The Gun Blogs

Fascinating. This is on of the attorneys who are challenging the DC gun ban. He clearly is clueless with regards to gun rights and the debate on gun rights. That is truly frightening.

Neily, who served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs challenging the ban, explained that while some view the Second Amendment as a "collective right," the view that the Second Amendment protects a right of individuals to own guns is likely to prevail. He explained that most legal scholars on the subject support the individual rights theory, and that efforts to advocate the "collective rights" theory appear hypocritical.

"There has been a remarkable diversion to individual rights theory by professors, even liberal ones," Neily said. "Guns are not a big part of my life, but it bothers me when an entire part of the Constitution can be written out when you apply a constitutional theory that liberals would never apply to a right they actually care about. If you imagine the right at stake is one you care about a lot. I think you'll be offended to see a court take it as lightly as they take the Second Amendment." However, Tushnet explained that there is support for the collective rights theory in the wording of the Constitution. The "militia," he said, could likely be referring to the National Guard.

That's right. The National Guard is the militia. Seems to me having a military unit that is paid for and trained and can be called up by the federal government would define this as a federal standing army unit. Yes the state can use them, but they don't control them, fund them, or train them. He goes on to try and walk around the statement by discussing the "unorganized militia" which I frankly don't recall ever having heard of.

According to Neily, even a reading permitting gun ownership for militia purposes would not prevent citizens from owning guns due to the true definition of a well-organized militia. Rather than interpreting the "militia" to refer to the National Guard, a concept the federalists would have hated since it would have looked "too much like a standing army," Neily interprets the use of the word "militia" to refer to the unorganized militia.

"All able-bodied men from 17 to 44 are in the unorganized militia, and that's exactly what was meant in 1792," Neily said. "They actually called out the unorganized militia during World War II. When the unorganized militia is called, you're supposed to bring your own gun. You're actually required to bring your own gun. That's what the word well-regulated meant."

Hmm. Interesting but misses the point that there was no such thing. The "well-regulated militia" was all there was in the time of the writing of the constitution. There was a standing army as well, but that is not a militia. If the militias became an unorganized system later, that doesn't have any meaning to what existed in the time of the writing. WWII is completely irrelevant. No constitutional changes related to the second amendment occurred, so it's not an argument.

Then he lamely falls into the "Bazooka problem."

In addition to discussing the Constitutional theories behind the amendment, the speakers addressed what Tushnet described as the "bazooka problem"- the questionable usefulness of a privately-owned firearm in protecting against an oppressive government with large-scale superior weapons not contemplated at the drafting of the Second Amendment.

Tushnet explained this problem by discussing the two primary purposes people see in the Second Amendment-- self-defense and protection from tyrannical government.
"If we're talking about self-defense, handguns work for that," Tushnet said. "The other purpose we mentioned earlier is to guard against an overreaching government. If that is the purpose of the Second Amendment, the "bazooka problem" really is a serious problem. If the function is that you can resist the government and the government has tanks, then it's not clear what use you're getting out of a handgun."

What a pinhead. A member of a militia never did "keep and bear" cannons. The argument is something made up to scare the stupid. Militia's required there men to show up with their long arm and other relevant items which could include hand guns. They also required bayonets and knives for the men, and swords for the officers. I've yet to see a militia order that required any man to fall in with a cannon.

If this is the best the litigants can do for a lawyer, I think they are doomed.

Well to start off I will say that I am not very impressed with the way the country is heading right now. But that’s that.

My Story

I was convicted of Domestic Violence in 2000 for grabbing my EX-wife’s purse. I know there is two sides to every story but just for the sake of this article take my conviction for what I say it is. I am in the process of going through the legal process in Virginia to get my conviction expunged. This is not an easy task especially after the Virginia Tech Shooting. Of the 100,000+ people who are convicted each year of domestic violence most of them are scumbages. With that said there are small percentages that are not guilty. The hopefully EX women in their lives utilized tactics which have been developed over year by women to manipulate the system.

Now that I am married again to a wonderful woman I look back and realize what an idiot I was for getting married the first time. My lovely wife is at home alone most weeks because as an IT consultant I travel a lot. I specifically provide IT security services for large Fortune 500 companies. One of my preaching points to these companies is Defense in Depth. In essence having multiple layers of security is the only way to defend your network against an attack. I'm sure you are wondering where I am going with this....

I apply the same principal to my home. The last line of defense mainly for my wife would be a use of a firearm. My wife is able to purchase a firearm but I have been advised that she could face charges if she brings a gun into the house.

