From his fairly recent book, Lethal Logic, Dennis A Henigan, Vice President for Law and Policy at the Brady Campaign, dedicated an entire chapter to the 2nd Amendment.
He opens the chapter with a wonderful description of what I suppose is the origin of the famous statement, "from my cold dead hands." Charlston Heston is addressing the 2000 NRA Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. To the ecstatic audience, holding a colonial musket above his head, he shouted what would become the NRA battle cry. Or perhaps he was repeating an already accepted statement, I don't know. Here's the youtube video I'm sure you've all seen.
I really can't believe anyone takes that rhetoric seriously. The self-aggrandizing talk which exaggerates the "peril" in order to all the more exaggerate our role in facing it, to me, is embarrassing. "When freedom shivers in the shadow of true peril, it's always the patriots who first hear the call." That sounds like a joke. The only thing funnier is that some people buy into it.
In Lethal Logic, Henigan maps out the history of the "militia" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
"Prodigious historical research," he writes on page 191, "into the origins of the 2nd Amendment confirms that it was intended to address the distribution of military power in society, not the need to have guns for self-defense or other private purposes."
"Indeed, the judicial consensus on the meaning of the amendment had grown so strong that. in 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Berger - a conservative jurist who also was a gun owner - accused the NRA of perpetrating a "fraud on the American public" by insisting that the right to be armed existed apart from service in an organized militia."
And on page 193, "Heller in fact, is the new paradox of the gun control debate. In Heller, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court engaged in an unprincipled abuse of judicial power in the pursuit of an ideological objective. Not quite Bush v. Gore, but close."
Recently we've had occasion to hear these same points from another lawyer, a well known law professor actually, Cass Sunstein. And let's not forget Laci the Dog, who's covered the same material, albeit in a more controversial way.
What's your opinion? Are Henigan and Sunstein completely wrong? Is it not possible to disagree with their interpretation without denigrating them as either liars or idiots? Are they not educated men trying to share their ideas just like everybody else?
Please leave a comment.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Another Accidental Shooting Death of a Child
The Los Angeles Times reports on another accidental shooting death, this time a 12-year-old from Gardena.
How do you think the police could have determined the gun had been properly secured? Wouldn't a dead 12-year-old itself cast a certain doubt on that? We've had this discussion before about what actually qualifies as "properly secured." What do you think?
Consistent with that comment is the fact that no charges will be filed. How can that be? How do you think the cops determine in one case that the parents are liable and in another, not?
What's your opinion? Is talking about this case and using it to ask questions about guns and gun control the same as "dancing in the blood of the victim?" What would the passionate pro-gun person have us do, not talk about these at all, never mention them? Should they remain hidden?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
A 12-year-old Gardena boy died this morning after he accidentally shot himself in the head Wednesday with his parents' handgun, police said.
The boy and his two younger siblings were being watched by a 14-year-old cousin when the shooting occurred about 5:45 p.m., according to police. The boy was alone in an upstairs bedroom.
"The gun was properly secured by the parents. ... Somehow the child was able to get to it," said Lt. Steven Prendergast of the Gardena Police Department. At the time, one parent was working, and the other was running errands, police said.
Prendergast said the investigation was still ongoing, but he added that initial evidence indicates that no criminal charges will be filed."It was just a tragic accident," he said. "It's just terrible."
After officers arrived at the home in the 14600 block of South Berendo Avenue, they began administering CPR while they waited for an ambulance to arrive. The boy was taken to UCLA-Harbor Medical Center. His name was not released.
How do you think the police could have determined the gun had been properly secured? Wouldn't a dead 12-year-old itself cast a certain doubt on that? We've had this discussion before about what actually qualifies as "properly secured." What do you think?
Consistent with that comment is the fact that no charges will be filed. How can that be? How do you think the cops determine in one case that the parents are liable and in another, not?
What's your opinion? Is talking about this case and using it to ask questions about guns and gun control the same as "dancing in the blood of the victim?" What would the passionate pro-gun person have us do, not talk about these at all, never mention them? Should they remain hidden?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Buying Ammo in Arnold's California
The local Fox News in Fresno California reports on the reaction to the new Ammunition Bill. A lot has been written about this law which Governor Arnold signed last week. Basically it prohibits on-line and mail-order sales of ammunition, which is believed to be valuable source for criminals and gang members.
To me that makes perfect sense, but of course the pro-gun crowd are up in arms about it.
How does that work, exactly? How is it not going to directly affect sales to criminals and minors?
Mr. Ayers' argument makes as much sense as you'd expect from someone blindly arguing against something with no regard for the facts. Doesn't it make perfect sense that prohibited persons would benefit from the anonymity of the internet? Wouldn't it be wise to eliminate that option? Of course it would. Arnold is again right on the ball.
What's your opinion? Sebastian makes some good points on his blog, mainly that legitimate buyers of difficult-to-find ammo, sports shooters who can't find the supplies they need in the local shop, and regular gun owners who depend on internet sales for their supplies will be unduly hindered in all these efforts. Sebastian remarked:
Part of the hidden agenda that's not very hidden is the idea that certain supplies are also included in this bill, supplies used for reloading ammunition, a practice that Sebastian points out is probably not done very much by criminals and gang members. Well, I certainly can't argue with that, but overall these regulations seem to be a perfect example of what I often talk about.
Legitimate gun owners need to be willing to be inconvenienced in order to assist in the efforts to minimize crime. Gun owners should be willing to do their part, otherwise how can they say they have no responsibility for the problem of gun violence?
What's your opinion? How can gun owners be so upset about this when just a few short years ago there was no such thing as internet sales of ammunition? Do you think this is an example of pro-gun folks resisting any and every gun control law regardless of its merits? Both sides do this, but it's not helpful if we want to find common ground.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The public safety bill, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger Thursday, stops all online ammunition sales, requires that all face to face ammunition sales be recorded and made available for the Department of Justice and requires the buyer to provide a driver's license and their fingerprints.
To me that makes perfect sense, but of course the pro-gun crowd are up in arms about it.
At The Range Pistol Club in Fresno, news of Assembly Bill 962's passing triggers some doubt.
"It's not going to do anything to directly prevent ammunition from falling in the hands of people who are under the age of 21 or possible criminals," Will Ayres, sales associate at The Range, said.
How does that work, exactly? How is it not going to directly affect sales to criminals and minors?
But over at The Range, they say they already require valid id's to buy ammunition. And without doing background checks, the new bill won't really change much except demand more work from employees, and possibly lead to higher prices.
"If they have a valid driver's license and they're over the age of 21, anybody can purchase handgun ammunition. Even now," Ayres said.
Mr. Ayers' argument makes as much sense as you'd expect from someone blindly arguing against something with no regard for the facts. Doesn't it make perfect sense that prohibited persons would benefit from the anonymity of the internet? Wouldn't it be wise to eliminate that option? Of course it would. Arnold is again right on the ball.
What's your opinion? Sebastian makes some good points on his blog, mainly that legitimate buyers of difficult-to-find ammo, sports shooters who can't find the supplies they need in the local shop, and regular gun owners who depend on internet sales for their supplies will be unduly hindered in all these efforts. Sebastian remarked:
And guys like MikeB still want to insist there’s no hidden agenda here? Hell, it’s not even really that hidden!
Part of the hidden agenda that's not very hidden is the idea that certain supplies are also included in this bill, supplies used for reloading ammunition, a practice that Sebastian points out is probably not done very much by criminals and gang members. Well, I certainly can't argue with that, but overall these regulations seem to be a perfect example of what I often talk about.
Legitimate gun owners need to be willing to be inconvenienced in order to assist in the efforts to minimize crime. Gun owners should be willing to do their part, otherwise how can they say they have no responsibility for the problem of gun violence?
What's your opinion? How can gun owners be so upset about this when just a few short years ago there was no such thing as internet sales of ammunition? Do you think this is an example of pro-gun folks resisting any and every gun control law regardless of its merits? Both sides do this, but it's not helpful if we want to find common ground.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Guns on Trains
On The Hill site the Congress Blog reports on the legislation proposed to allow passengers on Amtrak to transport weapons in sealed checked baggage. Our frequent commenter, Il Principe has given his unequivocal endorsement of this proposal.
I agree that it's quite ridiculous for Amtrak to prohibit what is allowed on the airlines. What's your opinion? Do you think there might be a concern among the opposition of this bill that on trains the checked luggage is not as securely separated from the passengers as on an airliner? To me that makes sense, but overall I could support this bill myself.
Do you think this legislation might lead to the conductors and brakemen wanting to work armed? Remember the case of the airline pilot who allowed his weapon to discharge during a flight?
Do you think the major gun control groups tend to oppose any and every law which has to do with guns? Do they lose credibility for doing that? I would think so, but perhaps they're really concerned about that access question on the trains and about the increased possibility of accidents if the train workers do what the pilots did.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Currently, sportsmen who choose to travel by rail for a hunting trip are left in an impossible situation because of Amtrak prohibitions against checking an unloaded gun with their luggage. Conversely, these same gun owners are legally allowed to check guns in their luggage on our nation’s airlines. Why should federally-subsidized passenger rail lines be different from U.S. airlines? The Amtrak Secure Transportation of Firearms Act would require Amtrak to enact regulations similar to those the U.S. airline industry uses to regulate firearm transport on airplanes. The requirements would apply for any year that Amtrak receives a federal subsidy.
I agree that it's quite ridiculous for Amtrak to prohibit what is allowed on the airlines. What's your opinion? Do you think there might be a concern among the opposition of this bill that on trains the checked luggage is not as securely separated from the passengers as on an airliner? To me that makes sense, but overall I could support this bill myself.
Do you think this legislation might lead to the conductors and brakemen wanting to work armed? Remember the case of the airline pilot who allowed his weapon to discharge during a flight?
Do you think the major gun control groups tend to oppose any and every law which has to do with guns? Do they lose credibility for doing that? I would think so, but perhaps they're really concerned about that access question on the trains and about the increased possibility of accidents if the train workers do what the pilots did.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Laci Ponders the NRA
Laci the Dog posted an interesting essay first questioning the NRA's role in maintaining the status quo and then sliding into an analysis of Bloomberg's sting operation. And in covering these sweeping subjects, I can assure the faint of heart there are no death threats or profanity anywhere to be seen.
Not to quibble, but I thought Bloomberg's videos were extremely shocking.
I really hate to quibble, but I really don't see how Laci can say these guys are "closely regulated." Aren't they the ones that the ATF can only inspect once every ten years or something like that, due to lack of manpower. Aren't they the ones whose inventory goes years without anyone wanting to match it to the sales receipts.
In other words, I say the problem exists even before we get to the gun show. These shady gun dealers are covered by my Famous 10% theory.
What's your opinion? Is Lacy right in pointing out that prohibited persons can easily take advantage of the system the way it works? Is it therefore a fair conclusion that the NRA and the rest of the gun owners who fight so hard to keep the status quo are to blame? Laci explains this, at least according to the title of the post, by the fact that the membership base is made up of criminals. I thought the actual criminals were a fairly small percentage, but it's the law-abiding who enable them that I see as the real problem.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
For shock value, they may not rank with the videos released last month showing ACORN workers giving tax advice to a couple of undercover investigators posing as a prostitute and her pimp. But New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's covert recordings of what really goes on at gun shows are appalling nonetheless
Not to quibble, but I thought Bloomberg's videos were extremely shocking.
New-gun retailers are closely regulated, with laws forcing them to obtain licenses, keep transaction records so that guns used in crimes can be traced, and perform background checks on buyers to ensure they aren't legally barred from owning guns. Convicted felons, drug addicts, the mentally ill and illegal immigrants are among those who fall into that category. Meanwhile, nonprofessional used-gun traders are subject to none of those requirements, although even resellers are forbidden from transactions in which they know the buyer couldn't pass a background check (something Bloomberg's investigators caught on tape repeatedly).
I really hate to quibble, but I really don't see how Laci can say these guys are "closely regulated." Aren't they the ones that the ATF can only inspect once every ten years or something like that, due to lack of manpower. Aren't they the ones whose inventory goes years without anyone wanting to match it to the sales receipts.
In other words, I say the problem exists even before we get to the gun show. These shady gun dealers are covered by my Famous 10% theory.
What's your opinion? Is Lacy right in pointing out that prohibited persons can easily take advantage of the system the way it works? Is it therefore a fair conclusion that the NRA and the rest of the gun owners who fight so hard to keep the status quo are to blame? Laci explains this, at least according to the title of the post, by the fact that the membership base is made up of criminals. I thought the actual criminals were a fairly small percentage, but it's the law-abiding who enable them that I see as the real problem.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
45 Years for Shooting a Cop
The Chicago Tribune reports on the stiff sentencing of a Berwyn man for having shot a police officer in 2004.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
A 24-year-old Berwyn man was sentenced to 45 years in prison today for shooting an off-duty Chicago police detective during a dispute over admittance to a bar.What's your opinion? I'm of two minds. On the one hand, I find the sentencing a bit excessive, yet I agree with the need to protect society from violent criminals. I feel it's wrong to sentence people more harshly because their crime was against the police, but in this case, maybe it's best. With the minimum 20-year sentence, he'd probably get out a fairly young man and even less equipped to live in society. Yet, 45 years seems like a lot. If you give a sentence like that for shooting someone in the hand who recovers completely, where do you go from there? You don't leave much room for punishing worse offenses.Jonas Haro was found guilty by a jury in 2008 of attempted murder of a police officer for shooting the detective after Haro had been refused admittance to Fuggedaboudit in Berwyn on Dec. 5, 2004, because there was a private party in progress.
Haro later returned to the bar at the corner of Home Avenue and 16th Street yelling profanities and indicating he had gun. That prompted the detective and a Chicago police colleague, who were also armed, to follow Haro outside where they indicated they were police officers and wanted to talk to him.
But Haro led them to a nearby alley where he opened fire along with some of his fellow gang members who were waiting. The detective was shot through the hand but has since recovered and returned to duty, said Assistant State's Attorney Joe Keating.
Haro was eligible for 20 to 80 years in prison. Keating asked for a 60-year sentence citing Haro's juvenile and adult criminal record for possession of a stolen motor vehicle, aggravated battery and unlawful use of a weapon.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)