[quote]Crime rose significantly after the gun ban went into effect. [/quote]

I don't think statistics matter to the gun banners. They just get emotional juice from controlling vast swaths of humanity via such legislation.

Bob Dylan said it best: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Here in my hometown, on the shore in CT, there is a law still on the books that makes it illegal for ANY man to attend a church service UNarmed. This law dates back to the late 1600s, when the natives who lived here were probably still sure that they didn't want the white man taking over. They did anyway. (There's also been big crap lately going on in this state, with hangman's nooses being found under a (african-american) police officer's car, and at a large construction site. This all started with a Halloween display that a (african-american) preacher took exception to, because they had a dummy hanging from a noose and the preacher said it was a black man and was offensive to him because it reminded him of lynchings that happened way back when, and the media continues to fan the flames and the FBI is in on the investigations of the one found under the police car and at the contruction site. The people who had the Halloween display took it down because the preacher threatened to picket them. Funny thing is, everyone I talked to said they always thought of the Wild West and cattle rustlers being lynched. Go figure.) I joined the NRA last year, BF has been a member for a much longer time, and they can have my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it. YMMV

One of the major themes that the proponents of victim disarmament pound on is that "more guns = more gun-crime" as if it were axiomatic.

I don't think they sincerely believe this; if they did, they would be agitating for local governments to take thousands of dangerous guns off the street immediately by ordering police to patrol without guns. If more guns automatically cause more crime, then surely the amount of gun-crime would drop, no?

We all want to take guns from criminals. The problem is that gun bans appear to have disarmed only law-abiding citizens while leaving criminals free to prey on the populace.

I call myself a quasi-libertarian because if I thought that gun bans really did stop bad people from getting guns, I could support them. I see no evidence that gun bans in the U.S. stop bad people from getting guns; perhaps they did for a time in European countries, but the genie was never in the bottle here. Having a populace in which the bad people have guns and no one else does is a recipe for disaster.

You know what I'd like to see more of, that is much harder than just waving your hand and declaring guns banned for all except for the powerful? Stronger prosecution of crimes involving guns. Totally forgot about where I read this, but my understanding is that's being tried in certain areas. The more you can disarm *criminals*, the better we all are - and by *criminals* I mean those who like to rob, mutilate, rape, kill, and otherwise destroy. I see no sign that criminals are being effectively disarmed in DC.

Stronger prosecution of crimes involving guns

Now, there's a good idea. I suspect it would have to be really strong to have an impact -- which is why I'd like to see it coupled with my suggestion that criminals pay their way in jail.

Excellent article/blog, Amy. Flynne - you and I agree about how the government will acquire my gun. Tarran - if the government decided to go door-to-door and start collecting the guns of law abiding citizens, I truly think there would be an uprising.

There may be two things coming up in this discussion; I'll head them off.

First - the Supreme Court was fundamentally mistaken about the "short-barrelled shotgun" vs. "militia use". They were IN use in the trenches of WW1. There is a mental aberration evident in people who claim that some weapons are savagely effective in one setting, yet useless in another.

Second - in case someone tries to claim the the National Guard satisfies the definition of "militia", ask them to go read the fence around the National Guard property. It says, "Property of the US Government". This should be more effective than pointing out that the NG wasn't established until 1905.

Gun laws are about POWER and who may have it; most of them are infringements on rights. See www.a-human-right.com .

The only time I can see a gun ban having any impact on gun deaths is in the "crimes of passion" category. One where a non-criminal (as in no previous criminal history), takes his/her weapon and guns down whoever has "wronged" them in the heat of the moment. Of course, a shotgun or rifle can be used just as easily.

I'm not sure that banning guns has any actual impact on those crimes, but its the only shred of logical reason I can see for considering such an action.

I dunno who else here has lived in D.C., but in case commenters here aren't aware - outside the tourist areas, it's one of the most violent, dirty and nasty cities to blight the U.S. Not letting law-abiding people have handguns hasn't done a damn thing to help curtail violence; if anything, it's made it worse. Here's an example of D.C.'s charm. NSFW:

http://keithiskneedeepinmud.blogspot.com/2007/10/crack-is-whack.html

Wow.

Yeah. Sorry about that.

Yeah, my husband found that the other night. Definitely not somewhere I want to live.

Don't apologize, Justin...I am a voyeur's voyeur. Love that they actually shot it, but it would have been even better on videotape.

P.S. The white one, as one of the commenters over there remarked, did have shapely thighs.

Anti-Gun hysteria is just more of the "Nanny State" agenda. "You don't need one of those mean, nasty firearms because the Federal Government will take care of you." Uh huh.

A responsible adult should own a gun and be trained in when and how to use it (and they should practice.) Not saying "have to" just that it should be a perfectly normal event to catch a glimpse of a stylish S&W as the housewife loads her groceries.

The toughest thug you can imagine would literally wet his pants at the sight of a lawfully armed citizen where he was expecting a compliant victim.

By the same token, a person who has demonstrated that they are not a responsible citizen should definitely lose the right to pack heat.

Gun control, like many of the really contentious issues, comes back to federalism. Before the Civil War, The United States was plural; people said the "United States are the coolest." Since then, we have been an "is." The Constitution was meant to describe relations between semi-sovereign States but it just didn't work out (and if it hadn't been slavery, it'd have been something else.) So the argument that, while the federal gov't can't infringe on the RTBA, other levels of municipality can, is a bit of a sticky wicket.

I would definitely recommend a Conceal Carry class for anyone who wants to learn more about the laws and the practical implications regarding gun ownership, even if you can't picture yourself ever touching a weapon. Knowledge is the best ammo.

I am not sure how wide spread it is, but in many places possession of illegal firearms can turn even a misdemeanor into a felony. There was a situation early this summer, where the police pulled a guy over in my old neighborhood. His car reaked of marijuana, (this happened not far from my house, I could smell it from the sidewalk as I passed) so the police decided to search his vehicle. They found an unregistered pistol in his trunk and charged him with a felony. It was unloaded and trigger locked.

I am a definite middle of the roader on this one. I absolutely believe in the right to own guns, but I also believe in some gun control, such as registering them. I also have no problems with cooler laws. At the same time, I look forward to putting my son through hunter's safety and taking him to buy his first shotgun (hopefully when he is twelve, like it was for me - we'll see about his maturity)

I absolutely believe in the right to own guns, but I also believe in some gun control, such as registering them. I also have no problems with cooler laws.

This strikes me as a sensible position. Rare is the occasion when buying a gun RIGHT NOW has positive consequences.

Love that they actually shot it, but it would have been even better on videotape.

Voyeur's voyeur, indeed!

HOLY SH-- uh, CR--, uh, geez, justin, that was er um, ah, interesting? Dang... o_O

Ooops.....had to shut that down quickly....open office environment and all....

Guys, what do you think "registration" is?

Firearms are routinely gifted, inherited, borrowed/loaned, bought, sold and stolen. They can also be picked up from the ground next to a fallen neighbor. They do not pay any attention whatsoever to who is operating them or whether they wear a uniform; indeed, the wearing of a uniform is no guarantee of expertise in the operation of a gun, much less a guarantee that the consequences will be "better" in some way.

Registration has been mandatory since 1999 by fiat in the requirement that every single purchase be approved by the Federal government.

It doesn't solve crime. It doesn't prevent crime. Registration is in effect in DC, NYC, LA, Chicago and it's doing no good at all. It doesn't address the hundreds of millions (not a typo - hundreds) of guns already in private hands - which, I must remind you, obviously are not a problem.

