposing ATF Acting Director Michael J. Sullivan's confirmation; I encourage you to post their responses.

David Hardy's Of Arms and the Law and Sebastian's Snowflakes in Hell have pointed out something interesting about what is not happening in the wake of the massacre in Crandon, Wisconsin. The country's major civilian disarmament (aka "gun control") groups have not had a word to say about our country's most recent shooting massacre.

This seems, at first glance, rather surprising. As Mr. Hardy points out, the Brady Campaign, for example, has been quick to jump on shootings in which the death toll was significantly smaller. The fact that the killings were committed with an AR-15 (the dreaded, so-called "assault weapon") makes the silence all the more deafening–the push to ban "assault weapons" is the Violence Policy Center's bread and butter, I thought (didn't their founder and executive director, Josh Sugarmann, invent the "assault weapon" terminology?).

Immediately after the Virginia Tech killings, and lasting for months afterward, the Brady Campaign website prominently featured this expression of "outrage":

(click to enlarge)

Now, a rampage ends with seven dead, most of them teenagers (one as young as fourteen), and they can't even muster a bit of annoyance? They're not even a bit miffed? What is different about this mass shooting that makes it so much more tolerable?

Could the reason for their apparent willingness to tolerate this shooting be that the killer was a law enforcement officer? Could it be that murders committed by agents of the government are less outrageous than those committed by private citizens? Could it be that bringing attention to the carnage wrought by an armed police officer is incompatible with an agenda of citizen disarmament?

With at least one of the so-called "gun control" groups, the silence should not be surprising–the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has already gone on record as saying that "the government must have a monopoly on force" (more here).

Dictators throughout the world, and throughout history, would certainly agree with the CSGV about that. Interesting choice of ideological allies, isn't it?