Tag: Gun Rights

Welcome to the United Kingdom, Leave Your Rights at the Door

I feel fortunate to live in a country where the right to bear arms is at least codified in our Bill of Rights. Although the second amendment has been violated time and time again I firmly believe that if it were absent from the Constitution we would be in the same spot as the United Kingdom. What I mean to say is we would be arrested for defending our property:

A man in his 60s who allegedly shot a suspected burglar in the leg has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.

He is believed to have been attempting to protect his property in Whitbourne village, Herefordshire.

How in the fuck does that work? Two thugs who pose an unknown but likely threat to your life attempt to burgle your property and you’re tossed in the clink for having the audacity of defending you and your’s. Just the thought that such an egregious law could be passed sickens me.

The Result of Ending Chicago’s Handgun Ban

Heller vs. District of Columbia ripped the teeth out of Chicago’s complete ban on legal handgun ownership within the city. Those who wish to disarm everybody (except the government of course) claimed repealing the ban would end in bloodshed. So what was the end result? As usual, the exact oppositie of what the anti-gunners predicted.

How many wrong predictions have to be made before people refuse to listen to the anti-gunners?

One Voluntaryist’s Take on the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act

Earlier this week I got into a very interesting conversation with another libertarian regarding the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. I’ll not reprint the entire conversation here but in summary I stated that, although holding some reservations, in general support the bill. My opponent holds a completely different opinion believing that it’s not for Congress to pass laws based on their interpretation of the Constitution and determining interpretations of the Constitution lies solely with the Supreme Court. Basically he believes Congress is overstepping its Constitutionally authorized powers by presenting this bill.

How can two libertarians come to completely different stances regarding this one bill? Simple, there are different categories of libertarians. My opponent is a strict constitutionalist while I am a voluntaryist. While both categories follow the non-aggression principle which constructs the foundation of libertarian philosophy and both categories believe in the rule of law there is a difference in belief of what constitutes aggression and what qualifies as law.

A strict constitutionalist does not believe a state operating under a country’s constitution is committing aggression as the constitution is considered a socially agreed upon document that those living within a country either must agree to or leave. Voluntaryists on the other hand believe that a state is necessarily violence as the definition of state is an entity that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a geographic area. Likewise a state can only be maintained through taxation which constitutes an act of agression against those being taxed.

Rest assured that I haven not wasted your time explaining the difference between the two as it is important knowledge to have in hand in order to understand the view I’m about to present regarding this bill.

As I stated in the beginning of this post I support the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act even though I hold some reservations about granting more power to the federal government. My support for this bill stems from my belief in absolute property rights which extents from my belief in the absolute right of self-ownership. There are only two legitimate means of obtaining property; homesteading and mutually agree to terms of trade between a prospective buyer and a person who either homesteaded the property or obtained it through a mutually agree upon trade. The act of homesteading necessarily requires that you mix your labor with the property (in other words make some kind of improvement to the property) in order to claim it as your own.

Unfortunately absolute property rights can not exist under a state. This fact can be demonstrated through two points; all land is claimed by the state as its own and the state maintains the power of eminent domain over all property within its geographic area. Being a state does not obtain its property through either of the two legitimate means of property attainment the state can not be said to legitimately own any property. What the state does have, however, is an incredible capacity for violence which its willing use in order to maintain its claim of property ownership.

Thus we have a conundrum, while the state should not be able to make rules regarding the actions of people on unowned property they do so through the threat and use of violence. Violence is an incredible tool for maintaining illegitimate claims and thus it’s often much easier to work within the state’s rules than to violate them. Thus it is in the best interests of those living under the state to acquire any liberties they can get away with. If acquiring these liberties can be done by obtaining permission from the state through a state approved legislative process then it might as well be used. A tool is a tool after all.

So we stand at a crossroad. In one direction the state claims the right to create arbitrary rules dictating the actions of those living within its borders. In the other direction we have the fact that the state has no legitimate claim to the property within its borders and thus has no legitimate grounds for dictating the actions of those living within. Meanwhile many of us wish to maintain our right to self-defense wherever we travel within the borders of the state (a right derived from self-ownership). I believe those of us wishing to maintain our right to self-defense should travel the road supporting the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.

