who's your nanny?

More Heller Redux

Thanks to Manuel Lora for alerting us to the abominable Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, NJ and champion of a program encouraging neighborhood snitches to turn in gun owners for $1,000.

To everyone who naively believes the Heller decision was a victory for gun rights, I ask you to explain why every gun-controlling public serpent (thanks, Kent) references it when justifying his or her latest "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership. Specifically, Booker states (.pdf):

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court affirmed an individual’s right to bear arms, effectively striking down the ban on hand gun ownership enacted by the District of Columbia. In its decision, the Court clearly recognized and affirmed a government’s right to take reasonable measures to limit gun ownership in order to ensure community safety. It is within this space that we must now act.

I conclude by quoting Mr. Lora:

There’s that word again, “reasonable,” coming out of the mouth of a local tyrant, mimicking the same attitude echoed by the Supreme Court. “Sure,” they say–there are gun rights, “as long as there are reasonable restrictions.” Nothing is reasonable with the state. Including you, Mr. Booker. Maybe he should be turned in for having an entire and terribly dangerous police department. All with evil guns.

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

In my very first post on WYN, I argued that the true purpose of gun control laws was not to protect the masses as our rulers preach, but to protect our rulers from the masses. I wrote

...the State has no interest in protecting our inalienable right to self-defense because the State knows that if its subjects have access to the same sorts of weapons as the State possesses, it cannot rule over its subjects' lives as it does now. Any action of the State which its subjects could potentially interpret as a usurpation of liberty would risk violence against the State. The State knows this and uses its coercive force to regulate our "right."

I finally found a candid admission of this. D.C. attorney general Peter Nickles is arguing that presidential and other motorcades will be exposed to high-powered arms fire if the District’s strict gun laws are made less stringent by Congress. In a letter to delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Nickles wrote

[g]overnment facilities, dignitaries and public servants are prime targets for terrorists, both foreign and domestic....But in Washington, D.C., the likelihood of attack is higher and the challenges to protecting the city are greater.

The message is clear: the lives of State dignitaries and public officials are worth more than the lives of the masses of the people. If the citizens of Washington, DC, have to live in fear of being killed by robbers because they cannot legally bear arms and their local police force does not have to protect them anyway, then that's a sacrifice the people have to make. The State cannot risk the possibility that the people might wake up from their dogmatic slumber and realize that their rulers are in fact the cause of their suffering. Such is life on the farm where all are equal but some are more equal than others.

Are You a Member of the K.O.O.K.S?

Michael Gaddy has a very interesting article up on LewRockwell.com. He writes

Lately, I have become increasingly skeptical of the timing and circumstances surrounding mass shootings. Any investigator worth his/her salt would question how, within a short time of the state indicating its intention of prohibiting the sale of a certain type firearm, a mass murder occurs in which that type weapon is used.

A prudent individual, unencumbered with emotional or financial connections to the state, cannot logically ignore the similarities in many of these mass shootings.

First, there is the insane and totally explained phenomena of a person becoming angry at someone or something, and then randomly killing people they do not know.

Second, is the almost universal use of mind-altering drugs by the perpetrators of these heinous crimes? Almost all of those involved in school shootings were taking, or had just stopped taking, drugs such as Prozac or Ritalin.

Third, is the fact a great number of the shooters kill themselves after committing their heinous crimes?

Fourth, when the mass shooting does not fit the above profile, the state uses the incident to claim, as they did in the shooting this weekend in Pennsylvania, that the perpetrator feared the state was going to take his guns. This certainly aids the state in its efforts to paint all that are concerned about the possible loss of freedoms and encroachments on the 2A as potential killers and threats to society.

Why would the State provoke such "senseless" tragedies? Mr. Gaddy replies

As so eloquently stated by many of the economists at LRC, the current actions taken by the government to shore up the economy are all destined to fail. The current bailouts will fill the pockets of those who support and control the state and do nothing but lead to continued unemployment and financial chaos in this country and the world. The coming financial chaos will lead to civil unrest on a huge scale. Those who have been living on the producers in this society have been led to believe (by the state) they are entitled to the property of others and will take whatever action they deem necessary to secure it.

When millions are unemployed and businesses are failing in greater numbers than today, the state will be forced to seek other methods of revenue collection. If there were to be enacted a federal property owner’s tax, and seizures of private property were initiated to supplement the lack of collected revenue to run the state and its empire, state representatives sent to seize the property would prefer unarmed victims. The state will take the necessary steps to protect its revenue collection actions. If not, then why do we have armed IRS agents?