Do not, for a moment, believe that CSI on television is a reality. Tying A gun to A person at A crime scene is a rarity. That's one of the reasons Federal firearms laws now on the books are not routinely enforced.

Your schools are "safe zones" for all manner of criminal because of mythology about guns. One of these is that "registration" is anything other than a governmental control on the habitually law-abiding citizen.

One of the things that chaps my hide is how we dish out life-long punishment to citizens who commit a crime these days.

Martha Stewart, for example.

She is not only a CONVICTED FELON, she is also an EX-CONVICT (caps added for scary effect).

The BATF has a system for felons like Martha (and others who don't even go to prison, but rather to probation), to apply to re-obtain their gun rights.

However, Congress refuses to fund the program, and the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can simply block her right to reinstatement through this back-door method.

I'd be hard pressed to find a convicted felon less likely to commit violence than Ms. Stewart or any of the felony-level nonviolent potheads, check bouncers and the like who don't even go to prison, yet are stripped of their right to self-defense.

To me, it's just bizarre.

Privately-owned guns are now totally banned in UK. Latest figures, murders per 100,000 population:

US: 5.5

UK: 1.4

Any other questions?

If somebody takes out a restraining order on you and it sticks, you lose your right to own a gun. There are many, many men, especially, who have this happen as a result of a wife trying to manipulate a custody and divorce settlement in her favor. As Raddy pointed out above, registration is, for the most part, not going to stop the wrong people from getting guns. If somebody wants to put a bullet in your ass, they're going to do it.

PS That's something people who get restraining orders against somebody truly dangerous should consider. It's a piece of paper. And it's not woven with Kevlar.

Privately-owned guns are now totally banned in UK. Latest figures, murders per 100,000 population:

US: 5.5

UK: 1.4

Any other questions?

-----

Sure, I've got questions, for instance, why did you leave out the information that gun violence has increased 110% since the UK gun ban?

Could it be that, gasp, armed criminals prefer an unarmed victim?

Their murder rate by gun fell but their other-crime by gun rose dramatically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Another question I'd like to ask (anyone) is, with Canada right next door with the same frontiersman history and a huge love of hunting and firearms --- why aren't they slaughtering one another like Americans?
They've got the guns for it.

Radwaste -

While actual registration is not necessary to keep some people from legally buying guns, it goes a long ways. Personally, I am totally fine with keeping legal firearms out of the hands of ex-cons and the mentally ill. It is possible to apply for the right, if you fall into either category.

I am not trying to claim that this keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, merely that it makes it that much harder for them to get one. It also makes people think twice about using the gun they legally purchased, to shoot someone in a rage.

I just don't see any problems with the state knowing how many and what kind of handguns I own. Honestly, I wouldn't care if they knew about the shotguns and rifles too - they just haven't asked. I really don't see a negative, while there are some, reasonable positives.

Amy -

One of my ex-gals started a self-defense class for people who have restraining orders out to protect themselves. She provides it as a free service since her older sister got beat half to death, by the guy she had an order on. His attitude apparently consisted of "well, I can go to jail just for calling, might as well kill her."

She also provides firearm training. I actually helped out for a couple of sessions as an "attacker." Never again. Honestly, I wouldn't try taking the gun away from someone trained by her. Even not trying to actually hurt me, they hurt me. Especially the little gal who "accidentally" elbowed me in the crotch and managed to "shoot" me in the neck, when I doubled over.

Unfortunately, too few people who do the restraining order thing, know what they can be getting themselves into. Totally bizzare are the ones who are specifically warned by the police to take extra precautions, based on the record of the person they take the restraining order against, yet blithely wander through life, thinking everything's rosy. Then they wonder why they're waking up in a hospital bed (if they're lucky).

Stoopid people annoy me.

The Second Amendment reads as follows:

"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."

Given this ambiguous text, it is easy to understand the appeal of the Militia doctrine, which holds that the 2nd Amendment was intended only to facilitate the maintenance of militias, which at the time of the Constitutional Convention formed the bulk of our country's security forces. Essentially, the District of Columbia is arguing that the Militia Doctrine is the true, correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and that therefore, their total ban is permissible.

There are some serious problems with the Distric of Columbia's position, however.

The first problem is that the Militia Doctrine, as applied by the District in their ban, effectively renders a portion of the Bill of Rights a nullity. The reason is that the Militia is constituted in an entirely different manner now than it was in 1787. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the militia was a very loosely organized entity. In some States, it consisted simply of all able-bodied white male residents of a given district. Furthermore, many jurisdictions expected militiamen to provide their own arms and accroutements - making the utility of the militia reference in the 2nd Amendment obvious. However, these half-organized pick-up teams of the past have long since been supplanted by more formal organizations. Today's militia consists of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard. Each of these entities consitute an integral reserve component of the United States Army and US Air Force, respectively, and are are organized, trained and equipped to the same standards as their respective parent services. Needless to say, Guardsmen of today do not provide their own arms - the US Government provides them - and they do not "bear" them at home - they are secured at unit armories. Were the Supreme Court to affirm the Militia Doctrine, the 2nd Amendment - with one tiny exception - would be rendered completely superfluous (the tiny exception would be the Alaskan Scouts, a portion of the Alaska Army National Guard who keep their government-owned weapons in their homes because of the remote areas where they live). This would be problemetic because it is a a longstanding rule in our courts that interpretations rendering the text of a law as a nullity are to be avoided where possible.

A second and much bigger problem with the District's position is this paragraph, quoted in your blog above:

"[The District] also argue[s] that the 2nd Amendment only prohibits Congress from passing national restrictions on gun ownership and doesn't apply to local governments."

If this argument is accepted, it could set Civil Rights jurisprudence in the United States back 140 years by eviscerating much of the good done under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Prior to the Civil War, the District's argument quoted above was, in fact, accepted legal doctrine: the Bill of Rights was interpreted as binding only on Congress, and provided no protection against abuse by State and local governments, leaving a wronged citizen to whatever redress might be available under his own State's constitution. A return to this state of affairs would be a grave development. Despite all the doomsaying on the right about the huge and powerful Federal Government, and on the left about the supposed destruction of civil liberties under the Patriot Act et al, the REAL threat to our civil liberties is now, and always has been, STATE and LOCAL government. The ravings of the Cassandras on the left and right notwithstanding, The great bulk of civil rights violations occur at these levels, not at the Federal level (in fact, the entire States Rights doctrine that precipitated the Civil War and continued to carry weight into the mid-20th century was largely a device created to justify and protect gross attacks on Civil Rights by State governments: slavery and segretation). And until after the Civil War, citizens had very little hope of redress in the face of abuse by their State and local authorities. All this changed - gradually - after the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment reads, in pertinent part: "... no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

The 14th Amendment does not, on its face, address the Bill of Rights. But over time, Federal Courts ruled that one effect of the language of the 14th Amendment quoted above was to extend the reach of the Bill of Rights to the States themselves, as well as to Congress - meaning that for the first time the Bill of Rights could be invoked against State and local abuses of power, as well as against abuses by Congress.

The District of Columbia's reasoning is regressive and backward looking. However, the liberal left overlooks this because the outcome they seek - total abolition of gun ownership - is supremely important to them, whatever the likely unintended consequences.