I find it hard to swallow that my wife cannot protect herself if needed because of my conviction. I had one lawyer asked “Who would attack you? I don’t like guns and having heavily armed civilians is dangerous to society” I responded to his question and statement by saying “I don’t know but ask the victims at the police station they will be able to give you that answer” additionally I stated “Hamas is heavily armed, Al Quiada is heavily armed. American who own guns are just prepared and do not rely on the system for their safety”.

So here is the question I pose to the readers of this blog. Why does my wife have to limit her ability to defend herself because she is married to me? Additionally, how can a person be expected to defend them self and their family if this gun ban in place.

Well, another shooting at a school. When are people going to learn? Now, everybody's going to be yelling more gun controll and we need better gun laws. ever woundered how a single person can walk into a room and blow away 30 people? What do you think would have happened if he walked into class and shot the teacher and then turned and looked at the class only to see most of the class was pointing a gun at him just before they blew him away. IF YOU WANT MORE GUN CONTROLL, HAVE EVERYONE BUY A GUN AND KEEP IT ON THEM AT ALL.I think the good people who go by the law far out numbers the bad people. Then it would be just a matter of time before all the bad guys are done in. I do know this, You would never hear of anyone killing 30 + people. I know that after they shot one person, SOMEBODY is going to shoot them. Think about it? Woodzman

By woodzman

The Second Amendment Foundation is mounting a legal challenge to the "Sporting Purpose" language that is used in several laws and previous rulings to restrict gun ownership.

The common propaganda sound bite used by anti-gunners is "you don't need an assault weapon to duck hunt".

Let me bring up another common excuse used by the anti-gunners: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." In other words, the only part of the Second Amendment that they seem to be able to remember.

Considering that this prefatory phrase as a grammatical construct is clearly intended as a statement of purpose, isn't it obvious that the statement of the right ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" ) has absolutely nothing to do with hunting?

The right, stated in more modern terminology, basically says "Because freedom from tyranny, oppression and invasion depends upon the people being capable, sufficiently trained and properly equipped to fight as a militia, the right of each and every capable person to own, use and carry their own military grade firearm shall not be infringed."

What the heck does that have to do with duck hunting?

The thing that bothers me about this is that we in the pro-rights crowd tend to get wrapped around the axle arguing these two points separately. They bring up the "militia" statement and the "collective rights" argument and we enter into a discourse about why the clear verbiage of the Second Amendment doesn't mean what they insist upon twisting it into.

Often in the same conversation, they drop the "don't need a howitzer to hunt ducks" bomb and consider the argument closed. We then exclaim "the Second Amendment isn't about hunting" but don't explore the blatant hypocricy of their competing points.

If their first assertion is correct...i.e. that the Second Amendment only protects gun rights as they pertain to military service, then their second argument...that we don't need a specific firearm to hunt, is moot. Hunting has no constitutional protection at all other than as one of those nefarious "unspoken rights" protected by the oft ignored 9th Amendment.

So, if hunting isn't specifically protected by the Constitution, why do we need guns at all?

BECAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT which clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is about being prepared to act as a militia in times of need.

Therefore, their argument about which arms we "need" would be more appropriately used to deter ownership of non-military pattern weapons (as in the Supreme Court case U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) wherein the court decided that laws prohibiting weapons that have no military application are Constitutional under the Second Amendment).

The arguments in support of hunting as a sport are for another discussion, but any arguments in support of hunting and firearms for "sporting purpose" are not Constitutional arguments by nature...except insofar as the act of hunting constitutes practice that furthers the stated objective of the Second Amendment: "a well regulated militia".

Basically, my point is this: when an anti-gunner brings up the hunting canard as a reason to ban "assault weapons", we should not only state clearly and unequivocally that the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, but loudly and clearly point out the hypocricy in their competing arguments that

a. The Second Amendment only protects firearms ownership for military use

and

b. Military weapons aren't required for hunting and so, are not protected.

Cross Posted on Captain of a Crew of One

On Wednesday, 8 November 2006, Wayne Fincher was arrested for the manufacturing and possession of machine guns (News article here).

This is a very important episode in the war on guns and in the fight for our freedoms. Wayne Fincher is a Lieutenant Commander in the Militia of Washington County, a legally organized militia under the laws of Arkansas. They have manufactured several machine guns from demilled weapons and have petitioned the state of Arkansas for protections guarenteed by both state and federal constitutions. From the website:

Lt. Commander Wayne Fincher is the Co-Author of the Silver Bullet document and a current Lt. Commander of the Militia of Washington County, Arkansas. He is holding a fully restored 9mm Mark III Sten machine carbine manufactured by Britain for $11.00 a piece during WWII. We have formally laid claim and took back possession of our right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution of the State of Arkansas. Our claim was formerly presented and publicly declared to various public officials and agencies and it still remains unchallenged today. Militia of the Washington County, Arkansas operate under the flag of Arkansas and will not tolerate any invasion by agencies hostile to our sovereign State of Arkansas.