Another Example of How Gun Control Kills

I wanted to reprint a comment left in response to my post yesterday on the Binghamton shootings that I think is rather interesting and deserves serious consideration:

I'd like to know how long it took SWAT to enter to stop the shooting. My guess is it was after the killer had taken his own life.

The cops have no problem flash-banging their way into anyone's home and shooting, at the very least, the family pets. But put someone in a building with a gun and the cops are worried about their safety.

Columbine comes to mind. These bullies are cowards. Get rid of them!

As I've seen in other places: Arm the people, disarm the police!

Actually, this episode was over almost as quickly as it transpired -- 13 people were killed by Jiverly Voong between 10:31 and 10:33 a.m. before the shooter apparently committed suicide -- leaving police with little time to respond before the damage was done. However, this fact alone should compel most clear-thinking folks to ask a very important question: How many people would have died if it was legal for law-abiding citizens to conceal-carry firearms? Probably not more than a dozen.

It should be widely known that government police are under no legal obligation to respond to emergency situations or to protect you. But even when they do arrive on the scene, there's no guarantee they will do anything to defend innocent civilians anyhow (think the VA Tech massacre, where cops cowered behind trees and cars until the shooting stopped).

The Binghamton massacre proves once again how self-reighteous politicians and their gun control laws harm the innocent. This saying might be a cliche, but it's nevertheless true: When guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns. When they're needed most, anyway.

Gun control laws not only result in needless deaths of those who otherwise could have armed and protected themselves, but they also inoculate the people to the fact that we're all responsible for protecting ourselves and our own families in the first place, and therefore brainwash us into believing we should ultimately place our fate in the hands of the state.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd wonder if that weren't the entire goal to begin with.

NRA: Two 'Pro-Gun' Bills to Be Heard in Maryland

A friend just forwarded an NRA-ILA "alert" to me to let me know that two allegedly pro-gun bills will be heard tomorrow in the Maryland House Judiciary Committee.

One of the bills is HB 470, which would repeal the requirement of Maryland's secretary of state police to find a "good and substantial reason" to carry a handgun before issuing a permit.

The other is HB 682, which would require the secretary of police to issue "within a reasonable time" a handgun permit to anyone who has completed the TSA's Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, which allows select commercial airline crew members to carry firearms.

If there's one thing I've realized the past few years, it's that when the NRA tells you to vote in favor of a particular bill, it's a good bet you should do the opposite if you actually care about liberty and gun freedom. So let's examine both of these bills.

From what I can tell, HB 470 appears to be reliably pro-gun, given the fact that it is state-centric and concerns only Maryland's internal policies regarding the issuance of handgun permits.

One could argue that because the state has no moral right to regulate firearm use amongst free peoples, a gun bill that leaves the government with any authority whatsoever is unjust and should be voted against. On the other hand, one could also argue that relieving the state of its authority in any capacity, no matter how small, is a victory for freedom and is therefore a just act.

I can tell you from personal experience that it's almost impossible to get a carry permit in Maryland. Unless you're an agent of the state, you need to prove that you're in a unique situation that justifies the use of a handgun for self-defense. For instance, if you own a business and transport large sums of money or you're the victim of death threats, the state is more likely to grant you a carry permit than if you simply want to do something completely and utterly irrational, inflammatory, and ridiculous -- say, like carrying a gun at all times to protect yourself and your family from random and unpredictable violence.

Considering that Maryland is one of the most anti-gun states in the country, I'm not at all optimistic that HB 470 will pass, but it would be a win for freedom if it does. The state should not have the power to prevent individuals from defending themselves, but we in Maryland are apt to see outright gun confiscation before we see gun freedom. The state will tell you it issues concealed carry permits, but unless you're part of the privileged class the secretary of state police will shove your application in a drawer and that's where it will remain. So everything considered, overturning this monopolistic, fascistic tactic is undeniably a good thing.

HB 682 appears to be a much different animal, however, and I don't believe its passage would result in any meaningful increase in gun freedom. Indeed, it may account for just the opposite, as its provisions for issuance of a carry permit are tied to federal permissions. On the surface the bill may appear to give commercial pilots greater gun freedom, but it would nevertheless require the state of Maryland to be subservient to the federal government.

In short, it's bad enough that we're bound to the diktats of our state representatives; but you can't possibly relieve the government of its autonomy by further eroding a vertical separation of powers and conceding even more authority to the federal government. Moreover, this bill appears to be unconstitutional -- the state of Maryland recognizes the U.S. Constitution, and the federal government is (cough) prohibited (cough) by the Second Amendment from violating the right to bear arms.