One final note - although I am a military officer by profession, I am a lawyer by training (I still shell out a whopping $350 a year to keep my license active). During the course of my legal training, I came to the very disturbing but unavoidable conclusion that police and prosecutors are unmoved by any self-defense based arguments in favor of gun ownership, or a by a citizen's right to self-defense at all. The hard truth seems to be that the law enforcement community would rather see you killed by an attacker than to see you use force to repel the attack. Of course they would not admit this, and probably do not consciously think of it that way. But the text of our laws and the behavior of prosecutors and police lead inexorably to that conclusion. Why is this the case? Several reasons, probably. The first and most likely is simple laziness: Self defense cases are hard. In order to make a charging decision, the prosecutor has to make the tough call about whether you really were defending yourself or are using self defense a as cover for murder. An agonizing and potentially controversial decision to make. How much easier it is just to take it to a jury and let them decide! Another, more subtle reason is egotism: Only the State - which is to say, the State's representatives in the form of law enforcement - has the right to use violence. How dare you infringe upon their monopoly, regardless of circumstances! The final, and possibly the most common reason, is paternalism:

"We in the government know what is good for you. Leave it to us, we'll take care of it. And if some of you die or are injured because we (the State) could not protect you, that is regrettable, but no justification for you to act on your own. While your urge to defend yourself is understandable, we cannot have people running around with guns defending themselves, because this would be too destabilizing. Don't you worry your pretty little heads about your personal safety - you just leave that to your betters, the great and all-knowing Nanny State. We'll tell you what to eat, how to play, and protect you from those bullies who want to kill you, rape you, or despoil you of your property - maybe. And if we don't, you just sit quietly anyway and don't make trouble - or we'll give YOU something to cry about!"

Sincerely,

Dennis

One of the things that chaps my hide is how we dish out life-long punishment to citizens who commit a crime these days.

Martha Stewart, for example.

She is not only a CONVICTED FELON, she is also an EX-CONVICT (caps added for scary effect).

Off-topic: Prior to her jail time, I never liked Martha Stewart. Too peppy, too controlling, whatever. Then I saw her leaving jail wearing that, erm, interesting poncho that another woman in jail had knitted for her, and I became a fan for life. If Martha Stewart wants a gun, we should give it to her. Not sure about all of the other ex-cons, though.

Unfortunately, too few people who do the restraining order thing, know what they can be getting themselves into. Totally bizzare are the ones who are specifically warned by the police to take extra precautions, based on the record of the person they take the restraining order against, yet blithely wander through life, thinking everything's rosy.

Gavin de Becker, author of The Gift of Fear and a noted security expert, has said multiple times that he's not a huge fan of restraining orders. Oh, he thinks they have their place, mostly with people who really do care about losing their professional standing/reputation, but in general, he says, they provide a false sense of security to the person taking them out and only inflame the people against whom they're served. If you're dealing with an unstable person who wants to kill you, a restraining order isn't going to do ANYTHING. It's a piece of paper. His advice is to focus on your actual security rather than first running to the judge for a TRO.

And yes, de Becker is, in general, anti-gun. I didn't say I agreed with him on everything. :) But I think he's got a good point about the folly of the belief that a piece of paper can restrain a dangerous person.

DuWayne -

It always starts with registration. That's so they know where the guns are when the time comes to confiscate them.

Registration worked really well for the Germans. Made it easy to ensure that nobody could shoot back when they were forcibly relocated.

Stu - your "statistics" are missing one very important piece of information. What were the murder rates in those two countries PRIOR to the UK's ban on self-defense? Hint: the UK's was lower. The US? not so much.

We have criminal enterprises in this country that the English have never thought of. Our gangs could take out their military. A bar fight in America could wipe out the entire London PD.

Americans are a uniquely violent people.

Oh, and I don't have a gun, but I could still kill someone if I had to. You whack someone on the brain-pan enough times with a hard object, they'll hit the deck. And there's always something to hand with which to perform said whacking.

Marion -

I think that restraining orders are important. For the low grade asshole, it can eliminate the extreme annoyance.

Even for the more dangerous, it is important. Possibly even more important than it is for the really annoying, creepy ex beau. While it is critical to consider ones security, it is also important to leave a legal, legitimate paper trail. That way if the scum ends up dead on your porch, you are far less likely to end up in prison.

Brian -

First, thank you for actually spelling my name right - a rarity around here.

I have to say that I am impressed that you manage to invoke the specter of fascism. That's not a good sort of impressed either. One of my favorite bloggers, an oncologist, has the Hitler Zombie to sic on folks who make that sort of comment. I wish that I did.

So I take it you have no issues with someone who has committed acts of murder and rape, going into the gun store down the street and buying an arsenal? No issues with someone who spends half their time in mental institutions because of their schizophrenia, wandering in off the street to buy a Luger (to continue your Nazi meme)?

Oh, and I don't have a gun, but I could still kill someone if I had to. You whack someone on the brain-pan enough times with a hard object, they'll hit the deck. And there's always something to hand with which to perform said whacking.

Go He-Man. Meanwhile in the real world, someone has put three or four bullets in you, before you can even swing it. Or they might just be a hell of a lot stronger and skilled at fighting than you. Not a good plan.

I would add that it is easy to say you could kill someone. In practice, might not be so easy, even for a stud like you. As I understand it, beating someone to death is a lot harder than pulling a trigger.

I keep a forty-four cap and ball pistol on hand. Loaded with bean bags. Close enough range their likely to be fatal, but I would rather avoid too close. Tricky, with the whole cylinder/trigger lock, but I practice. I also don't have to worry about hesitating to kill. If their close enough that it would, their too close - my family's at risk. If they aren't, then they don't die, they just go down. Hard. I have a fairly decent gun collection beyond that, but that one's my basic home defense. My partner objected to my short barrel twelve gauge, next to the bed.

DuWayne -

Would it make you feel better if I substituted the Canadians for the Germans? Although they haven't started the confiscations yet, there are people who have stated that their ultimate intentions lie in that direction.

This one needs special attention:

So I take it you have no issues with someone who has committed acts of murder and rape, going into the gun store down the street and buying an arsenal? No issues with someone who spends half their time in mental institutions because of their schizophrenia, wandering in off the street to buy a Luger (to continue your Nazi meme)?

There is not a single law of the thousands passed in this nation that will stop a criminal from acquiring firearms. Certainly, it makes it more difficult for him to just walk into a store and get one, but there are enough weapons on the streets that he's never going to be unarmed unless he wants to be. Although the Constitutional justification for denying a firearm to a felon is sound, the logistics of so doing are impossible.

Ditto the mentally ill. We don't allow people to profile against the mentally ill in housing or employment, how could we possibly do so when it comes to a Constitutionally protected right? I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying that because of decisions society has either made, or had imposed upon it, we don't have that option any longer.

And the point about being able to kill someone without a firearm was not an expression of my superior strength -- I assure you I don't have that -- it was a simple statement that a gun is not a requirement to kill someone. I have several large knives in my kitchen that could kill someone just fine. I have a large Doberman that could do the same. None of them involve bullets.

It seems there are too many in this world who believe that if we just made all the naughty guns go away that crime and murder would be a thing of the past. That is, at best, wishful thinking.

At worst, it's a delusion that's going to get a lot of people killed.

I am not trying to claim that this keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, merely that it makes it that much harder for them to get one.

DuWayne - maybe you didn't see where I showed that every single purchase must be approved by the Federal government. This is the "instant check" system. But notice one thing about this - again, it does not cover transfers between persons. Laws cannot confine a gun to the possession of just one person. Other restrictions - the "making it harder to get one" applies only to those who habitually obey the law, AND subsequently, registration does NOT play a role in solving crimes committed with a gun. Can you not see the DC map? It's not just registration there - unless you have special connections, you may not possess a gun there. Geez, how much better an example do you need? Again - what do you think "registration" is? Why do you think it has any effect at all?