The state has no right to demand that we travel through unowned property disarmed. If the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act is passed it will remove an arbitrary restriction placed upon the people in the United States. That is to say we will gain an additional liberty and remove one more rule that is enforced through violence. Likewise this bill will maintain the rights of legitimate property owners as nowhere within the bill’s text is there a decree that private property owners must allow armed individuals onto their property.

Albeit I usually do not support the federal government granting itself additional powers over the individual states I still support this law overall as it grants an additional liberty to those living in the United States. I still find the claims of my opponent dubious as the Bill of Rights clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Most libertarians in the strict constitutionalist camp seem to agree that this bill is an overall good thing but I understand the view of those who oppose it on the grounds that any additional powers claimed by the federal government are generally dangerous.

When You Need a Gun

There are times when you need a gun and then there are times when you really need a gun. Mark LaVelle found himself in a situation that would fall under the latter category:

ABOUT 11 P.M. on Sept. 9, dozens of youths with bats and pipes descended on a tidy residential area of Port Richmond looking for white teens who allegedly had attacked an African-American kid at Stokely Playground a couple of hours earlier.

Two fearful white teens spotted Mark LaVelle on Indiana Avenue near Belgrade Street and asked for help. Suddenly, the mob appeared. LaVelle, who said that he didn’t know the two kids, who looked to be 13 or 14, ran with them into his nearby house.

[…]

With the two teens hiding in the house, LaVelle, 5 feet 10, 220 pounds, a well-known sports-league organizer and coach in the community, went outside to try to calm the angry mob.

They were standing on his steps. One shouted, ” ‘Something’s going to happen now!’ ” LaVelle recalled in an interview Friday at his house. LaVelle got nervous and went back inside, locking his door with a deadbolt.

But the attackers pounded on his front windows and kicked his wooden door so hard, it flew open and some of them entered his house.

“The first guy hits me with a pipe. The second guy knocks me in the face. All I’m hearing is my wife and kids screaming,” said LaVelle, who feared that the next time they saw him, he would be in a casket.

Mob situations are examples of scenarios where your physical strength will likely count for nothing. If one very strong man is outnumbered by scrawny children with pipes by ten to one there is little hope of that one man surviving if those kids mean to kill him. This is one of those cases where a firearm can even the odds as it allows a single individual to engage multiple assailants.

This case also demonstrates that it’s very possible to get caught up in a bad situation without intending as such. Mr. LaVelle saw two teens being chased by a mob and let them into his home so they wouldn’t get beaten to death. For that act I commend him as his actions may very well have saved the teens lives. Another thing to note is that Mr. LaVelle was fortunate that the police arrived when they did as it seems he was entirely unarmed while is assailants were not:

He said that he was able to push the attackers out the door, but then a third man – who had a gun – tried to extend his arm. LaVelle grabbed onto the gunman’s lower arm and shoulder so he couldn’t raise the weapon. Then, police sirens screamed in the neighborhood, and the mob turned and ran.

Had the police been two minutes later Mr. LaVelle could have been shot dead. Having a gun at hand to protect you and your’s isn’t paranoid or even slightly over the top. Situations like this can happen and usually happen at the most unexpected times. Consider having a gun for self-defense like a spare tire on your car, except for the fact that the gun could save your life and the lives of your family while the spare tire will usually only save you form slight inconvenience.

On the Topic of Rape

In Minneapolis on Saturday an event dubbed a SlutWalk will be occurring. From how it’s been explained to me a SlutWalk is an event where hundreds of scantily clad woman march through town to make a statement against rape. I’m not sure what sadist decided that having such an event during October in Minnesota would be smart but suffice it to say there will likely be some rather chilly woman walking about.

Honestly this post really isn’t about the SlutWalk though, that was just a not so clever segway for me to talk about the subject of rape. Namely I want to talk about the prevention of rape. A misunderstanding many people have is that rape is about sex. Rape seldom has anything to do with sex and is almost always about power. There are people besides politicians who get pleasure out of having power over another human being. So long as such desires are suppressed or expressed between consenting adults it’s perfectly fine, the problem comes when a person is unwilling to suppress such desires.