One thing I noticed in my cursory examination of these two bills is that while both enjoy bipartisan sponsorship, HB 470 is sponsored primarily by Republicans whereas HB 682 is sponsored primarily by Democrats. I generally hold all politicians in equal contempt, but when it comes to Maryland politics, Republicans are so entrenched in the minority that they actually have a fairly decent track record of sticking to principles of limited government, low taxes, and gun rights. This just may be all you need to know to realize HB 682 is a crap bill.

So in sum, I'd say freedom will win the day tomorrow if HB 470 passes and HB 682 fails. But remember, this is Maryland. Be prepared for the exact opposite.

Who Needs Gun Bans?

The Illinois General Assembly is contemplating a bill that would force all firearm owners in the state to maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 (!), "covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person."

In short, instead of banning guns outright, Illinois legislators will simply make their ownership impossible for all but the richest individuals -- and that's assuming insurance companies would even issue such policies in the first place, as they'd apparently be on the hook for a million bucks any time a homeowner willfully defends his property from violent intruders.

I don't want to stray too far from the point at hand, which is to highlight the ease with which politicians can issue de facto bans on certain activities without actually having to legally prohibit them, but this is not a Second Amendment issue.

Contrary to popular belief, the Second Amendment (supposedly) prohibits the federal government from usurping gun freedom, not the states. While the provisions set forth by the Bill of Rights were never meant to apply to the states, the feds use the incorporation doctrine to continually seize state power. However, the right to keep and bear arms has not been legally incorporated against the states (for the moment, anyway).

I bring up this point because many pro-gun activists are apt to argue that the Constitution should prohibit Illinois from imposing this anti-gun legislation on gun owners. However, while such an overreach by the Supreme Court could give the appearance of preserving the right to bear arms in this particular instance, it would nevertheless result in an overall loss of liberty as the federal government centralized even more of its authority.

Simply put, we should never turn to government in the first place with the naive expectation that it can or should protect our freedom. Rights to life, liberty, and property are not man-made rights; they are natural rights that can neither be conferred nor upheld by the criminal state.

Until we refuse to play the role of servile slave to our government masters, we will remain unfree. And that goes for the ownership of anything from guns to goulash.

Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow up to Be Teenagers

Time for casual blogging has been scarce the past couple days as my wife and I have been tending to our one-year-old as he battles his first bout with a virus presenting gifts of vomiting and diarrhea, but I had to make time for this police state update from Radley Balko.

Regular readers of this blog are probably well acquainted with the excesses of Maryland's state and local SWAT teams (see here, here, and here for a refresher), but when more than a dozen domestic terrorists can legally storm your house over a teenage boy's misdemeanor marijuana charge, you can be pretty confident that private property rights are a thing of the past.

Here's a snippet of the story, as described by the boy's mother and victim of the Maryland State Police raid:

... At about 3:30 a.m.on January 10, 2008 approximately 16 Swat Team Members of the Maryland State Police entered our home with force with M-16s at the ready. Please note that we are the only county in Maryland that does not have a county police department. While the M-16s were drawn they handcuffed four of us (my oldest son has been living with his girlfriend for sometime now) this includes my 12 year old son. ...

Be sure to read it all for yourself, but note that the woman says police confiscated a shotgun her husband has had since he was 18 after they found a trace amount of pot in the basement.

It is no coincidence that the state confiscates our weapons at every possible opportunity. Not only is a disarmed citizenry more susceptible to the tyrannical edicts of its rulers, but it's also less capable of overthrowing the statist thugs when people finally realize they've had enough.

The only real question I have is, what's it going to take for people to put an end to their own subjugation? What hope is there for liberty when we increasingly permit the state's goon squads to terrorize innocent, nonviolent individuals, pretending that violently invading private homes with automatic weapons is actually less of a crime than smoking a harmless fucking plant?

I don't know if I'll come down with whatever's ailing my little boy, but I've already got a head start on the nausea.

Some People Need to Get a Life

Politics: From the Latin meaning, "catering to imbeciles."

Kirstin Gillibrand, the pro-gun senator recently appointed by Gov. David "Ain't Nothin' I Won't Tax" Paterson, has apparently caused quite a stir amongst some of her state's more vapid citizens by disclosing in an interview that she has moved two rifles she once kept under her bed.