-----

Dennis, I'd love for you to explain further how the NG is the "modern militia" - as I noted above, but you missed, the NG is a wholly-owned Federal force. From F-16s to copy paper, the whole shebang belongs to Uncle Sam. The President can order the whole bunch to Iraq - or to polish his limousine.

In short, the idea that the NG is somehow our only duty to provide for the common defense of the citizens is bullshit of the highest order.

-----

I sense that there is still a good bit of "gun mythology" prevalent here. Please - especially before you start up about self-defense scenarios - learn about the subject first. Look for thunderranchinc.com, gunsite.com and ayoob.com (the Lethal Force Institute) to learn about this. (One of the myths is that the gun beats the knife every time. NO!!)

The professional handling of guns, and of conducting yourself in self-defense, is a great deal more advanced than you are getting from popular media. Think of the difference between yourself and a professional musician or dancer. Skill differences are that pronounced, but with obviously greater consequences.

About "the spectre of fascism":

If you had suggested, at a roadside cafe in Frankfurt in 1938, that in ten years six million Jews would be legally gassed by the German government, that 40 million would be dead and Europe in rubble, you would be seized, taken to a hospital and forcibly medicated.

Everyone thinks it can't happen to them. They are "too advanced" in some way for that to happen.

At a minimum, you should look at German laws of the late '30s and see what parallels there are in America; concentrate on the Gun Control Act of 1968, and you'll see remarkably similar language.

What about standing in line to be searched because you want to travel by plane looks "American" to you? What about getting Federal, then county and city government permission to buy a .22 rifle looks "American" to you? What about having your home confiscated so the city can make more tax money from the company who convinced them to condemn you looks "American", and therefore non-Fascist, to you?

What do you think "We, the People" should start? A list of things we are permitted by government to do?!

"Dennis, I'd love for you to explain further how the NG is the "modern militia" - as I noted above, but you missed, the NG is a wholly-owned Federal force. From F-16s to copy paper, the whole shebang belongs to Uncle Sam. The President can order the whole bunch to Iraq - or to polish his limousine."

Radwaste -

No, I didn't miss your comment. Just because you said it doesn't mean that I am required either to acknowledge it or accept it. I have no reason to assume you are any better informed on the issue than I am. Frankly, it's pretty cheeky of you to assume that because I don't accept your position, that I must simply not have seen it.

I will, however, be happy to explain how the National Guard is the successor to the previous militia organizations. The basis of my assertion is in the law.

The Constitution of the United States defines the relationship between the militia and the Federal Government:

Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States empowers Congress "to provide for calling forth the militia." It is upon this basis that the National Guard has been called up for service in Iraq and elsewhere. The laws that Congress has passed to provide for such call ups are Title 10 United States Code section 12302(a), Partial Mobilization, and Title 10 United States Code Section 12304, Presidential Reserve Call-Up.

You will object that the phrase I cited above goes on to specify "repelling invasion, enforcing the laws of the Union," etc. I address that objection toward the end of this post, below.

Article 1 Section 8 further empowers Congress "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Congress has passed a number of acts under this power, starting with the Militia Act of 1787. Other laws have been passed, but among the more important is the National Defense Act of 1916, which prescribed, among other things, that the State militias would be the primary reserve force of the Army, mandated the use of the term National Guard as their collective name, and directed that the National Guard would be organized, equipped, and trained in the same manner as the Regular Army.

You are incorrect in stating that the National Guard is a wholly-owned Federal force. Unlike the Army Reserve, which IS a wholly Federal force, the National Guard operates under the command and control of the State Governors except when called to active duty by the President under one of the authorities cited above. It is the GOVERNORS that can order the National Guard to wash their limosines if they want to, not the President. The only caveat is that the State has to pay for it himself and, accordingly all States have laws in effect to provide for that.

Additionally, National Guard officers are appointed by both the States and the Federal government. You cannot be an officer in the National Guard without a State order appointing you - but you can't be paid from federal funds without recognized as an officer by the feds - thus National Guard officers take a dual oath of office, to both their State and the Federal Constitutions - something Army Reserve and Regular Army officers do not do - the swear allegiance to the Federal Constitution only.

The National Guard also retains another critical indicia of a militia - a near monopoly within the military in domestic security functions. This is provided for under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits (except under very limited circumstances) use of the Regular Army (and also the Army Reserve) for domestic law enforcement, but does NOT so prohibit the National Guard from doing so when in State service.

Undoudtedly, you will object that Article I Section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress to pass laws for calling out the militia to "execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." What, after all, does Iraq have to do with any of that? For that matter, what did World War II have to do with any of it? (the National Guard was heavily employed during WWII).

Well, nothing. What it does have to do with another provision of Article I Section 8: Congress's enumerated power to "To raise and support armies."

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress BOTH to provide for the organization, equipping, and calling out etc of the militia, AND to raise and support Armies. Congress has opted, to a certain extent, to execute these powers jointly - by providing the militia be organized as the National Guard we know today, and by simultaneously providing that the Army National Guard and Air National Guard be designated as reserves of those respective services. In practical terms, it is a good solution: It provides the States with vast resources and capabilities with which to pursue their domestic functions that they could never provide on their own. And ongoing operations in Iraq have never impinged on State Governments' ability to execute those functions, as National Guard Bureau has a strict policy requiring that each Governor have at leat 50% of his forces available for domestic missions at all times,(most States have much more). Further, every State in the Union has entered into a voluntary compact with every other State (Emergency Management Assistance Compacts) under which the Governors share personnel, equipment and resources when necessary. These compacts were used after Hurricane Katrina (any problems in executing them were the fault of Governor Blanco, who waffled and dithered about asking for help from other States, even keeping Texas National Gaurdsmen stopped at the border for 36 hours while she made up her mind. No wonder she did not run again). In two instances claims have been made that operations in Iraq have left States unable to execute their domestic functions - the Governor of Kansas said this in tornado season, and the Senator Boxer said it during the recent fires in California. And in both cases these claims have been so grossly incorrect that these persons had to publicly retreat from their complaints within days.

I suspect that you are a purist and strenuously object to Congress's allocation of dual functions to the militia - which, contrary to your claim, the National Guard is. Although I think such a contention is incorrect, I can understand the reasoning of it. However, I would point out that implementation of your purist position would leave the States much worse off. I saw this first hand during the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, when nearby a Army Reserve unit had equipment desperately needed for the relief efforts, but because this Reserve unit had no State status, no legal mechanism existed to easily get the equipment into the relief effort (this has been since fixed).

Object to the arrangements that Congress has made all you like. In your opinion, Congress should not have combined the militia function with the Army raising function. Fine. But the mere fact of your holding that opinion does not delegitimize the National Guard as the modern successor to the militia - because it is, whether you like it or not.

Have a happy Thanksgiving -

Yours,

Dennis P. Chapman

The 2nd Amendment, since it mentions militias, could also mean that the individual, having a right to carry is weapon, has the responsibility to join or form a militia for mutual defense. From whom? Could be anything from protesting a Kelo-decision type eminent domain seizure to a Katrine like emergency. However, our populace has grown complacent with the government protecting us.

Also, about registration? Look what happened to the citizens of New Orleans after Katrina. Now think how easy it would have been to take the guns if there was a registry.

Emergency? Can't have armed people messing up the rescue or resettlement. Looting? Take away ALL the guns....of course, only the law abiding will be registered.

Felons? With some controls, most ex-cons are perfectly safe with weapons. Don't they have a right to self-defense? Now, if they use it in a crime, no 2nd chance. Life in prison.

Dennis,

I might add that when I was in the National Guard, my uniform was labeled US Army, not State Militia.