I know a couple of rape victims and needless to say the after effects are almost as frightening as the act itself. A person who has suffered rape has experienced one of the ultimate violations against their person that can be experienced. Both of the rape victims I know have said many times that they would have rather killed themselves than again experience what they went through. Thankfully after therapy they mostly recovered.

Women are the most common targets of rape and genetics dictate that the average male is physically stronger than the average female. I’ve actually had one person claim this is a sexist thought but genetics are what they are. Thankfully our technology has advanced far enough where we have developed the great equalizer; the gun.

Nothing says “NO!” like gushing chest wounds. Part of the reason I’m such a proponent of the right to carry is because firearms can turn a physically superior attacker into an equal (or lesser if they are not also armed). While I strongly urge all people legally able to get a carry permit I put a lot of emphasis on women getting carry permits. Both of the rape victims I know are female and they both now have carry permits and almost always have a firearm on their persons.

While the goal of the SlutWalk may be noble, try to prevent rape, I believe a better mechanism of doing so is to arm the populace. Criminals prey on those they perceive to be weak and usually want to avoid an opponent that poses a legitimate threat. An armed person is one who is able to resist oppression by another. Were it common for persons to be armed instead of unarmed I believe the rate of violent crime would dramatically decrease (and in places that have passed right-to-carry laws they have often noticed a decrease in violent crime). The best defense against rape is to disable a would be rapist. Whether that disability comes from two bullet holes to the chest or one in the head (or a baseball bat to the face, etc.) is irrelevant.

I would urge those actively working to reduce rates of rape to advocate armed self-defense. Arming a person is one of the most empowering things that can be done and gives even the most physically outmatched individual a chance to walk away unscathed. If those participating in the SlutWalk really want to send a message to potential rapists they should strap a pistol on their hip while they march through the city.

To the Opponents of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill

We’ve heard quite a bit of pants shitting hysteria from anti-gunners about H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 but so far none have provided evidence of their claims. Continuing with my demands for citation and evidence from anti-gunners I hereby make a demand in regards to this bill.

The common claim by the anti-gunners is that states with strict requirements for obtaining carry permits will have to recognize permits from states with more liberal (using the classical definition of the word) requirements for obtaining carry permits. Here is my demand, show evidence that gun crime among permit holders residing in states with more liberal (classical definition again) permit regulations is higher than among permit holders residing in states with stricter permit regulations. Unless you can provide this evidence your entire argument is completely moot.

Some Good Old Pants Crapping Hysteria

Everywhere there are rights being restored, every place people are regaining their ability to properly defend themselves, there will be anti-gunners there to vomit out a stream of prophecy that has never come to fruition. Days of our Trailers points out another Joyce Foundation funded hysterical article written about Wisconsin’s new right-to-carry law:

No one knows exactly how many people will apply for permits, but it seems likely to be in the hundreds of thousands.

Imagine that — hundreds of thousands of people carrying concealed weapons. Is that supposed to make us feel safer?

Considering every state that has passed right-to-carry laws has seen no notable increase in violent crime and some have even seen a decrease, yeah I think it is supposed to make you feel safer. I can also easily imagine what a state with hundreds of thousands of people walking around carrying guns will be like; it’ll probably be just like my state where tens of thousands of people walk around carry guns. That is to say it’ll be just fine.

While concealed is radical change in Wisconsin, passage of the law was disappointing to many gun zealots, including Wisconsin Gun Owners and the sponsor of the bill, State Sen. Pam Galloway.

Their extreme agenda calls for so-called “constitutional carry,” on the theory that the Constitution gives people the right to carry guns any time, any place, with no permits, background checks, or training required.

It’s not really a theory, the second amendment is pretty clear and if you ever spent time reading up on its history you’d know that. Of course you won’t spend time reading up on the history of the second amendment and thus will simply scream about it being related solely to well organized militias even if the Supreme Court itself disagrees with you (and they’re not exactly a bastion of freedom and rights).

Once the new law has been on the books for awhile, you can bet there will be attempts to amend it and eliminate the permit and training requirements.

Yes and if the permit and training requirements are eliminated Wisconsin will notice the same problems as other states that have no permit or training requirements… which is to say those states haven’t noticed any problems at all. Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, and Wyoming all have so-called constitutional carry laws and none of them have had any problems so far. Feel free to come back when any of these states start having problems due to their “loose” carry laws.

