Month: July 2003

Randy Barnett Makes an Excellent Point

Randy’s been guest-blogging for Glenn Reynolds at GlennReynolds.com over at MSNBC. I commented on an earlier post below. His most recent entry is about “reasonable regulation,” and it’s a good read. Some excerpts:

Several readers have offered comments on the issue of “reasonable regulation,” which I said no individual rights scholar claims to be any more objectionable than time, place, and manner regulations of speech. They only insist that, under the Second Amendment, such regulations would be subject to the same judicial scrutiny as regulations on speech and the press. No more, and no less.

That had been my position prior to what it is now: This far, no further until the right is recognized as individual and protected under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment against infringement by the states. Randy has something to say about that, too:

There is less gun regulation today precisely because the right to bear arms is not protected by courts. Because prohibition and confiscation are not off the table – constitutionally speaking – gun-rights advocates feel the need to resist politically almost every gun regulation being proposed as a stepping stone toward prohibition and confiscation.

—

Here then is the irony: If those who truly believe in the necessity of some gun regulations would only concede that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right, and the courts would accept this position as well, gun owners would relax and many more regulations – even unreasonable ones – would pass. Those who sincerely believe in gun regulation should urge the courts to protect the right to arms. We will only reach a “middle ground” when the right to keep and bear arms is secure.

And he’s right – especially about “even unreasonable ones.” If our guard is down, (as it has been regarding the Fourth and Fifth amendments when it comes to “The War on (some) Drugs” and now “The War on Terror”) then we’ll let our legislatures pass laws that we otherwise would not. It is because the courts have not recognized the Second Amendment as protecting a fundamental, individual right that we are ever-vigilant against ever-increasing infringement of that right.

Perhaps the NRA’s maneuverings aren’t as self-serving as they often appear to be.

He has much more to say, especially about registration, but he ignores the sheer logistical idiocy of the task in favor of discussing the risk of future confiscation. (I prefer to cover all the bases, myself. I’ll cut him some slack because he did comment about the length of his post.)

Larry Elder Notwithstanding, I Still See Only a Dime’s Worth of Difference

Cox & Forkum (of course)

And I’m not alone.

I’m not yet willing to entertain the idea of voting for someone other than Dubya next year.

But it’s not a done-deal, either.

I Bet the Decision Gave Him Heartburn, Too.

Judge Jack B. Weinstein, after a jury found manufacturers not at fault, rendered his decision in NAACP v. AA Arms Inc. saying (according to this Washington Times report):

While agreeing there is “clear and convincing evidence” that gun dealers are guilty of “careless practices,” U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein ruled that members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People were not “uniquely harmed” by illegal use of firearms.

“Pish, tosh! A mere technicality!” squawks the anti-gun crowd. While the defense of this lawsuit cost the defendants upwards of $10 million.

This isn’t just an effort to legislate through the courts, it’s also an effort to bankrupt the manufacturers.

If you’re interested in reading the decision, it’s available here in four parts in Adobe PDF format.

I haven’t had time to read the whole thing, but these stood out:

That the industry has improved its practices in recent years was demonstrated by defendants. The number of individuals and entities licensed to sell firearms at the distributor or dealer level, FFLs, has been sharply reduced, making supervision by the ATF, manufacturers, and distributors easier.

That’s not an “improved practice” of the industry but the result of ATF rules changes. And yes, it does make supervision by the ATF easier. Supervision by the manufacturers isn’t part of their job description. The distributors are supposed to comply with the applicable laws. Then there’s this:

Members of the industry continue to fail to take many obvious and easily implemented steps, such as requiring retailers to avoid multiple or repeat sales to the same customers. Such steps are an effective way of checking illegal handgun diversion as revealed by the fact that Virginia, which was a major supplier of illegal hanguns to New York, almost immediately largely choked off that supply when it enacted a law limiting multiple sales to the same person.