Besides, what you dance around it there is a codified legal defininto of what constituted the militia. The Dick Act of 1903:

"The present federal definition of militia (10 USC 311) as including all able-bodied males 18-45, and women in the Guard, divided into the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia, originates in the Dick Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 77): "the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen .... who is more than 18 and less than 45 years of age, and shall be divided into two classes--the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the state ... and the remainder, to be known as the Reserve Militia." (Note effect on the NG=militia argument: the NG is only part of the militia). Certain federal benefits were granted, but only to NG units.
The 1903 Act retained the power of the President to call out the militia (including the unorganized) in event of invasion, insurrection, or to execute the laws of the Union (the three purposes for which it could be called out under the Constitution)."

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:SvNicG56J6YJ:armsandthelaw.com/archives/militia/index.php+dick+act+1903+unorganized+militia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us

Radwaste -

maybe you didn't see where I showed that every single purchase must be approved by the Federal government.

Actually, that's exactly what I support.

Laws cannot confine a gun to the possession of just one person.

No, but they can (and in many states do) make it illegal for anyone to possess unregistered handguns.

Other restrictions - the "making it harder to get one" applies only to those who habitually obey the law, AND subsequently, registration does NOT play a role in solving crimes committed with a gun.

No, it applies to everyone. It is much easier for me, or anyone else, to walk into a gun shop and buy a pistol, than it is to find an illegal gun dealer and buy one out of the back of a van.

And I would love to see evidence that registration cannot be instrumental in solving gun crimes. Not that that is the point of registration. Registration can and does, prevent some gun crimes. Cooler laws prevent the average Joe from getting really pissed at his neighbor and running out to buy a gun to shoot him with. Registration means that your average law abiding Joe, is unlikely to use his registered handgun on his neighbor in a fit of rage.

Can you not see the DC map? It's not just registration there - unless you have special connections, you may not possess a gun there.

And I absolutely agree that this is a very bad idea. Your point?

Again - what do you think "registration" is? Why do you think it has any effect at all?

Reading comprehension got you down? I have spelled it out quite clearly in my comments.

At a minimum, you should look at German laws of the late '30s and see what parallels there are in America; concentrate on the Gun Control Act of 1968, and you'll see remarkably similar language.

You can see parallels all over the place in many situations. Gun control laws are one of the few. This does not mean that we are heading on the fast track to fascism. Although if you want to play that game, there are far more parallels coming from the rightwing support of corpratocracy and privatization of such venues as prisons and law enforcement functions. I mean what could be "better" than less oversight for the government functions with the greatest propensity for the abuse of private citizens.

What about standing in line to be searched because you want to travel by plane looks "American" to you?

I don't like it, but I am willing to deal with minor intrusions for the sake of reasonable safety. What seems un-American about it, is the ineffectiveness of it's application.

What about getting Federal, then county and city government permission to buy a .22 rifle looks "American" to you?

I would be more comfortable with it being done on a localized (i.e. state) level, but don't really have a problem with it. Especially as I am not getting permission to buy a gun. They are merely making sure that there isn't good reason not to sell me a gun. Again, I really don't want most cons and nutjobs having easy access to guns.

What about having your home confiscated so the city can make more tax money from the company who convinced them to condemn you looks "American", and therefore non-Fascist, to you?

It doesn't in the least and I am very vocal in opposition to that.

Brian -

There is not a single law of the thousands passed in this nation that will stop a criminal from acquiring firearms. Certainly, it makes it more difficult for him to just walk into a store and get one, but there are enough weapons on the streets that he's never going to be unarmed unless he wants to be. Although the Constitutional justification for denying a firearm to a felon is sound, the logistics of so doing are impossible.

You make it sound like it's just a matter of walking down the street until you find the neighborhood weapons dealer. It's not that simple. For a lot of criminals, it is an insurmountable obstacle. That works for me.

Ditto the mentally ill. We don't allow people to profile against the mentally ill in housing or employment, how could we possibly do so when it comes to a Constitutionally protected right? I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying that because of decisions society has either made, or had imposed upon it, we don't have that option any longer.

Bullshit. There is a vast difference between discriminating against them for housing or employment and discriminating against them for buying a gun. And the reality is that for the extremely mentally ill, discrimination in employment can and routinely does occur. Someone who talks to themselves and curses the customers, will be fired from service positions and probably won't get another, no matter if it is the result of mental illness.

In any case it is entirely legit to restrict someone who has a very strong likelihood of being a danger to themselves or others, from legally purchasing a firearm.

And it is even harder for the average extreme schizophrenic to obtain an illegal firearm, than it is for your average con.

It seems there are too many in this world who believe that if we just made all the naughty guns go away that crime and murder would be a thing of the past. That is, at best, wishful thinking.

I hope you're not implying that is what I think. Far from it. I am an ardent supporter of the right to own guns, I own several myself. I have made a point of learning how to use them effectively and believe strongly that the more people who do so, the better. My son is five and has already started on the road to learning gun safety and how to shoot (with an air-pistol).

I just think there is nothing wrong with making it much harder for certain segments of society to do the same. I am also an ardent supporter of trying to get illegal guns off the street.

Anyhow, happy thanksgiving all.

Stu "El Inglés" Harris wrote,

"Privately-owned guns are now totally banned in UK. Latest figures, murders per 100,000 population: US: 5.5, UK: 1.4."

The UK only counts a murder upon conviction of the murderer in court of law. Unsolved murders in the UK aren't counted in those statistics. The USA is more realistic.

See More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott Jr.

Amy:

(someone said): Stronger prosecution of crimes involving guns

(you replied): Now, there's a good idea

I completely disagree. This is no more sensible than our current mania for "hate" crimes. If someone murders you, you're just as dead whether they used a gun, a baseball bat, or just strangled you with their bare hands. Why should the choice of implement make any difference in punishing their crime?

DeWayne:

While it is critical to consider ones security, it is also important to leave a legal, legitimate paper trail. That way if the scum ends up dead on your porch, you are far less likely to end up in prison.

Do you have any actual documentation for that, or is it just conjecture? I don't know where you're writing from, but there's certain not a single letter or comma in Washington State law regarding justifiable use of deadly force that would give any credence to your advice. Perhaps the legal situation is different where you live.

If someone murders you, you're just as dead whether they used a gun, a baseball bat, or just strangled you with their bare hands. Why should the choice of implement make any difference in punishing their crime?

Interesting point -- and I've blogged against "thought crimes" (aka hate crimes). Guns can be lethal at a great distance, are highly efficient as a means of killing, and can be easily concealed.

Why,for instance, are the first amendment's to be approved to the Constitution all individual rights but only the second construed to be a collective right?
If registration will not lead to gun confiscation, why were Californians required to turn in guns that were banned under newly enacted laws?
And while it is true that any object may be used to kill another, only a gun will enable a 100 pound woman to fend off a 200 pound attacker.

Kirk Parker -

I have no documentation, just what I have heard from more than one lawyer friend. In several states, there are indoor/outdoor laws. I.e. if you shoot someone who has invaded your property, but not invaded your home, you can be charged with manslaughter. If however, you have a restraining order against someone who is considered a reasonable threat, you have far more leeway.

Look at it from this hypothetical; I have been threatened by someone who I have reason to believe is a serious threat to my person. Which do you think is going to protect me in court.

I don't tell anyone, don't make a paper trail. They come onto my property yelling and screaming that he is going to beat me down and beat my family to death, forcing me to watch. I shoot him before he can get close to my home and family. There are no neighbors home to witness anything that transpired. I have a dead asshole on my front lawn and the police show up. They have no reason to believe that the guy made any threats. They may, or may not believe me.