Will Wisconsin legislators be strong enough to resist the gun lobby, and the National Rifle Association over the long haul?

What he really meant to ask is if the Wisconsin legislators will be strong enough to resiste the people. Oh, wait he has a survey [PDF] that proves the people are against constitutional carry. Wait a minute this survey was done by the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort (WAVE), another Joyce Foundation shill. I could no more trust this survey to accurately portray Wisconsin’s overall opinion on constitutional carry than anti-gunners could trust a survey funded by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

See the survey was performed by Third Eye Strategies whose website states the following:

A national public opinion research organization, Third Eye Strategies provides strategic guidance to elect Democratic candidates and to help nonprofit organizations advance progressive policies through Congress, state legislatures, and ballot initiative campaigns.

Surveys are interesting tools as they can be crafted to get predetermined results. For example I could take a survey with completely neutral worded questions and get desired results by manipulating my sample. For example if I wanted a survey to reflect an overall displeasure with governor Scott Walker I would poll people walking around the University of Wisconsin Madison campus. On the other hand if I wanted my survey to reflect an overall approval of Scott Walker I would likely perform the survey at a tea party rally. Seriously how can you trust an organization to be neutral when they have the following statement on their values page:

And most importantly, working for the election of Democratic candidates to local, state, and federal offices.

Getting Democratic candidates elected is their most important value, not providing correct data free of manipulation. Just stop to think about that and realize that anti-gun beliefs are much stronger with the progressive movement. Basically I’m saying that the survey linked in the main article is meaningless. Speaking of the main article lets continue with it:

In the current session, a so-called Castle Doctrine bill has been introduced with 25 Assembly sponsors and 15 Senators on board (although one of those Senators, Randy Hopper, is no longer with us, having lost a recall election last month.) Some call it a Shoot-to-Kill or Shoot First (ask questions later) bill, since it virtually gives a license to homeowners to kill anyone who breaks into their premises and who appears to be threatening them — even if that person is unarmed.

I’m at a total loss as to what is wrong with giving the benefit of the doubt to a homeowner in a case where they took defensive measure against somebody broke into their home. The bill doesn’t grant immunity for murder, it simply states that somebody breaking into your home can be considered a clear and present danger. After all if an unknown person has bypassed my locked door and is moving about inside my home what other conclusion am I supposed to draw? It’s pretty obvious that person isn’t out collecting for the Red Cross.

We are getting closer and closer to the Six-Gun Law of the old West, where your friends did tote a gun.

Considering that the old West wasn’t all that violent [PDF] I’m not seeing a problem with this.

Once again an anti-gunner uses hysteria and hyperbole in a vain attempt to promote a failed ideology. Instead of advocating for the disarmament of law abiding people perhaps you guys would be more productive if you advocating for disarmament violent individuals. After all my gun isn’t a problem for anybody except those meaning to cause me or mine harm.

We’re For State’s Rights, You Know, Except When We’re Not

It’s funny to watch the inconsistencies of the modern statist movement. On one hand they constantly cite the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution to justify using the federal government to force their agenda onto the individual states and people of the Union. When the coin turns however and the federal government’s force appears to be directed at upholding an amendment in the Constitution to protect the rights of the people the statists all of the sudden become in favor of states’ rights. I’m sorry to inform you statist bastards that you can’t have it both ways, you must be consistent with your message or it becomes meaningless.

Case in point the legislation presently on the table that would make carry permits in one state good in every state that recognizes some form of firearms carry. This case is one of those where the statist believe the individual states should maintain their rights:

Some bad ideas refuse to die. Include in that category an extreme proposal percolating in the House to strip states of their authority to decide who may carry a concealed loaded firearm. This gift to the gun lobby, the subject of a hearing last week by a House Judiciary subcommittee, is nearly identical to a provision the Senate defeated by a narrow margin two years ago.

Every state but Illinois makes some allowance for concealed weapons. The eligibility rules vary widely and each state decides whether to honor another state’s permits.

In other words the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution grant the federal government complete power over the individual states… except when they don’t. The Constitution of the United States of America has a pesky little amendment granting individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that right has been incorporated through a Supreme Court case. Incorporation of a right is a fancy way of saying an amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to the federal and state governments.

Even though a Constitutional amendment and Supreme Court case state that the people have a right to keep and bear arms the statists suddenly oppose using the Constitution to force federal government will onto the individual states. You can’t have it both ways; either the Constitution is a document that is supposed to grant federal power over the individual states or the Constitution is supposed to protect states from federal power. Pick one message and stick with it instead of changing that message whenever it becomes inconvenient to your overall agenda.

Everything Will Be a Felony

One of the arguments I make against prohibiting anybody with a felony from owning firearms is the fact that most felony crimes aren’t violent in nature. While an argument can be made to prohibit a murderer from owing a firearm as they have a history of violence there is no logical argument for preventing people charged with tax evasion from owning firearms. On top of that more crimes are being pushed up to felony level every day including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:

In order to step up the prosecution of hackers and scary cybercriminals, the feds are changing a law to make unauthorized access to a computer system a felony rather than just a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor. That means making a change to something called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The article mentions an amendment being proposed to exempt violations of websites’ terms of services from the law but that’s not the point of this particular post. The point is that the government is constantly increasing the severity of crimes and those increases may leave you barred from exercising your rights even though you’ve never done anything violent.

I’m a firm believer in making criminals pay proportional compensation to their victims. This means that punishments should fit and once that punishment is exacted no further punishment should be brought against you. Those who steal from somebody should be made to return the stolen property (or the property’s value if it’s no longer returnable) along with an amount equal to the value of the stolen property. Once that debt has been paid no further punishment should be brought against the criminal. There is nothing proportional about preventing somebody who evaded theft taxes or hacked a computer from owning firearms or voting.

A vast difference exists in violent and non-violent crimes. Many people who are willing to perform non-violent crimes such as speeding or fraud are not willing to perform violent crimes such as assault or murder. The idea that we should prohibit all felons from ever again owning firearms needs to go the way of the dodo. Too many crimes are listed as felonies to make any logical argument that all felons should have their rights removed. Under the current system the government could ban firearms simply by elevating more minor crimes such as speeding and jaywalking to felony status.

Florida Judge Overrules Prohibition Against Doctors Asking Patients About Guns

As far as gun bloggers are concerned I feel I’ve been in the minority on the issue of barring doctors from asking patients about guns. I’m never a fan of legislation that tramples one right in the futile attempt of protecting another. Well it seems a Florida judge agrees with my belief that the law preventing doctors from asking patients about guns was a bad piece of legislation:

In August, the Florida chapters of three professional physicians’ organizations, along with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, sued on the grounds that the law — a “physician gag law,” the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) called it — violated doctors’ freedom of speech. On Wednesday, a federal judge in Miami agreed and temporarily blocked the law. It seems likely that the decision will become permanent.

“Despite the State’s insistence that the right to ‘keep arms’ is the primary constitutional right at issue in this litigation, a plain reading of the statute reveals that this law in no way affects such rights,” wrote U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke. “A practitioner who counsels a patient on firearm safety, even when entirely irrelevant to medical care or safety, does not affect nor interfere with the patient’s right to continue to own, possess, or use firearms.”

In my opinion all rights should be absolute because every infraction against a right sets up a precedence for the government to perform more infractions down the road. It’s a case of giving an inch to somebody and seeing them take a mile. Although I sympathize with the supporters of this law I can’t support it. There is the possibility of doctors using your medical records as an underhanded gun registration system but making it illegal for your doctor to ask about guns is a direct violation of their right to free speech.

Ultimately the market can be used to solve this problem. You’re under no obligation to answer any inquires from your doctor so the easier solution to this potential problem is to not answer any questions your doctor asks about firearms. If your doctor continues to insist that you tell him whether or not you own firearms you can go to a different doctor. This is a system known as voting with your wallet and it works quite well (unless the government forces you to pay money to somebody of course).

Although the pro-gun side says this law is necessary to prevent a secret gun registry from being established and anti-gunners claim this law is dangerous because it bars doctors from asking about an actual medical issue I don’t see either argument as the core issue. The core issue here is that this law violates the freedom of speech to protect the right to keep and bear arms. The right being violated in this case is the one that allows us to have open discussion on issues such as the rights of gun owners. I’m not willing to sell one right down the river to protect another and thus am happy to see this ruling.