What happened to the BATF investigating multiple sales? Sellers already have to report multiple purchases to the BATF. What the hell are they doing with the information? Wouldn’t it be better to investigate multiple purchasers and prosecute them if they prove to be gunrunners? Where is the law enforcement liability here?

And finally:

In short, the NAACP has demonstrated the great harm done to the New York public by the use and threat of use of illegally available handguns in urban communities. It also has shown that the diversion of large numbers of handguns into the secondary illegal market, and subsequently into dangerous criminal activities could be substantially reduced through policies voluntarily adopted by manufacturers and distributors of handguns without additional legislation.

Apparently the good judge hasn’t taken Economics 101. The one Father Guido Sarducci sums up succinctly in his “Five-minute University” bit as “Supply and-a Demand. That’s it.”

Ask the English all about Supply and-a Demand, Judge. The market will be served.

Can We Hang the Remains From those Big Swords?

According to this AP report:

“We are certain that Odai and Qusai were killed today,” said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez at a news conference in Baghdad. “The bodies were in such a condition where you could identify them.”

Well, there goes two biological weapons.

You Go, Girl! – Updated

I was going to comment on English farmer Tony Martin’s impending release on parole, but Rachel Lucas beat me to it. I can’t better that.

A “danger to burglars”. Heh. I certainly hope so.

Update:

Reading around, I found Spoon’s commentary on this. (Sometimes I wonder why I bother when it’s done so much better by so many others.) Money quote:

Americans are rightly grateful for the assistance that the British have provided over the past year. It would be a mistake, though, for us to let that gratitude blind us to the fact that Britain is becoming culturally every bit as alien to us as France or Germany. A shared language and a strong leader can slow Britain’s drift away from us, but they can’t stop it. Britain is a European country. Sooner or later, they’re going to give us cause to remember that. Hopefully, when that does happen, our own leaders won’t have put us in a position to let that damage America’s interests.

Go read the whole thing.

Now HERE’s an Interesting Idea

Randy Barnett, Boston School of Law professor, filled in for Glenn Reynolds for his MSNBC column, GlennReynolds.com. His two posts were about the right to arms, and I recommend you read both as they adress the anti-gun argument that the Second Amendment is meaningless because we don’t have a “well-regulated militia” anymore. The first piece is here, and the second is here.

Money quote:

So what would Congress be able to do, if it wished, to organize the militia? Here is my suggestion:

Suppose Congress required the local National Guard (the “organized militia”) to organize monthly shooting instruction in small arms — including sidearms and automatic rifles — using weapons supplied by the Guard in government-built local shooting ranges. To be eligible, you would need to be a citizen and to pay at least the cost of the ammunition you would expend. A gun-safety lecture before each session would be mandatory. Do you suppose such shooting sessions would be popular and well-attended? I sure do. I think it would be wildly popular. The government could even make money selling official “U.S. Militia” paraphernalia. And it would all be perfectly constitutional.

As a result, citizen volunteers would be made to feel a part of the militia responsible for collective and personal self-defense. Being entirely voluntary, no one would need to conscientiously object. But tens of thousands of American citizens would also receive instruction in gun safety that could be highly beneficial and save lives. Although I am not a gun owner, I have taken a gun-safety course and it was very illuminating and even chastening. A carrot here would be far more effective than a stick in getting millions of current gun owners to learn more about gun safety.

That is an excellent idea.

Well, if the Press Actually Gets it Right, This Time

MSNBC is reporting that “Saddam Hussein’s sons Udai and Qusai Hussein were “likely” captured or killed in a U.S. raid in northern Iraq Tuesday.”

That’d be a relief.

Maybe they can tell us what happened to Daddy.

Fox News reports:

MOSUL, Iraq — U.S. soldiers stormed a house in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul (search) Tuesday, killing four key allies of Saddam Hussein (search) who were hiding inside, and a U.S. official told Reuters there was a “decent chance” that Saddam’s sons were inside.

The house, a large villa, belonged to Saddam’s cousin, and it was burned to the ground after a loud, four-hour gunbattle.

Residents of the city, 280 miles north of Baghdad, said the American soldiers were searching for Saddam’s sons, Qusai and Udai, who have been reported in the area.

“Individuals of very high interest to the coalition forces were hiding out in the building,” Lt. Col. William Bishop of the 101st Airborne Division told Reuters.

So, a definite possibility of a probable maybe?

More Cartoons! (Beats writing another essay!)

Artist is Larry Wright, Detroit News

Chip Bok, Akron Beacon-Journal

J.D. Crowe, Mobile (AL) Register

John Deering, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Mike Ritter, Arizona Tribune

And here’s what I have to put up with in my local yellow-rag (and just one more reason I don’t subscribe): Dave Fitzsimmons, The Arizona Daily (Red) Star

WoHoo! 10,000 Hits!

This morning at about 10:58 Mountain Standard Time (this is Arizona, after all) The Smallest Minority received it’s 10,000th hit. Somebody from Virginia Tech’s server.

I really have to post more, don’t I?

Must Be Something in the Memphis Water

AlphaPatriot points to this story about the sixth home-defense shooting in five weeks in Memphis. Excerpt:

This is what happened about 2 a.m. Friday, according to a police report:

The robber took a screen off a back room window of the house, raised the window and crawled inside. He confronted the homeowner, Estella Schaefer, 65, and demanded money. He apparently was not armed.

It took Schaefer 15-20 minutes to look for money as he waited and she then gave him $200 in cash.

The robber told Schaefer, “‘I know you’ve got more money than that. Someone told me,'” the police report says.

That’s when Schaefer reached into her china cabinet and pulled a .32-caliber black revolver, shooting twice at the robber as he ran toward her to take the gun away from her.

He failed to get the gun, but Schaefer was cut on her left knuckle during the struggle. She declined medical assistance.

The robber ran out a side door and north on Meagher.

Police found a trail of blood going out of the house and for about half a block on a sidewalk on Meagher. They believe the robber was wounded.

Schaefer, who could not be reached by The Commercial Appeal for comment, told police that she didn’t know if she hit the robber with either shot and had never seen him before.

Police described him as a black man in his mid- to late 20s, standing 5-foot-7 and weighing about 200 pounds.

Now, let’s see what we have here:

A 65 year-old woman.

A 20-something 200 lb. male.

A loaded .32 caliber revolver “unsafely” stored in a china cabinet. (And, being a .32, it would most probably qualify as an evil, useless “Saturday Night Special” with no “sporting purpose.”)

Per normal police recommendations, the woman tried to comply with her assailant’s demands – after all, she gave him $200. It wasn’t enough. THEN she resisted.

Results?

The woman was able to get to her weapon. (“Safe storage” would have made her gun unavailable to her.)

A minor injury on the part of the 65 year-old woman.

The gun wasn’t taken from her by the younger, much larger male.

The younger, much larger male most probably has at least one and probably two .32 caliber holes in him.

The younger, much larger male left the premises.

But we’re told that women using handguns for self defense is a myth. Yes, according to the Violence Policy Center “The false message…was clear: the greatest threat posed to a woman was an attack by a stranger and, the best form of protection a woman could rely upon was a handgun.”

Now, just who is spreading a “false message?”

One other thing: Note in the VPC fear-mongering piece that they limit themselves to women killing their assailants. No mention is made of what actually defines a successful self-defense: Making your attacker STOP. Ms. Schaefer’s assailant may not (probably will not) die as a result of his injuries. But he was stopped. But to those valiant defenders of life at the Violence Policy Center, that doesn’t count.

And another: In D.C. what this woman did would be illegal. No handguns are allowed in D.C. In New York she’d have to have a pistol permit – that costs a ridiculous amount of time and money to get. (Read here for a typical example of the costs of getting a permit in NYC.) And she most probably wouldn’t get a premises permit. Without that, she’d be in jail today.

For defending her life.