Here's a good one:

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola), a gun-control activist threatening a primary challenge to Gillibrand over her pro-gun stance, said Friday said she does not criticize legally owned guns. McCarthy added, "I hope the guns didn't have bullets in them."

Because we all know guns do a lot of good without bullets. I suppose this might make sense if burglars and rapists were known for admiring collectible firearms before, you know, murdering us.

This one's even better:

"I am very upset about the whole thing," said Joyce Gorycki of Mineola, widow of a Long Island Rail Road official killed in the 1993 train shooting and co-chair of Long Island's New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. "I don't know why she needs two rifles."

Joyce, no doubt Gillibrand's wondering why this is any of your damned business.

Bills Running Back Arrested for Felony Gun Possession

Buffalo Bills running back Marshawn Lynch was arrested in California for possession of a concealed firearm. Even though he used it to harm no one.

Tell me if you think this story's a little messed up:

The Culver City Police Department on Sunday afternoon released a brief statement with details of the arrest. The statement noted officers spotted three men in a 2006 Mercedes Benz and recognized Lynch as the Bills' running back.

"A subsequent field investigation led to the discovery of a loaded firearm," the report said. "The officers determined the gun belonged to Lynch and he was arrested for possession of a concealed firearm."

If I'm reading this correctly, police officers pulled over the Mercedes essentially because they recognized a celebrity. Perhaps being a pro football player qualifies as probable cause these days.

Sure, you might thinking, "But it turned out Lynch was breaking the law!" If that's your argument, I'd point out that instituting martial law would allow the state to nab a whole lot more "criminals" than it already does. Heck, you pass enough laws, we'll all become criminals eventually. Sadly, it seems we're headed down that road.

The point is, Marshawn Lynch -- for whatever his reputation -- violated no one's rights by allegedly carrying a firearm in a car. And come to think of it, automobiles have been used pretty frequently to do exactly that, though we haven't banned them (yet).

Just keeping it real, homies.

Back in the U.S.S.A.

Will Grigg on using the U.S. military to enforce the disarmament of American civilians.

In September 2006, on the same day the Bush Regime effectively dismantled the habeas corpus guarantee, it inflicted what may be lethal injury to the Posse Comitatus Act as well by providing the president with the means to make the National Guard units of all 50 states into his personal army, to be deployed domestically in any way he sees fit. At least three combat brigades are now assigned to domestic duty as a homeland security force under Northern Command.

Those troops would supposedly be used for the sole purpose of dealing with catastrophic events, such as terrorism involving the use of non-conventional weapons; however, the initial report indicated that these combat veterans, during their domestic deployment, would be equipped and trained to deal with crowd control and other population management tasks. This is why the unit would be outfitted with "non-lethal" weaponry, in addition to the conventional variety.

It sure looks like "Over There" has become "over here."

"No constitutional right is absolute..."

So says District of Criminals councilwoman Mary Cheh as DC passes more regulations tightening gun laws after the atrocious Heller decision.

You show 'em, Mary! Only the diktats of tyrannical politicians are absolute!

<yawn>

If only someone could have predicted this!!

(Thanks to Dan)

Criminal-Industrial Complex?

Is that how we should refer to private interest groups that work with the state to increase crime? Because that's exactly what will happen if companies like Ammunition Accountability convince the government to completely regulate away our right to self-defense.

I'm not a fan of the NRA, but it has released a press release containing a good description of how mandatory ammo serialization would increase crime.

... Criminals already steal guns and would certainly steal ammunition.  Burglaries would be encouraged.  Criminals could also use shotguns, which fire pellets too small to encode, and which use shell casings made of plastic, which would be difficult to engrave.  Criminals could also collect ammunition cases from shooting ranges, and reload them with molten lead bullets made without serial numbers.

Thanks to Kramer for the link.

Again, Get Your Guns Now

I reiterate what I said back in October, given Barack Obama's recent comments. According to the Chicago Sun-Times:

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."

Oh boy.

In the words of Lew Rockwell, from whom I learned of this story: "Always believe the opposite of what state officials tell you, and the corollary, always do the opposite of what they advise you."

The Constitution Is Meaningless

As regular readers of this blog may very well know, I'm no fan of the Constitution. Sure, we'd have more freedom today than we actually do if representatives of our federal government at least pretended to respect the limitations on power that the founders outlined, but any legal document that allows the state to collect taxes lays the foundation for a society that ultimately will be overrun by tyranny.

Simply put, for all its good intentions, the Constitution itself allows for the very abuses of authority that have contributed to its own irrelevance.

