And the Whoopsie award goes to:

NEWS

Man accidentally shoots himself during road rage incident

Police still investigating 

Are you really sure guns actually save lives?

It doesn't seem this is actually the best form of self defence, but, hey, collect your Darwin awards sooner rather than later.

William Rawle on the Second Amendment

NOTE:   The right judicially created by the Heller-McDonald cases does not extend beyond the curtilage (boundaries of the home).

I've been quoting William Rawle a lot lately since it is pretty much a given that there is no right to walk about carrying weapons in such a way that is likely to commit a disturbance of the peace  (see Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Chapter XI. Of Offences Against the Public Peace).

William Rawle explains this in relation to the Second Amendment in his treatise "A View of the Constitution of the United States", 125--26 1829 (2d ed.):

"This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.

An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment."

In other words, people are well within their rights to call the police if they see someone carrying a weapon in public:  after all, that is the police's job to deal with people who could possibly be causing a breech of the peace.

In fact, there are some seriously good legal precedent that say someone carrying a weapon in public must give surety, or at least have some form of licence.

While the Cruikshank case isn't really useful for Second Amendment precedent, the Presser case sure as hell is where it says that the government has the right to licence the carrying of weapons outside the Militia context.

Also, it's interesting that people cite to Rawle and call his treatise a landmark text.  They even mention that Rawle says that the Second Clause is a corollary clause, yet they miss that the word "corollary" implies a relationship:

a statement that follows readily from a previous statement.

In other words, there is a relationship between the first and second clauses of the Second Amendment, whether people want to admit that these days.  The Miller Court reiterated that when it said, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

And, as Presser pointed out:

It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are [116 U.S. 252, 268]   authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

I find it hard to say that carrying arms in public outside of the militia/national defence context is in any way a protected act by the Second Amendment.

Heller is wrongly decided and does not properly follow the Second Amendment Jurisprudence as set out by the Supreme Court.

Waylon Jennings "The Devil's Right Hand"

It's interesting that country music once talked about how carrying guns in public was a bad idea.  Here's another song about carrying guns from Waylon Jennings.



"Nothing touched the trigger but the devil's right hand."

"The founding fathers didn't believe in gun control..."

Really?

• And they believed that bleeding would cure disease
• And they would tell you that you were crazy that something heavier than air could fly long distances, let alone travel to another planet.

Is that your argument against gun control that people from a time long past may not have believed in gun control?

Actually, I would guess that the founding fathers wouldn't have a problem with criminals, traitors, and the insane not being allowed to own guns, which means they would support gun control.

Whoops, another "pro-gun" argument turns out to be baseless.

From The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents: December 12, 1787:

7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

Of all the actual primary source literature I've read, this is the most "gun friendly". But even with being "gun friendly" the no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals says to me that they would have no problem with gun control.

More importantly, the real issue for them is the last part of this:

as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

If you read the actual document, that this the main concern at the time and what the Second Amendment relates to: not private guns.

The reality is that the Second Amendment relates to:

as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

And Article I, section 8, clause 16 of the US Constitution.

Anyone with a shred of knowledge of the US constitution knows this is the case, with the exceptions of five people on the Supreme Court.

We can debate on WHY those five fail to realise this.

Quote of the day

If it ain't in writing, it don't legally exist:

The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

the 64 Million Dollar question!

If the right to keep and bear arms is so important: why didn't Maryland, New York, and New Jersey from the original 13 colonies adopt these provisions in their constitutions?  Indeed, why do only 44 states have such provisions.

California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York do not have "right to keep and bear arms" provisions in their state constitutions.

I would add that one of the original colonies also added this provisions to its constitutions in recent time (Delaware).

Here's a sampling:

• Connecticut:  Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.  Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).  The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.
• Delaware:  A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.  Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987). 
•  Massachusetts:  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.  And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.  Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).
• New Hampshire:  All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.  Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).
• Pennsylvania:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.  Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII, 1776.  
• Virginia:  That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.  Art. I, § 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; "therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" added in 1971).
• Rhode Island:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1842). 

Of these, I find that Massachusetts provision relates only to arms for the common defence and mentions the standing army issue.  In fact, I see that the standing army issue is mentioned in a few of the other original colonies' provisions.

As I said, if this was such an important issue and personal guns were so important: why aren't they mentioned?

Seriously, wouldn't this be top on the list of everybody, the way pro-gunners like telling us how important this "right" happens to be?  Also, why the mentions of the common defence and standing armies if this is about a "personal" right to arms outside that context?

As I said, if you look hard, the pro-gun arguments start to fall apart.

Footnote to this, I didn't add some of the Southern States since the provisions I found appear to be from after the Civil War.

Additionally, this was not an exhaustive study of this topic.

Sources:
State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
NRA-ILA | Guarantees Of The Right To Arms In State constitutions

Libertarians Who Oppose a Militarized Police Should Support Gun Control—But They Don't, of Course

The New Republic

The current issue of The Economist contains a striking factoid: “Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero.” By contrast, there are about 400 fatal shootings each year by local police in the United States.

When I tweeted out this stunning stat earlier this week, no shortage of people noted an obvious explanation for why British police were so much less likely to fire their guns: there were far fewer guns around them. The U.K. has some of the world’s strictest limitations on gun ownership—handguns are all but prohibited, while shotguns and rifles require a police certificate and special justification (self-defense does not qualify.) There are an estimated 14,000 handguns in civilian hands in the U.K. (population 63 million) and slightly more than 2 million shotguns and rifles. Estimates for the number of total firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. float north of 300 million. Simply put, if the police in the U.S. seem a lot more on edge than those across the pond, they have good reason to be.

As obvious as this explanation for the militarization and trigger-happiness of U.S. police may be, it has gotten relatively little attention amid the alarming spectacle that has played out in Ferguson, Missouri following the fatal police shooting of an unarmed black 18-year-old and, more recently, the fatal shooting just a few miles away of a mentally-ill man holding a knife. That oversight  may be partly because this aspect of the debate undermines one of the most popular media narratives to emerge from Ferguson: the notion of a growing right-left coalition united against heavy-handed police tactics.

There is indeed agreement between many liberals and libertarians that the militarization of the police, especially in its dealings with racial minorities, has gone too far. But this consensus may crumble pretty quickly when it’s confronted with the obvious police counter-argument: that the authorities’ heavy firepower and armor is necessary in light of all the firepower they’re up against. At that point, many liberals will revert to arguing for sensible gun control regulations like broader background checks to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and the mentally ill (the measure that police organizations successfully argued should be the gun control movement’s legislative priority following the Newtown, Connecticut shootings) or limits on assault weapons and oversized ammunition clips. And liberals will be reminded that the libertarians who agree with them in opposing police militarization are very much also opposed to the gun regulations that might help make the environment faced by police slightly less threatening.