This arrest of Lt. Commander Wayne Fincher could be the beginning of the overturning of United States vs. Miller . This group has done everything above board and within the constitution. They have informed the State of Arkansas of all their actions and expected this arrest.

Read the documentation submitted to Arkansas here:

The Silver Bullet

Commentary on this issue can be found here:

The War on Guns

Blogonomicon

US vs. Fincher

Keep a close eye on this case, an overturning of the Miller verdict would go a very long way towards getting us back on track.

JR A Keyboard and a .45

During this past spring, Bloomberg sent out some private investigators to perform some “straw purchases”. Yes, straw purchases happened, but for a straw purchase to happen the buyer has to perform an illegal action whereas the person selling the firearm doesn’t necessarly have to perform an illegal action.

It seems that Bloomberg found this out and would be found guilty therefore he is now withholding evidence. Suprise, suprise. Just more media attention making people think that Bloomberg is really trying to crack down on crime.

http://www.nysun.com/article/38669

Here's an article by that bastion of truth, the Boston Globe. This article distorts the facts of the Bloomberg sting operation and omits much other relevant data regarding his gun control methods.

Earlier this year, the city hired a private investigative firm to conduct a sting operation against these 15 dealers. Investigators, working in pairs, videotaped store clerks illegally selling guns to individuals whom the clerks believed to be straw purchasers. A straw purchaser is an individual who fills out the personal information required to pass a federally mandated background check in order to purchase a gun for another person, typically one who is legally ineligible to purchase a gun based on a felony conviction or other disqualification or may simply wish not to be recorded as the purchaser of the gun in the event that it is later recovered in a crime. Federal law prohibits licensed dealers from making a sale when they have a reasonable belief that the firearm being sold is not for the person who purports to be the purchaser.

In the New York City sting, one investigator would make all of the inquiries about purchasing the gun and the second investigator would show up at the counter only to fill out the background check information. The lawsuit alleges that by allowing such straw purchases, the 15 out-of-state dealers facilitate illegal gun trafficking that increases gun violence in New York City. The city alleges that the gun violence resulting from the way that these dealers do business constitutes a "public nuisance" - an unreasonable interference with public health and safety. While public nuisance litigation has traditionally been used to go after polluters, New York City Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo has explained that just as the city might sue to stop the illegal dumping of sewage into waterways that flow into the city, it is now suing to stop the illegal dumping of guns into the black market that end up in New York. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and asks the court to put an end to the illegal sales.

If you care to read the article you won't find any mention of the fact that the investigators and Bloomberg are being investigated,(at a glacial rate) by the BATFE for this "sting." No mention that the investigators were the ones committing a felony by making the straw purchases. They were not law enforcement officials in any sense. There could very well be some question of the dealers not refusing to deal with obvious straw purchases, which would make this a legal issue for the BATFE.

The two dealers who have settled agreed to supervision of their sales practices by a court appointed special master chosen and paid for by the city. The special master will be given unrestricted access to the dealers' records and inventory and will be empowered to conduct ongoing surveillance. Five or six more of the dealers are currently considering a similar settlement. The remaining dealers have, for now, decided to fight the suit in court.

Now what is missing? No mention that Bloomberg is being sued for his illegal actions.

Not surprisingly, the writer provides his opinion that litigation is good for stopping gun violence.

Litigation complements these legislative and law enforcement efforts. Despite its troubled history in the courts, municipal gun litigation has played an important role in shaping public policies aimed at reducing gun violence. Gun litigation has helped to reframe the problem and the policy options for dealing with it. Whereas once gun violence was understood as a problem caused exclusively by street criminals and addressed primarily through tougher criminal penalties, civil litigation has focused attention on the role of marketing, distribution, and sale in facilitating illegal gun trafficking.

You'll note that the Boston Globe has an interesting section in their paper called "Ideas." Fascinating if disingenuous way of twisting opinion into news. Journalistic honesty be damned. But then, honesty in journalism has been getting thinner all the time.

Seems this bill has had more support than I would have originally expected.

The House voted Tuesday to prevent law enforcement officers from confiscating legally owned guns during a national disaster or emergency.

Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana lawmaker who sponsored the bill, said firearms seizures after Hurricane Katrina left residents unable to defend themselves.

"Many of them were sitting in their homes without power, without water, without communication,"he said."It was literally impossible to pick up a phone and call 911."

The House voted 322-99 in support of the bill. Senators voted 84-16 earlier this month to include a similar prohibition in a homeland security funding bill. The limitation would apply to federal law enforcement or military officers, along with local police that receive federal funds.

As anticipated, those who are against the bill had little intelligence to support their position.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., repeatedly called the bill"insane."

He and some Democrats said the bill might satisfy the gun lobby, but it would put people into more danger during already perilous disasters. "The streets of an American city immediately after a disaster are no place to abandon common sense,"said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.

Well, maybe that's just how they were quoted. Or not.

The Fraternal Order of Police endorsed the measure. In a letter to Jindal, National President Chuck Canterbury said law enforcement officials concentrate on search and rescue during major disasters, and breakdowns in communications and transportation can lengthen police response times to calls. "A law-abiding citizen who possesses a firearm lawfully represents no danger to law enforcement officers or any other first responder,"Canterbury wrote.

The police get it. At least at this level. But I'm certain that the gun grabbers would prefer that the police be going door-to-door confiscating guns instead of responding to emergencies. And in fact, that action would leave a wake of emergencies that the police wouldn't have the ability to respond to. Once the civilians are stripped of their means of defense, the criminals are free to plunder. But let's not bother pointing that out to the gun-grabbers.

Here's a link to the bill if you're interested. And here is the related senate bill.

AP New York:

Police acting on information gathered by private investigators working on the city's civil lawsuits against the gun industry have filed the first criminal charges related to the case.

Two licensed firearms dealers were charged with misdemeanor weapons offenses on Wednesday after police reviewed videotape of a sting operation conducted in connection with the suit.

Police said the dealers, Jack Togati, 40, of the DF Brothers Sport Center in Brooklyn, and Michael Spallone, 43, of the Woodhaven Rifle and Pistol Range in Queens, each illegally sold a firearm without requiring the customer to produce a valid gun license.

But I thought the problem was with out of state dealers? More:

At each store, police said, a male investigator who failed to produce a pistol permit posed as a gun buyer and paid for the weapon, while a female companion produced the required pistol license. State law requires people purchasing guns to have their own licenses.

So, were they trying to see if the other states complied with NY law?

I round up my thoughts on Bloomberg over at No Silence Here.

Bob Barr says Bloomberg has misfired:

In a broad sense, it ought to concern us because if a government can illegally and forcibly disarm law-abiding citizens in one city simply because it proclaims a "crisis," we are all subject to having our constitutional liberties trampled. Even if civil liberties organizations such as the NRA are successful in having those rights restored, much damage already will have ensued.

In another, very real, practical sense, all this is hitting home to Atlantans because New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who apparently has never met a firearm he likes — except those possessed by his own bodyguards — is bringing his anti-gun paranoia to our city's suburbs.

Ayup. It's publicity.

Side note: I'd also like to take this time to ask those who write about the gun issue (both pro-gun and anti-gun - and you folks in the press, but I repeat myself) to stop using the hideous firearm related puns, like misfired, up in arms, gun battle, missing the mark, shooting down, etc. It's kinda lame.

Well it's about time.

A lawsuit in the District against gunmakers was dismissed yesterday by a D.C. Superior Court judge who ruled that the suit was precisely the sort of claim that a new federal law was intended to block.

In a 37-page opinion, Judge Brook Hedge wrote that the city and the federal government had two competing policies, and only one could prevail.

The D.C. Council, she wrote, had determined that assault weapons have "little or no social benefit but at the same time pernicious consequences for the health and safety of District residents and visitors." Congress, however, "has trumped local law by passing legislation to protect the profits of such manufacturers," she wrote.

The suit, filed by the city and by victims of gun violence and their families, aimed to hold gun manufacturers liable for the flow of firearms into the District and for the carnage created by the sale of illegal weapons.

And now we get to wait for the appeal. Might as well punish the gunmakers with as many legal fees as they can while they can.

I said before that:

I’m going to go ahead and call Bloomberg’s latest (you can past coverage here) antics of sending private investigators to investigate gun shops in other states for the purpose of suing them a victory for gun rights. Why, you may ask? Simple. It essentially shows that NY’s stringent and draconian gun laws are not having the desired affect.

Then there is the issue of this incident jeapordizing valid investigations. Now, it gets even better with David noting that Bloomberg's fraud continues to unravel. Indeed but his fraud will not get near the media play as the alleged investigation.