Or, I call the police, file a report and go to court for a restraining order. There is a solid paper trail and the demented fuck is legally restricted from coming anywhere near me. He comes onto my property yelling and screaming about how he's going to beat me down, beat my family to death and make me watch. I shoot him dead before he can get close to my home. In spite of the fact that there are no neighbors around to have witnessed this, there is already evidence of his desire to cause me great bodily harm.

It is not perfect protection, but it would go a long ways toward ensuring that my ass is covered in the above hypothetical. States that I know have indoor/outdoor laws, would include MI, Arizona and Montana. States that are more lenient, that I am aware of would include Wyoming and most notably, Florida.

Why should the choice of implement make any difference in punishing their crime?

Making a gun crime worse than using other weapons, is purely for the intent of decreasing the rate of gun crimes. As Amy mentions, guns are easier to conceal and can kill from great distances. Psychologically, it is also much easier to kill by simply pulling the trigger, than it is to kill up close and personal. If someone knows that they will be punished more severely for shooting someone, than they will be for beating them to death with a bat, they are less likely to kill at all.

The only people who will actually beat someone to death, are people who are either passionately pissed, or sociopaths. The most sensible thing, would be to put poison on at least the same level of a gun crime, as poison is, from a psychological perspective, the easiest method for murder.

rackdalian -

If registration will not lead to gun confiscation, why were Californians required to turn in guns that were banned under newly enacted laws?

There is a big difference between confiscating handguns and confiscating automatic weapons. That said, I don't agree with assault weapon bans. Also, my point was not that registration won't make confiscation easier. It just doesn't necessarily mean that registration leads to confiscation.

And while it is true that any object may be used to kill another, only a gun will enable a 100 pound woman to fend off a 200 pound attacker.

I agree with the principle, but have to argue with the actual statement. When I was hitch-hiking I traveled for a while, with a ninety pound gal, who could take very good care of herself. When I first met her, I made the mistake of mentioning my concern for her safety on the road. She challenged me to take her down, using all the strength and ability I had. The next thing I knew, she had me on the ground, stripping me nekked. Believe it, I am not a wimp, nor am I unable to defend myself..

When I was in High School in the '40s my ROTC manual informed me that the miilitia was composed of ALL able bodied male citizens between the ages of 16 and 40 (or 60, I forget which) and this was true whether they were enlisted, equipped, trained or organised. They were militia simply by reason of existing.

Homicide rates relate to the outcome of crimes, not crimes themselves.

As the avaliablity and methods of advanced trauma care have become much better over the last three decades, the likelihood of death from comperable assults has dropped to something like 25% of what it was then in most urban and suburban areas of the United States.

If homocide rates are holding steady, it is not a good sign ... it can only be because actual comperable assults are increasing ... and these are the statistics we need to be told about, not outcome statistics.

Mike Puckett, thanks for your comment, I appreciate it.

I only take issue with your your characterization of what I wrote as "dancing around." I'm not dancing around anything.

I am aware of the Dick Act, but that act is no longer in force. It is extremely important historically as a critical stage in the development of the National Guard, but it has been superceded by other provisions since. The definition of "militia" contained therein is no longer in force. My points still stand: The Constitution vests Congress with the power both to specify the form that the militia will take, and with the power to raise armies. Congress has chosen to execute it's militia powers by specifying that the militia will be the National Guard and that the National Guard will be organized, trained, equipped and uniformed the same as regular Army. The Congress exercised its power to raise armies first by creating the regular Army, then later (1916) by specifying that the National Guard (the organized militia) shall be the primary reserve force of that Army, and still later by creating what ultimately became the US Army Reserve. In the process, the provisions contained in the Dick Act have been superceded and replaced by other provisions. As I wrote in my last post, one may criticize the path Congress has taken - specifically the dual-missioning of the National Guard - on policy grounds (although I think in practical terms such criticisms would not be well founded), but one cannot reasonably claim that the National Guard is not the militia. The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe the organization of the militia, and Congress did so in the manner I described. So, by the only definition that matters - that found in the Constitution - the National Guard is the militia.

Your uniform when you were in the National Guard said "US Army." So what? In providing for the organization, etc of the militia, Congress provided that the militia would wear the uniform of the US Army - part of which is the words "US Army" above your breast pocket. That changes nothing: The National Guard is still the militia, partly because Congress says so, but also because it retains all of the indicia of the militia: The States appoint the officers - including the commander of the National Guard in each State, the Adjutant General, who is a State employee appointed by the Governor (or elected in some places) and paid by the respective States; the National Guard is commanded (except when Federalized as provided for in the Constitution) by the State Governor through the Adjutant General, whom he or she appoints; and the National Guard has near total responsibility for all domestic missions, and it exercises these missions under State control.

Bottom line: The Dick Act, while an extremely important phase of the development of the Guard, no longer serves as the legal basis or organizational framework of the militia/National Guard.

Anyway, good post, and thanks for your comments. Hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving and hope you enjoyed your time in the National Guard. Maybe you should sign up again, we could use you.

Best of luck for the New Year -

Yours -

Dennis Chapman

PS - for Bill Brown: What your ROTC manual stated was a venerable tradition but not the law of the land at that time - and certainly not such now.

came to the very disturbing but unavoidable conclusion that police and prosecutors are unmoved by any self-defense based arguments in favor of gun ownership, or a by a citizen's right to self-defense at all.

Exactly. And that is why police chiefs are always standing with big city politicans calling for more gun control. Disgraceful.

Dennis - your posts are articulate - and missing the most important point of argument surrounding the difference between the National Guard and "the militia", which is illustrated by my admonition to "go read the sign on the fence": the NG will do what the Administration says. As in Iraq, they are a Federal force. If and when it becomes necessary to act against a government acting in violation of the Constitution, this will become apparent. More later.

-----

"Especially as I am not getting permission to buy a gun. They are merely making sure that there isn't good reason not to sell me a gun."

DuWayne, that's the damndest example of Newspeak anyone has attempted to use on me. Here's your "good reason": "You ain't got the right skin color, boy!"

It's been done. Such things are being done right now to law-abiding people all over the country, especially in states that are not "shall-issue".

DuWayne,

That's kind of a long-winded way of saying "it's just a conjecture", isn't it?

Radwaste -

That's funny, I thought the exact same thing about your line that they give us permission. It's all about how you spin it!

Good reason number one; Nasty, violent criminal record. Good reason number two; Your fucking nuts. Good reason number three; You have threatened someone to the point that they needed the law to intervene.

Not such a good reason; Wrong skin colour. Not such a good reason; look's like a hippy/fag/commie/anyone I don't like. Also not a legitimate or legal reason not to allow someone the right to have a gun. I'm sorry it happens, when it does it should be stopped. Doesn't mean I want to see any and every nutjob/crook walking into the local gunshop and buying a fucking arsenal. Nor do they have any legitimate right to.

Look at it this way, you could make all the same arguments about vehicle registration and drivers licenses. Indeed such registration is routinely used to confiscate vehicles from people who lose the privilege. Hell the same could be said of licensing tradesmen. Some places restrict the sales of certain tools and materials to those with a license to install. Is it all a fascist plot? Give me a fucking break.

Kirk -

Certainly not on my part. I'm not a lawyer, but when it was explained to me that way by one, it made a lot of sense.

DuWayne,

"Making a lot of sense" is by no means incompatible with being a conjecture. My question is different--sorry if that wasn't clear: is there statutory law in any state that spells this out, or one or more actual court cases where the outcome depended on this point?