As if this weren't bad enough, decades of judicial misinterpretation also have ensured that there's very little chance of regaining liberty lost through both the intentional and unwitting mischaracterization of original precedent. And what's the point of having a constitution if its tenets can be widely misconstrued in courts of law and such misrepresentations then go on to become the new laws of the land?

Nothing better illustrates this tendency than some of the reaction to the Plaxico Burress gun incident. For example, libertarian Dave Kopel writes in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that while Burress's conduct may have been careless, his prosecution over merely possessing a firearm without a license is "unjust and perhaps unconstitutional."

To be sure, the treatment of Plaxico Burress is entirely unjust, as he is being raked over the coals despite doing no harm to anyone other than himself. However, I struggle to see how New York's gun laws can run afoul of the U.S. Constitution when our founding document prevents the federal government, not the states, from abridging our right to bear arms.

Writes Kopel:

The Heller decision did not say that requiring a license to carry a gun was unconstitutional. But in New York State, nonresidents cannot even apply for the licenses to possess or carry a handgun. Unlike most other states, New York refuses to honor carry permits issued by sister states. Most observers believe that the Supreme Court will eventually make state and local governments obey the Second Amendment. If it does, New York's discrimination against nonresidents will probably be ruled unconstitutional.

Although I oppose any and all federal and state restrictions on gun ownership, New York, being a sovereign state, has the right to enact its own gun laws. That's democracy for you. As I argued at the time of the Heller decision, the Supreme Court exercised extrajudicial authority by even ruling on the case, given that the District of Columbia almost certainly retains "pseudo-state" status and therefore should not be constrained by limitations set forth by the Constitution. So it goes for New York, as well, as it quite clearly enjoys statehood.

The biggest culprit in modern federal abuses of power vis a vis the states is the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been so extensively misinterpreted that it has resulted in handing the federal government sweeping authority to regulate every state in the union. Instead of respecting the vertical separation of powers, it has created subordinate governments. However, to believe that the founders, who drafted the Bill of Rights explicitly to guard against an omnipotent central state, would believe a federal judge has the right and the authority to strike down valid state laws is to border on the absurd.

But that's where we are today, as even reliable defenders of liberty like Dave Kopel have essentially been conditioned to accept improper judicial rulings. Instead of adhering to the origins of the Constitution despite any number of unconstitutional rulings, we instead allow these opinions to override original precedent simply because they have been offered.

Weigh in with your own opinions in comments.

Another Honest Remark from a Politician

Our buddy Wolf links to an article at MSNBC in which a politician in St. Louis has told its residents to arm themselves. The police, of course, are not happy with this suggestion; they want to retain their monopoly on the protection of defense services. Moreover, if the people become proficient in self-defense, they may question the need for police services. Of course, the statist academic believes that there is no evidence that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens increases safety. Really? No evidence at all? So no one has done any research to suggest otherwise? Perhaps we should disarm the agents of the State; then we will all be safer.

Gun Control Laws Are Idiotic

New York Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress has apparently reported to a city police station, where he likely faces criminal charges for shooting ... himself.

Burress accidentally shot himself in the thigh last Friday night while at a Manhattan night club, raising questions about whether he has a permit to carry a firearm legally. I'm guessing he doesn't considering he turned himself in at a police station, but why should that matter? There are no reports or witnesses suggesting that Burress threatened or shot anyone else with his gun, which means he's facing charges for the victimless crime of having a handgun in his possession.

So what's the point of New York's laws restricting individuals from carrying guns around town? Certainly it isn't to "prevent crime" because nobody would have even known Burress had a gun in the first place if he hadn't shot himself. And even if he'd shot someone else intentionally, clearly authorities would have learned about it only after it was too late to prevent harm to potential victims.

But the truth of the matter is this: Plaxico Burress did not use the gun to commit a crime; his possession of the gun itself was the apparent crime according to New York law.

You might argue that Burress has to be pretty stupid to shoot himself accidentally, but he can't be nearly as stupid as New York legislators who aim to criminalize the nonviolent actions of people who intend to harm no one.

Hitler's Halloween

Child sex offenders in Maryland are being forced to stay home tonight, turn off outside lights, and display signs on their front doors that read, "No candy at this residence."

Funny, I've always thought that's what lights off meant.

We shouldn't be too quick to forget that people who find themselves on these sex offender registries are hardly all guilty of violent crimes toward children. Indeed, often they are themselves children -- teenagers who may have been prosecuted for having consensual sex with younger teens; convicted on charges of child pornography for taking naked pictures of each other; or for innocently, if inappropriately, slapping the butts of fellow classmates. And let's not forget that there are varying grades and degrees of abuse even where adults have violated existing laws.

In short, while bona fide sexual predators make me sick, it's not at all apparent to me that the state should be tasked with protecting our children. But even where it has assumed this responsibility, it's one thing to look out for the welfare of kids; it's another thing entirely to act like a frigging Nazi about it.

Aside from the draconian nature of this policy, it carries with it one important side effect that the state has apparently failed to consider: While these "no candy" signs might keep children off the porches of known sexual deviants, they simultaneously encourage kids to let their guard down around people who have no obligation to post them. I'd say we want our kids to be cautious around all strangers, no?

If you want your children to be safe as they trick-or-treat tonight, be a parent and accompany them around the neighborhood. And if anyone tries to take criminal liberties with your kids, pull out your .357 and blow his ass away.

What? Only criminals are allowed to carry firearms in Maryland? Pity that. Guess we'll all have to take our chances and rely on protection from the same people who came up with this ridiculous Halloween policy in the first place.

Get Your Guns Now

According to the Washington Post, gun and ammunition sales are thriving despite a depressed economy. What's primarily responsible for this?

Several variables drive sales, but many dealers, buyers and experts attribute the increase in part to concerns about the economy and fears that if Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wins the presidency, he will join with fellow Democrats in Congress to enact new gun controls. Obama has said that he believes in an individual right to bear arms but that he also supports "common-sense safety measures."

In short, people are getting guns while they still can.

According to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, there were 8.4 million background checks from Jan. 1 to Sept. 28 this year, up 9 percent from the same period last year. Ironically, the fact that this data is even available is reason enough to purchase a firearm if you so choose -- federal regulations mandating background checks are unconstitutional, shouldn't exist in the first place, and threaten our right to effective self-defense.

Experts say this surge in gun sales comes as little surprise, as trends indicate this often is the case whenever people anticipate the election of an anti-gun president (both candidates favor gun control) or fear that popular shootings like the Virginia Tech massacre will lead to more restrictions on private gun ownership.

However, while a great many people fear that gun control will simply limit their ability to use firearms for sport or home defense, it shouldn't go unnoticed that restrictions on gun ownership ipso facto translate into an ever more powerful State. A disarmed citizenry essentially is powerless to defend against tyranny, and as the founding fathers understood, it's just as important to have guns to overthrow an oppressive government as it is to beat back the common thug at one's doorstep.

Kidnapping in St. Mary's County

If you work on or around the Pax River navy base, you might be stuck in traffic right now because state and local police have St. Mary's County locked down due to a kidnapping this morning at PNC bank on Rte. 235.

Apparently the kidnappers ejected a woman from a Tahoe with her child still inside and drove off, but latest reports indicate they have both been found as the search continues for the culprits. Story at the Baynet.com.

A co-worker stuck in traffic just called and said six K-9 units went flying by her.

We have six K-9 units down here?

UPDATE: NBC4 DC is leading off its website with this story, and at least three newscopters are circling above my office building. Streets are all cordoned off as sheriff's deputies with machine guns are stopping and searching every car in the county.

Meanwhile, it's a veritable certainty that the bank robbers are long gone.

UPDATE II: Here's a more comprehensive accout of today's events, as explained by St. Mary's County sheriff Tim Cameron.

Thankfully the woman and her children were not physically harmed during this entire ordeal and the abductors let them go once they got the money they sought. But I just can't help thinking -- as I always do during situations such as these -- how successful these criminals would have been were law-abiding citizens allowed to carry firearms in addition to the law-breaking ones.

Certainly this woman may have chosen not to carry a gun even if it were legal. And even if she did, of course she may have determined, based on the events at hand, that the potential costs to her children's safety outweighed any perceived benefits that would have accompanied retaliatory measures. But the point is, this woman and her children should have had the right to defend themselves using any and all means at their disposal.

Our natural rights to life and to the defense of our property are not forfeit simply because some government body unilaterally decides we have limited legal rights to same. But how many of us are willing to risk the costs associated with defying the state in order to protect ourselves today?

Most people know the odds of getting caught with a firearm in their car or on their person is much higher than getting abducted by a stranger at their front door. But this morning one woman and her children could have suffered devastating costs just for complying with state laws.

Gun control laws benefit no one but the criminal.

Immoral Gun Laws, Opportunistic Police

Prolific author Peter Manso has been indicted on a dozen firearms charges by a Massachusetts grand jury and faces a decade in prison -- for mere nonviolent possession of assorted guns and ammunition, with the most serious charge coming for illegal possession of an "assault rifle."

J.D. Tuccille, who gives a thorough explanation of the case at the Examiner, points out that Manso's weapons were found by police during a response to a burglar alarm while he was away. Interestingly, Manso's attorney claims that the house was searched illegally, as the guns were all locked and stored in the writer's alarmed home.

Even more disturbing is Manso's allegation that he has been targeted by police because of his controversial work on a book that, according to Tuccille, "casts a skeptical look at the work of local authorities in investigating the murder of a writer named Christa Worthington."

Whether or not this is true we may never know, but one thing is certain: It would be impossible for the police to abuse their authority in this manner if people weren't robbed of their freedom for causing no harm to one's person or property.

Read the rest of Tuccille's assessment here.

Heller's Blowback

D.C. citizen Charles Repine explains in this DC Examiner op-ed just how freedom-friendly the Heller decision actually was. Here's a taste of the bureaucratic hoops you'll have to jump through just to be able to throw a gun at an intruder if you ever find yourself in such a desperate predicament:

The process apparently goes like this: I obtain a firearm permit application, fill it out, take it to a licensed firearms dealer, purchase a gun, have the gun dealer fill out the other half of the application, take the filled-out application back to the police department, pay a $10 fee, wait up to 14 days for approval, take the approved application back to the gun dealer, have the gun shipped to a licensed dealer within the District, pick up the gun, take it directly to police headquarters where it will go through a ballistics test while I am fingerprinted and put through a background check for a fee of $35, and then pay a $13 registration fee.

Then, I will be able to take my gun home, where it is to remain unloaded and either disassembled or fitted with a trigger lock unless, of course, I reasonably perceive I am under immediate threat of harm.

In which case, it is perfectly legal for me to retrieve my unloaded, disassembled weapon, assemble it, load it, and hope the intruder has been kind enough to wait patiently before attacking, robbing, and/or killing me.

Unlike Mr. Repine, who at first celebrated Heller as "righting a wrong," some of us saw through the decision from the beginning and recognized it for what it really was -- a repugnant reaffirmation of federal authority over the states' plenary legislative power.

From the 'Duh!' File

The slippery slope's a bitch, yo.

[Thanks to Dan.]

Nation of Lawbreakers

Funny things, "laws."

If the fallout from the horrendous Heller decision teaches us anything, it's that we will all eventually have to become criminals in the eyes of the state if we want to protect our property from both private and public molesters.

Jacob Sullum points out that the District of Criminals D.C. Council has unanimously approved a law making in-home handgun ownership impractical, only a month after the Supreme Court supposedly invalidated that very thing.

Interestingly, given that all branches of government are expected to operate as coequals, at least in theory, D.C.'s legislature isn't necessarily flouting the law by essentially ignoring the high court's decision -- it wasn't always assumed that the Supreme Court held the Final Word in legal matters, and not least where it ruled on statutes that didn't even fall legitimately under federal purview.

As I have argued, I not only believe that D.C. retains "pseudo-state" status, but also that the Fourteenth Amendment has been misinterpreted and misapplied by judges over the years to give the federal government unwarranted authority over the states.

That said, D.C.'s gun control laws are unjust and immoral. No state or central authority has any right to forcibly restrict peaceable human beings from exercising their natural right to self-defense, much less prosecute them for merely taking precautionary measures (that harm no one) in the event they one day need to do just that.

When it comes to these draconian gun control laws, we would be severely mistaken to believe the government cares one whit about protecting citizens from each other; it merely seeks to protect itself from its citizens.

Whom Gun Control Truly Protects

In the minds of some citizens, the recent Heller decision is a landmark Supreme Court decision. Finally, some have claimed, the Supreme Court has recognized that the citizens have a constitutionally protected right to self-defense. Of course, the fact that the Supreme Court has placed all sorts of restrictions on this "right" means that its not a right at all, as William Grigg notes. But the question I wish to explore further is, Whom does gun control truly protect?

The State has no problem asserting its right to grant us the privilege of defending ourselves from common criminals. As such, the State believes that its subjects only require a shotgun or a handgun or a rifle, but definitely not a machine gun or handgrenades or such. But do not be deceived; the State has no interest in protecting our inalienable right to self-defense because the State knows that if its subjects have access to the same sorts of weapons as the State possesses, it cannot rule over its subjects' lives as it does now. Any action of the State which its subjects could potentially interpret as a usurpation of liberty would risk violence against the State. The State knows this and uses its coercive force to regulate our "right." The State is also aided by the anti-gun crowd who fear guns in general, and conservatives who fear the chaos that might ensue if my neighbors and I could purchase tanks. But the only entity that would provoke such chaos is the State. If the State stays out of my life, I have no reason to hop in my tank to defend myself. But when the State wishes to make a show of force, be assured that men armed with machine guns, armored vehicles and bulletproof vests will be part of this exhibition.

If the right to self-defense is inalienable, natural, and/or God-given, the State has no authority to regulate it. The only reason it can do so at this time is because it has better weapons than we have. Thus, we see the true goal of gun control: the protection of the State's absolutely monopoly on coercive power. The State has little interest in protecting its subjects from criminals; in fact the State has decided that it really has no obligation to protect its citizens at all. However, the State is always completely focused on protecting itself from the wrath of its citizens.

*Hat tip to J. H. Huebert for the court case links.

Rather Get Arrested Than Get Killed

DC Examiner writer Harry Jaffe relays the outlook of Irving Parker, who as the owner of Suburban Market in the District of Criminals, has survived at least two robberies.

The Supreme Court decision overturning the DC gun ban merely gives residents the right to keep guns in their homes; it does not allow them to protect themselves in public, or against public officials for that matter. But that hasn't stopped Mr. Parker from exercising his natural right to protect his property.

“The police never come by,” Parker tells me. “I don’t have any protection from the criminals. I don’t need a gun at home. I need one here. What does the law say about a situation like mine? I’m sitting here in the dark.”

[...]

“I would rather be telling a judge why I did this or that,” he says, “as opposed to lying in a casket.”

When Is a Broken Rifle a Machine Gun?

When you let harebrained federal officials make the laws.

David Olofson, a National Guard drill instructor, is serving a 30-month prison term because his semi-automatic rifle malfunctioned and shot three rounds after he let a student shoot it during a lesson in proper gun use.

Keep in mind Mr. Olofson never harmed or even threatened anyone with his rifle. The ATF is simply railroading him over a technicality in a stupid law because it can. Intent doesn't matter.

But remember, we're a free country.

And for the record, yes, of course machine guns should be legal.

(Thanks to Dan.)

Hellish Heller

For those of you who still insist the recent Heller decision was a victory for gun rights, you may be interested in checking out this article by Stephan Kinsella, who points out how, not even two weeks later, it's already being used to give the feds even more power over the states when it comes to regulating firearms.

So what does Heller stand for? Well, it makes it clear that gun limitations and regulations are perfectly permissible. Their only legitimate use--when the state thinks it's "reasonable"--is for self-defense against private criminals--not self-defense against public criminals--down with this whole right to revolution. So the ruling really helps entrench government power. And, of course, thanks to the perverse incorporation doctrine, the Second Amendment will no doubt be applied to the states ... by the federal government. I.e., yet more power seized by the feds. So let's see: Heller has further eroded two of the most fundamental limits on the central state: the right to revolution, and vertical separation of powers (federalism).

This might be a good time to refer you to Bothwell's Simple Rule: When you expect the state to determine your rights, you can expect the state to limit them.

The government cannot "grant" us rights. We have an innate right to our property and so have the right to the protection thereof, through armed self-defense, whether the state likes it or not.

Awesome Gun Rights Defense

Check out this outstanding testimony of a woman who lost both parents to a lunatic who opened fire in a restaurant.

I don't know who I'm more pissed off at: people who empower politicians to confiscate our fundamental right to self-defense, or smug anti-freedom shitheads like Chuck Schumer who couldn't care less that this woman's parents would most likely be alive today if it weren't criminals who had the widest access to firearms.

The video quality is a bit lacking, but it's a must-listen. The ending alone is worth your time.

Thanks to my buddy Jim for taking the time to dig this out of his email archives and send it along.

D.C. Gun Decision: In Perspective

Loyola (Maryland) economics professor Tom DiLorenzo writes that the Supreme Court's acknowledgement of an individual right to bear arms illustrates the absurdity of allowing the federal government to determine the limits of its own authority.

Citing the erosion of state's rights during the Civil War era, he reminds us that while the high court's opinions previous to 1865 were considered by Congress, the states, and citizens to be just that -- opinions -- to our detriment they have since become the last word on constitutional matters.

The shocking thing about [yesterday's] decision is that if one man -- Anthony Kennedy -- voted the other way, then what -- we would all be forcefully disarmed?

A judicial dictatorship is what nationalists like Alexander Hamilton and his disciple, