Gun Rights – Page 34 – A Geek With Guns

The Fourth Dimension of Legal Discussions

In mathematical physics the Minkowski spacetime model depicts our physical universe in four dimensions. The first three dimensions are what we consider traditional space (often represented using x, y, z coordinates) and the fourth dimension is what we consider time. In the field of physics, changes over time are important. I would put forth that the same is true regarding legal discussions.

To justify my suggestion I will used the Second Amendment as an example. The Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Advocates of gun control often point at the phrase “A well regulated militia.” They say that the phrase indicates that the founders only meant for the military and police to have a right to keep and bear arms. If we use the modern definitions of the words “regulated” and “militia” this argument may hold water. But the Second Amendment wasn’t written in modern times, it was written two centuries ago.

The definition of words change over time as this article does a good job of pointing out:

There is some predictability in the way words change over time. For example, words can expand in meaning, that is, come to signify a larger group. The word “pimp” once referred to a man who sold the sexual favors of women for money. It now refers to anyone who leads a lavish, ostentatious lifestyle exemplified by fancy cars, clothes, jewelry and women. There is even a TV reality show dedicated to the transformation of junky cars into custom masterpieces. Its title is “Pimp My Ride.”

[…]

But just as a word like “pimp” has widened in its reference, so “girl” has narrowed. In the 14th century, “girl” could refer to a young person of either gender and evolved to denote only young females. (Male children were called “knave girls”; females were called “gay girls.”) And “gay,” of course, has narrowed from anything bright and merry — “A gay time will be had by all!” — to a synonym for the cultural expressions of homosexuality.

Let’s consider the word “regulate.” In modern times we primarily think of the word as being synonymous with control. Another definition, one that was more prominent historically, was to make something regular:

The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make “normal” or “regular” commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of “commerce” such as tariffs, quotas and taxes. And since the explicit language of the CSA, like all economic regulation, interferes with the free flow of commerce, it is inherently antithetical to the original intent of the Commerce Clause. (Whether the law could be legitimized by reference to the “police powers” of the state is another matter).

This definition is still used when referring to engineering. To regulate an engine, for example, means to adjust it until it works correctly. Likewise, the definition of “militia” has also changed over time. While the term was used in the Constitution it wasn’t legally defined otherwise until 1792. Today the modern legal definition of militia is defined in Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, § 311 of United States code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Of course that definition was created after the Second Amendment was ratified.

What did the Founders mean when they said a “well regulated militia?” As the term lacked a legal definition at the time the Second Amendment was ratified we must assume that the Founders were using the common definition, which was “a military force raised from the civilian population of a country or region, especially to supplement a regular army in an emergency, frequently as distinguished from mercenaries or professional soldiers.” One interpretation of the Second Amendment would imply the need for a regular, or normal, group of armed civilians and that that need implied civilians had a right to keep and bear arms. Less you think I’m merely pulling a definition out of my ass let me point out that support for what I’ve said exists in the scholarly realm. Namely, the preamble of the Second Amendment is subordinate to the remainder because an armed citizenry is a prerequisite for a militia.

This leads one to question whether or not the modern definition can be used in reference to the Second Amendment. I don’t believe it can as I also believe legal matters must be argued based on the definitions that existed at the time a law was ratified. This is also the reason I don’t give much consideration to the idea that the Second Amendment only applies to black powder rifles.

Black powder rifles were the epitome of military arms at the time the Constitution was ratified. Assuming the Second Amendment only applied to black powder rifles also assumes that the authors were attempting to predict the future. What is more likely? Did the Founders imply that the people had a right to keep and bear only the arms of the time or did they imply that the people had a right to keep and bear the epitome of military technology at any given time? I will not attempt to guess what dead men were thinking but I will point out that it is odd no such specific restriction was written into the Constitution. I will also point out that only the truly foolhardy believe themselves capable of predicting the future with any amount of accuracy. These two points lead me to believe the Founders implied that the people have the right to possess the epitome of military technology, not the specific arms available at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.

Although I chose the Second Amendment as my example I don’t want to imply that what I’ve said only applies to the Second Amendment. Discussion regarding any laws should take the time period it was written in into consideration. Applying modern definitions to words written decades or centuries ago is, in my opinion, dishonest.

Using Violence by Proxy

Days of our Trailers posted about a comment made by a gun control advocate on the Moms Demand Action Facebook page. The commenter, named Kat Brandow, said “Don’t skip Starbucks! Go, and if you see people sporting guns, call the police. Easy. A few arrests will make everyone rethink what they are doing!”

This is a rather ironic statement for a gun control advocate to make. Consider what Mrs. Brandow is saying. She is advocating for people who don’t like guns to call people with guns to harass other people with guns. I think the biggest fact lost on many gun control advocates is the fact that police officers, who they often want everybody to rely on, carry a notable amount of firepower on their person and usually have more in their squad car. If you’re freaked out by a person carrying an AR-15 why would you want to compound the matter by calling in another person with an AR-15?

I theorize that many advocates of gun control, such as Mrs. Brandow, aren’t opposed to guns per se. What they oppose is anybody acting in a manner that they don’t personally approve of. If the target of their hatred wasn’t carrying a gun Mrs. Brandow would find something else to hate about her target. Were private gun ownership abolished she would probably be standing on a pedestal demanding everybody call the police on anybody who is overtly Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, white, black, brown, blue eyed, brown eyeed, libertarian, anarchist, into metal, or some other category that offends her personal idea of righteousness. The gun isn’t what she hate, it’s merely an excuse to hate. It’s little different than a racist who makes excuses other than race to hate people of a different race. If she truly opposed guns she wouldn’t be advocating for people to call other people with guns.

Before I close this post, I feel it necessary to point out that I’m not making this accusation towards all gun control advocates. But those who are advocating for people to call the police on gun owners for the expressed purpose of harassing them most likely are.

Obama, Executive Orders, and Gun Control

Although I shy away from discussing political matters anymore I feel it’s necessary to discuss various gun-related politics in order to maintain the facade that this is a gun blog (at this point, I should probably admit that it’s primarily an anarchism blog). After having no luck getting gun control pushed through Congress, Mr. Obama decided to take direct action by issuing executive orders. I think he finally realized that those executive orders hurt his administration, specifically the parts that are providing arms to drug cartels under Fast and Furious, instead of gun owners. To correct this shortcoming he has issued two more executive orders:

One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

The first one is the most concerning because it could effectively end the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP). For those who don’t know, the CMP is a government created organization that promotes marksmanship. One of the services the CMP provides is access to surplus M1 Garands and M1 carbines. Many of the Garands and carbines sold through the CMP were purchased back from foreign countries. If reimporting all military weapons becomes illegal then the CMP will have a more difficult time supplying shooters with rifles. With that said, the executive order apparently makes an exception for the government (nobody’s surprised) so the CMP may be able to squeeze under this order due to the fact that its a government chartered program. I’m not a legal expert so I can’t say for sure.

The second order is just asinine and effectively tosses up some additional road blocks between individuals and firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA). This order is probably little more than a spiteful attack by the current administration against us uppity gun owners. Of course the National Rifle Association (NRA) had some choice words regarding these executive orders:

“Requiring background checks for corporations and trusts does not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. Prohibiting the re-importation of firearms into the U.S. that were manufactured 50 or more years ago does not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. This administration should get serious about prosecuting violent criminals who misuse guns and stop focusing its efforts on law-abiding gun owners,” the NRA said in a statement.

I think the NRA’s mistake is assuming these executive orders are about reducing violent crime. My guess is that these orders are petty revenge from an administration angry with a group of individuals that tend to be on the more rebellious side.

In the end, you need only ask yourself one question: will you comply with these orders? If you will then these orders are likely to anger you. If you won’t then these orders are likely to be irrelevant to you. People from the former category will probably be very angry about the latest news and people from the latter category are probably figuring out a way to smuggle these newly verboten firearms back into the country. As always, do what you wish but I’m siding with the smugglers.

Gun for Me, Not for Thee

I’m left in awe of the ability politicians have for giving a long-winded response devoid of content in lieu of a short quip that would have done the same. After coming into office, Obama announced the release of the We the People Petitions. Supposedly the system is one where individuals can submit petitions and if that petition gets enough signatures within a specific span of time somebody from the White House will address it. The White House’s first slew of response let us know how popular petitions would be handled. Instead of giving any notable consideration to popular petitions they are simply ignored. Sometimes, I’m guessing when a petition is particularly uncomfortable for the White House, popular petitions vanish. Consider the history of We the People Petitions I’m not surprised to see this response:

A petition on the formal White House petitions website called for “gun free” zones to be extended to politicians, saying if it’s good enough for children in schools and other places where otherwise legal firearm carry by private citizens is prohibited, then it should be good enough for our country’s leaders, right?

[…]

Here is the response of the White House:

Working to Keep Everyone Safe

Thanks for your petition.

We live in a world where our elected leaders and representatives are subject to serious, persistent, and credible threats on a daily basis. Even those who are mere candidates in a national election become symbols of our country, which makes them potential targets for those seeking to do harm to the United States and its interests. In 1901, after the third assassination of a sitting President, Congress mandated that the President receive full-time protection, and that law is still in effect today. Because of it, those who are the subject of ongoing threats must receive the necessary and appropriate protection.

At the same time, all of us deserve to live in safer communities, which is why we need to take responsible, commonsense steps to reduce gun violence, even while respecting individual freedom. And let’s be clear: President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. You can see him talk about that in a previous petition response.

But the common-sense steps the President has proposed don’t infringe in any way on our Second Amendment rights. We ought to be able to keep weapons of war off the streets. We ought to close the loopholes in the background check system that make it too easy for criminals and other dangerous people to buy guns — an idea that has the support of 90 percent of people in the United States.

That’s why the President and an overwhelming majority of Americans are calling on Congress to pass gun safety legislation that closes loopholes in the background check system and makes gun trafficking a federal crime.

A minority in the Senate is blocking this common-sense legislation to reduce gun violence, but President Obama is already taking action to protect our kids with executive actions. He is taking the steps available to him as President to strengthen the existing background check system, give law enforcement officials more tools to prevent gun violence, end the freeze on gun violence research, make schools safer, and improve access to mental health care.

You can learn more about the President’s positions on this issue at WhiteHouse.gov/NowIsTheTime.

The White House could have simply said, “Guns are for masters, not for slaves.” Instead it gave a lengthy response that said nothing and merely plugged Obama’s gun control plan. Seriously, this response is a marvel when you look at it as an example of a political statement that runs on in length but fails to answer the question posed.

I did find it rather humorous that the response mentioned the assassination of President as justification for granting the position a full-time security detail. It’s a response that spits in the face of every non-politician who has been murdered. More non-politicians have been murdered than politicians yet the politicians are the ones who both receive special protection and prevent us from defending ourselves. If that doesn’t shine a light on the state’s attitude towards us then nothing will.

Why Reforming Police Departments is Impossible

Many people believe that most police officers are good people and there are a handful of bad apples ruining it for everybody. I disagree with this sentiment because whenever I see people of good conscious trying to reform a police department or the field of law enforcement they get stomped down. Such an atmosphere is a breeding ground of psychopaths. Imagine if you had violent tendencies and a general apathy towards the well being of others. Would a job that offered you an outlet for your vicious nature along with practical immunity from the consequences of wrongdoing sound like the perfect position? Would you allow a person trying to stop you to meddle with your dream job?

Take the recent example of Sheriff Nick Finch. Mr. Finch, from my point of view, did a good thing by preventing a non-violent individual who was openly carrying a firearm in Florida (which is generally illegal) from being kidnapped and caged. There is no reason to cage people who aren’t performing acts of violent acts. It would do the field of law enforcement a great deal of good to cease arresting non-violent individuals. But this is the United Police States of America and a cop who isn’t being a psychopath must be destroyed. For doing the right thing Mr. Finch was arrested:

The events began when Floyd Eugene Parrish, a Florida resident, was arrested and detained by one of Finch’s deputies for carrying a firearm without a permit on March 8th, 2013. In the state of Florida, this lands you a 3rd degree felony charge. Finch released Parrish because, in his assessment, Parrish was not a violent criminal and was acting innocuously. Finch called the clerk and told her not to draw up arrest documents until he was there to assess the situation. Note, Parrish had not been officially booked into jail- only detained.

[…]

Rick Scott, Florida governor, stepped in and had Finch arrested. Governor Scott then appointed a new sheriff. Finch says he did not vote for the Governor. “I’m not a republican, or a democrat. Just a man who believes in the Constitution,” says Finch.

This is another example of the grant statist machinery removing a malfunctioning cog from itself. It’s also an explanation of why good cops are far and few between. When a cop actually steps up to do something positive they are crushed either by their fellow police officers or by high ups in the state. Men of good conscious are pushed out of the law enforcement field while men with evil desires are attracted to it. It’s not an instance of a few bad apples ruining it for everybody else, it’s an instance of a few good apples becoming diseased by the vast majority of infected apples.

Come Back With a Warrant

I have another story that emphasizes the rule we must all follow: never voluntarily allow state employees into your domicile. The job of the police isn’t to protect the people, it’s to exploit them. Police officers are tasked with finding evidence of a crime, kidnapping suspects, and executing those who resist. Today’s story involves a search for evidence relating to a fatal car accident that ended in the arrest of somebody who wasn’t suspected of any wrongdoing:

The car crash also has had consequences for Hall’s father, Aaron. When police performed a search related to Cody’s case in June, they came upon a gun safe containing two illegal assault weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition, The San Jose Mercury News reported.

As a convicted felon, Aaron Hall is barred from owning any firearms. He was arrested and has been freed on bail. The Mercury News reports that his felony convictions occurred nearly 20 years ago.

You have to admire how the media was able to take a simple fact, that illegally possessed firearms and ammunition were found, and make it sound scarier by stating that “assault weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition” were found. But I digress. The main point I want to raise is the fact that the suspect’s father, Aaron Hall, was arrested because police entered his home to search for evidence of his son’s crime. During their search the police came across evidence of an entirely unrelated crime perpetrated by a completely different person. That person is now in a cage and the police get to pat themselves on the back because they managed to kidnap two potential slave laborers for the prison-industrial complex.

This kind of scenario could happen to anybody. People naively think they are doing nothing wrong but there are so many laws on the books that each of us likely commit three felonies a day. Police entering your home can use any evidence they come across to charge and arrest you. Do you want to run the risk of a police officer seeing something that you didn’t know was illegal in your home with the astronomical number of laws currently on the books?

The Minnesota Advisory Committee on Capitol Security Looking to Prohibit the Carrying of Firearms at the State Capital

Just a heads up, the Advisory Committee on Capitol Security is holding a hearing tomorrow at 11:00 to review the law that allows individuals with carry permits to carry at the State Capital (after providing notice):

The “Advisory Committee on Capitol Security” has scheduled two meetings to review law and policy around firearms at the Capitol Complex, as part of their efforts to make recommendations to the legislature on improvements to Capitol security.

Representative Michael Paymar, a committee member, has repeatedly attempted to pass a law to prohibit law-abiding Minnesotans from carrying at the Capitol. Of course, this is a solution in search of a problem: we are unable to locate even a single instance where a law abiding gun owner has caused any security concern within the capitol complex.

If descending into the den of the damned is your thing you may find this hearing of interest. Personally, I think we should wait until the state Senate and Congress are in session, get a few thousand people to show up at the Capital, and erect a 30 foot wall around the building and its grounds to quarantine the infection that is government. It would be mutually beneficial. They don’t want us to carry firearms in their temple and we don’t want them spreading their violent statism in our communities.

3D Printed Rifle Successfully Fires 14th Round

Prepare for more pants shitting hysteria from the idea because another 3D printed firearm, this time a rifle, has managed to fire more than one round without harming its operator:

Just the opposite: Designers have moved beyond handguns to produce rifles with 3D printers. The world’s first 3D-printed rifle, named “The Grizzly” after Canadian-built tanks that were used in World War II, was fired in June, but the first shot fractured the barrel receiver.

The creator, a Canadian man who goes simply by “Matthew,” refined his design and posted a video Friday on YouTube of the Grizzly 2.0 successfully firing 3 rounds of Winchester bullets. The video description says the Grizzly 2.0 fired 14 rounds before it cracked. The new rifle was also safe enough for Matthew to fire it by hand rather than by the string system used in the first test.

Here’s the video:

Before the media begins its fear mongering by telling everybody that this gun can get through airport security and will be used to hijack planes let’s stop and think logically for a minute. Although it has successfully fired 14 rounds without maiming its operator, the Grizzly is still a plastic gun, which means the extent of its life is going to be relatively short. Like the Liberator handgun, the Grizzle rifle is cumbersome to reload. The barrel has to be twisted and removed, the spent cartridge must be pushed out with a rod, a new round must be placed in the barrel, and the barrel must be inserted and twisted back onto the rifle. In other words it’s very slow to operate. With that said, the design is almost certain to advance quickly. We’re in the infancy of 3D printed firearms and it’s an exciting time to be involved in the shooting community.

The Liberator Pistol

On Thursday some of us Defcon attendees went to Sunset Park for the Toxic BBQ (the food wasn’t toxic but the 100 degree weather was pretty brutal to this Minnesotan). During the BBQ I met Dallas, a speaker at Defcon who invited us to attend his Skytalk at 0900 the next morning. His talk was about this little guy (pardon the shitty photography, I’m not a photographer and the lighting in the hallway wasn’t ideal):

If you don’t recognize it it’s the 3D printed Liberator Pistol. While I’ve read and written about the Liberator many times on this blog, this was the first time I was able to look at and touch one. It’s a rather crude weapon, which I expected since it’s a prototype, but a novel idea. If you look at the picture you’ll see the main pistol, which was printed in black polylactide (PLA), and the internal parts, which were printed in green PLA. The green parts were printed smaller than the design requires so assembling the parts wouldn’t allow one to have an operating weapon (this was done because security at the Rio was apparently uncomfortable with the idea of bringing in a working pistol).

The two presenters, Dallas and Sean Wayne, did a marvelous job of presenting the weapon. They covered the legal matters involved with manufacturing a Liberator (namely you must include at least 3.7 oz. of ferrous metal in the design and you cannot transfer it), the capabilities of the pistol, their adventure with getting the pistol through airport security (as checked baggage, which is what you must always do to legally fly with a firearm), and why the Liberator, at least as it currently stands, is impractical.

The Liberator isn’t the most capable weapon. Considering the entire weapon, with the exception of the firing pin and the legally mandated chunk of metal, is made of plastic the weapon has some notable weaknesses. During the presentation we were told that 10 firing is the generally accepted maximum a Liberator can handle. Since the pistol brought by the presenters was printed on a MakerBot with PLA, instead of something like acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), it wasn’t safe to fire (PLA is brittle and the pistol at the presentation would have exploded if one tried to fire it). Furthermore, the pistol has an issue with leaking gas from the trigger cutout, which is likely to burn the person shooting it. Once again, being a prototype, none of these issues surprised me.

I found their experience trying to travel with the pistol interesting. Because they didn’t want to chance being locked in a cage the pistol was transported just like any other firearm, by declaring and checking it. What was interesting was that the employees at the airline were rather baffled by the plastic pistol (in my experience airline employees are often baffled by any firearm) and ended up calling over a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agent. Unlike the entirely clueless airline employee, the TSA agent recognized it as a pistol and allow the declaration and checking to commence as usual. This may be one of the few times an agent of the TSA performed a competent job. It’s also nice to know that flying with a Liberator is treated no differently than flying with any other firearm.

The Liberator is a cool concept but, as it currently stands, is impractical. Reloading it is a ponderous task because you must remove the barrel, and the gun can’t survive many firings. As a member of the audience pointed out, one would have better luck going to the hardware store, buying a few dollars worth of metal parts, and slapping together a zip gun that would almost certainly be more reliable than the Liberator.

Of all the presentations I attended this was one of the most interesting (in part because I’m a gun nut but also because I love the concept of 3D printers). I’ve wanted to look at and touch a Liberator since it was first unveiled by Cody Wilson. Now that I have seen one I can say that my initial impressions were correct. It’s a really cool idea that will only get better in time. According to Sean and Dallas, the Defcad community is has already released a fourth major version of the Liberator design. With such rapid improvements it’s likely that we’ll see a reliable single-shot 3D printed pistol in no time. Once that’s been accomplished it’ll be time to move on to a semi-automatic 3D printed pistol.

Why I Don’t Advocate Carry Permit Holders Volunteer the Information that They’re Carrying to Police Officers

A common hypothetical scenario kicked around by carry permit holders is what to do if you’re pulled over by a police officer. Many permit holders and trainers say that you should placed your hands on your steering wheel and inform the police officer that you’re a permit holder and are currently armed. I’m a member of the other camp, which says to never volunteer such information to a police officer. In Minnesota you’re required to tell a police officer if you’re carrying a firearm if asked but you’re not required to volunteer such information. Stories like this are why I don’t advocate volunteering such information:

This is very disturbing. Received this message from a resident just now. This happened at 1:15 today. If you have any doubts about anyone in a uniform who comes to your house claiming to be LEO, utility/service company, etc., don’t hesitate to call 911 or the company to verify the person’s ID and that they are legit.
***
“22nd and California St. I had a deputy come to my home and said he had a summons. It was fake and so was he. He kept looking in my house asking questions about what was inside. Called the 2nd, Hennepin co and Mpls police- no deputies were in the area today or dispatched. He did not ask who i was or state who he was. Be careful he looked real. Neighbor said she saw a sheriff’s car in front of her house and it moved down to a couple of other homes. It was not real but looked Very real she said.”

Is the customer-clad man who pulled you over a police officer or is he a member of a competing gang? The customer itself, although adorned with a shiny badge, doesn’t guarantee that a man with a gun is in the employ of the state. While any encounter with a police officer carries the risk of violence the risk is even higher if the person who looks like a cop turns out to be a member of one of the police department’s competing gangs. If you tell the man in blue (or brown, in the case of the Minnesota State Patrol) that you’re carrying a gun you may have just revealed your ace in the hole to a person who intends to assault or murder you and steal your belongings.

I advise permit holders to play their cards as close to their chest as possible. There’s no way to know whether or not a person is a real cop or an impersonator, unless you know him or her personally (and then you never know whether or not the person is living a double life). As always, I urge you to follow the path you believe is most appropriate but do know that there are potential consequences to revealing your hand unnecessarily.