In the virtual circles where I hang out, it's normal when offering the kind of recommendations you made, to back it up with either (a) citations of actual federal or state laws that illustrate the claim you're making, or (b) citations of actual case law where a decision turned upon the point of your recommendation. Otherwise, it's just unsubstantiated words from a complete stranger on the internet, and there's an awful lot of folk wisdom out that that is far from true.

Let me illustrate it with this example: you'll frequently hear folks claim that for self-defense ammo you should always carry whatever brand your local police department carries, to avoid legal issues. But never has any person making this assertion been able to point to an actual case where brand-of-ammo was even a question, much less made the difference between a ruling of valid self-defense versus manslaughter or worse.

In contrast, if you were to talk about, say, whether or not the peaceful open carry of a firearm constituted "brandishing" or "disturbing the peace", I could cite for you an actual court decision on the subject. See the difference?

Oops, I somehow left out "in Washington State" from that last bit.

Kirk -

I am not a lawyer, as I mentioned. I do not know of case law involving this question. I took it on the word of two lawyers I know, one of whom explained it with an illustration similar to that which I used.

Honestly, I would recommend that one use necessary force to protect themselves and their family. If it is applicable a restraining order would certainly not hurt their case. The only possible effect it could have under the circumstances would be a positive one.

I would also note that a restraining order would make it highly unlikely that the case would ever go to court. And if it did, I would imagine that most juries would be hard pressed to find the defendant guilty. Which may well be the logic that the lawyer's recommendations were based on.

My ex is dead. That said, I have to politely disagree about restraining orders being worthless pieces of paper. No, it's not going to stop the truly psychotic but, as pointed out above, it does leave a paper trail that will help your self-defense claim and will deter those a little less crazy and, further, they put the perpetrator on notice that you refuse to be their victim any longer. When I separated and divorced, I got one against the man (and I use the term man loosley) I was divorcing. It deterred him to some extent though not entirely. It is true you need to be able to defend yourself but I think women are too trained to be intimidated and that's a real plus of all these proliferating self-defense classes. They are teaching women they can protect themselves against someone twice their size (and no a gun isn't the only way to stop them) and are also a deterrent because, let's face it, only cowards bully someone they perceive weak and defenseless. If they even think their intended victim might fight back, they'll be less likely to attack. You have to however keep up the show of strength displayed when leaving them and getting the restraining order; they have to know you will continue to be strong and defend yourself. After restraining order and divorce final, my ex caught me aside with no witness in ear shot (yes, I know he wasn't supposed to be able to do that) and intoned, "They're going to find you dead in the street." After four years of marriage, he should have known me better. One sure way to get my dander up is to threaten me. I go on the defensive big time, or perhaps I should say offensive. I looked him in the eye and said with dead calm, "Try it and we'll see who they find dead in the street." I meant it 110% and he must have sensed that I did or at least being the unmanly coward he was didn't want to risk it because he never did try it. Ironically, 10 years later they did find him dead in the street. But from from his own hand. Not sure where I stand on the gun control issue. Wish the damned things didn't exist but they do. Mostly, I suspect that the best solution lies somewhere between no one should have them and give them to anyone who wants them and we need to hammer that solution out as a society if we are to remain a society so discussions like this one are necessary and good. I do know I am damned glad he had one that day (when I got the news he'd shot himself, I was rather macabre, going about like I won the lotto and given my choice of the two, I got the one I'd have picked) though admittedly if you'd ask the day before should my ex have a gun, I'd have shouted hell, no, are you crazy?

"Americans are a uniquely violent people". Brian, which peoples are the third most violent? Which peoples are fifth least violent? Are naturalized Americans more uniquely violent than native born Americans? How do Native Americans compare to native Americans? Which peoples in the world were the most uniquely violent before they were surpassed by Americans? How does edged-weapon violence compare to all other unique violences, excluding firearm violences? How does the unique violence of Americans who go to live permanently in other countries compare with people from those same countries who come to live here permanently?

Americans are not uniquely violent, human beings are. Have you thought about why this is so? Why are some people able to master themselves and others choose, or are unable to choose not to? As right and wrong is lawyered aside and turned inside out in favor of legal and illegal, behaviour sours and sickens. There is a criminal ethic in place which says, "It's only wrong if you get caught." I disagree with this. There is an also ethic which says if my self interest in a particular whatsoever is not against the law, it is therefore not wrong, and is permissible. I believe this equally reprehensible.

At this link http://newcriterion.com:81/archive/13/jun95/silber.htm you will read: " Lord Moulton considered the area of action lying between law and pure personal preference to be “the domain of obedience to the unenforceable.” In this domain, he said, “Obedience is the obedience of a man to that which he cannot be forced to obey. He is the enforcer of the law upon himself.” This domain between law and free choice he called that of “manners.” While it may include moral duty, social responsibility, and proper behavior, it extends beyond them to cover “all cases of doing right where there is no one to make you do it but yourself.”

Taking the means of committing violence away from those who do not take from themselves the intent to commit violence only shuffles the deck of weapons. Who among us will cite the laws against murder as the reason we do not commit murder?

Broadsword -

Look at violent crime statistics. Excepting places where violence against women isn't considered a bad thing, we lead the pack. Yes, humanity is violent. But Americans bring it to a new level.

And I'd be willing to wager dinner and a beer that you will find that at least a plurality, if not a majority, of Americans would say that the only reason they haven't killed someone is because it is illegal. I would, perhaps, include in this those who don't kill because it would be 'a sin' -- the fear of judgment is what I'm after here.

I think it is a true minority of humans (never mind Americans) that think it is wrong to kill because it is wrong to kill.

Anyone making the "National Guard is the militia" case is arguing in circles unless they want to make the argument that the framers needed the second amendment in order to give Congress the power to arm the NG.

Even to make the "states' rights" argument is a burden too heavy to bear, as within the document itself:

The use of the word "people" is consistent only with individuals.

The use of the word "right" is consistent only with individuals.

The placement, second among a list of nine or ten (recognizing the split in the tenth) amendments serving only to expand the rights of individuals and limit the rights of government.

There remains no convincing intellectual support for any position but that the second amendment codifies a personal right to keep and bear arms. That argument is done.

I'll be posting over the next fews days thoughts on the effects of the outcome that the District and Brady Campaign are working towards: What happens if the second amendment makes the various state militias superior to all other armed forces of the United States as is (allegedly) contemplated by the amendatory language "…the right…shall not be infringed."?

Until then, this contains links to other considerations of the case

SCOTUS Discovers 2nd Amendment; Decides It Needs Attention

[...]

I just don't see any problems with the state knowing how many and what kind of handguns I own. Honestly, I wouldn't care if they knew about the shotguns and rifles too - they just haven't asked. I really don't see a negative, while there are some, reasonable positives.
-DuWayne

>>>>>

I see few benefits coming from the government having a list of law-abiding citizens who legally own firearms. It seems like the kind of thing that would require a great deal of effort to keep current and would be useful in only a very few situations*. This is not speculation ex ano, it is based on what our northern neighbors in Canada have experienced with their registration system. And they have a tenth of our population, and a much smaller number of firearms to keep track of.

IMO, it would be much better for the government to concentrate on keeping a list of convicted miscreants who have forfeited certain rights on account of their own actions. This would be a much, much shorter list, and it is far more compatible with my preference for measures that place the burden of compliance on those who have committed offenses. Penalizing the law-abiding due to the actions of criminals is a slow road to hell.

*Feel free to give examples if you can think of some, the only one I can think of is returning stolen property to it's rightful owner.

via InstaPundit, WITH SOME PRODDING FROM EUGENE VOLOKH, the BBC has revised its bogus gun statistics.

Sure, I've got questions, for instance, why did you leave out the information that gun violence has increased 110% since the UK gun ban?

Also, why did he leave out related stats re the UK's rapid increase of "hot" robberies, where the perps invade your home while you're there [b/c they don't fear being shot] and then help themselves to your wife and daughter during the robbery.

DuWayne -

Here's another good reason to be against registration.

Incompetence. Brute, industrial-grade incompetence.

In the UK, the insurance records, and possibly financial records of some 25 million people were lost in INTERNAL MAIL in some department.

Do you think that knowing where all the guns are might be useful to someone outside government? Do you want to make it THAT easy for them?

Folks, the precedent which allows a locality to be more restrictive of firearm ownership rights than the Constitution allows is Morton Grove v. Quilici. That said, 45 states have passed "pre-emption" laws, forbidding localities from doing what Morton Grove did. This is because enforcing the laws of every burg in a state is almost impossible. It also keeps towns from defying State authority by mandating firearm possession if the State forbids it. It's still a power struggle more than it is about "rights".

----

"There is a big difference between confiscating handguns and confiscating automatic weapons. That said, I don't agree with assault weapon bans."

DuWayne, it looks like you should look up both the term, "Assault Weapon" and the associated acts of Congress and the several state legislatures. The AW Ban of 1994 ban was based on cosmetic features. Then, the state of California decided that the relatively cheap, but effective SKS rifle (caliber 7.62 x 39mm) should be confiscated from everyone. They were legal; they were registered; they became "politically incorrect" and then illegal. Those measures were simple political grandstanding. All this time, far more effective weapons remain legal in the state of California. Fully automatic weapons - possessed by Federal license holders - have not been addressed by the State of California. Yes, you may own a real M-60 machine gun in CA!

In 1991, the NYC City Council banned and thereby confiscated semi-auto weapons like the M1 Garand. This was enabled by a registration program, which was "sold" to the public as a "safety measure", including promises that the legality of such would not be threatened. NYC lied - and the great irony is that the bulk of these belonged to veterans, who freed Jews from concentration camps and who were allowed to take their service rifle home with them. They were criminalized by political events, not real ones.

-----

If you'd like to see what is available to the public, see gunsamerica.com. In the index, cruise over to the Class 3 weapons, and prepare to be surprised. If you'd like to see what your state's laws are, go to packing.org.

-----

One more time: if you have to get permission from a government agent to possess something, calling it something else will not change the fact that you had to get permission. Definitions are important. Look at www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=632 to see what happens when a government official is clueless.

I see something else which could stand a little light shed on it: "Given this ambiguous text, it is easy to understand the appeal of the Militia doctrine, which holds that the 2nd Amendment was intended only to facilitate the maintenance of militias, which at the time of the Constitutional Convention formed the bulk of our country's security forces."

This appallingly bad description of the 2nd Amendment - "ambiguous text" - can only be ventured by someone completely ignorant, or for some reason dismissive of the arguments in and around Congress during debate on the subject - and in fact, of the nature of the Constitution itself. Gun confiscation by the British took guns from individuals, not a standing force of any kind. The Constitution and its Amendments are NOT restrictions on or instructions for individuals: it is a restriction on government. These things are easy to see. Why would someone ignore them?

I consider it intellectual laziness at best for anyone to fail to consider what has occurred over the years, and to consider what rights really are. Argument frequently centers on the concept of "collective" rights; the argument about the NG being the Founders' "militia" is rooted in this. Pray tell, how can a "collective" right be established if no individual right exists? All rights stem from the existence of individual rights, without which you cannot form any collective body. Further, rights do not depend on objects to exist: "arms" does not mean that a specific device, be it slingshot, 12-gauge or phaser, is a test point for whether you have a right. Confusion about this has allowed all sorts of "yes, but..." exceptions and the current total mess of firearms laws.

Did you guys know that until 1968, every high school in NYC had a rifle team? I think there's a continuing effort to see that ordinary people are incompetent to do anything but be consumers. And how can anyone disagree when said consumers are so focused on the latest distraction to even learn who their representatives are, much less what is in the laws they propose?

One of the best gun crime laws on the books is California's 10-20-life law. You get 10 years minimum in prison for using a gun during a robbery; 20 years for discharging the gun; and life in prison for killing someone using a gun.

Has anybody studied this and found it's deterred people from using guns to commit crimes?

I suspect criminals aren't going all Robert H. Frank, weighing small, short term gains versus greater benefits in the longterm.

From Frank's Passions Within Reason:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393026043?ie=UTF8&tag=advicegoddess-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0393026043

Sorry, I really don't have time to respond to everything here, I am gracefully bowing out of the discussion. I would point out though, that even the NRA (of which I would still be a member, if I had money to spend on it) is not averse to some gun control laws. Indeed, they are are currently working on behalf of a Schumer/McCarthy gun control bill. While I imagine that I am comfortable with more than they are, I am not all that far from their position.

I must say that I find it amusing that I am getting hammered for supporting registration laws here, while I have been getting hammered for supporting the repeal of the DC ban on another forum. It's rather refreshing here, as on one forum, I was accused of being a guncrazed, redneck racist.

DuWayne, I appreciate your grace and your concerns. You are by no means uncommon in your desire to see effective laws. This is simply a subject where uncommon care with the law, and with actual thought about the circumstances is necessary. Let me depersonalize this at the same time I quote you about registration laws:

"No, but they can (and in many states do) make it illegal for anyone to possess unregistered handguns.

The reason I asked the blog what they think "registration" means was an attempt to address this common sentiment. Unfortunately, I have to elaborate.

When a career criminal selects a weapon, secondary laws are of little import. The intended crimes commonly featuring a firearm are robbery, rape, murder and assorted other things like aggravated assault, in the case the gun is pointed but not used, and "brandishing", where it is openly displayed as a threat. The penalties are much more severe for these crimes than a violation of a registration law, typically presented as "unlawful possession".

But let us look at what a "registration" law, producing "unlawful possession" charges, really means.

If you have more than one gun, you must find ways to see that they are not in the custody of others - that means that if you're not there, they're locked away, even from other family members. Consider your home and car, and the ways your family and friends use them, and you can see right away this is a problem (manufactured by the law, not an inherent one). If you leave the gun in your car when you go into the bank, and a person is in the car, you are breaking the law. If you leave an unsecured firearm in your house, because your carefully-considered tactical security plan makes access necessary, and anyone else is home, you break the law. If you hold your wife's pistol, take it to the shop or do anything else with it in her absence, you break the law.

Sadly, these are not merely scenarios. The letter of badly-written laws makes these violations commonplace, because the authors of such laws have the criminal, fleeing from a crime scene, in mind, never realizing that the vast bulk of gun handling - even by criminals - is totally innocent. Careless thinking has even allowed the insanity of attempts to hold gun owners whose firearms are stolen, not just manufacturers, liable for any subsequent criminal use of the gun. By this "logic", you should pay for the property damage, injuries and criminal violations committed by a thug who steals your car. Please note that your car is not only registered, but titled, and nothing whatsoever prevents its criminal misuse.

If registration actually had or has an effect on crime, it should be easy to produce studies that show a cause/effect link to such efficacy. It isn't because there isn't such an effect. Life is not Hollywood. We do not get to say, "The gun was registered to you, Mr. Smith. Book 'em, Dano!" when someone is shot. We do not get to say any particular person had custody of a gun found in a carful of thugs, either, no matter where the gun came from. Only careful thinking can resolve this problem, now artificially inflated because of sensational reporting of the use of a tool over 400 years old, and having a "modern" configuration over 100 years old.

The problem is us, because of the ways we think, not our tools.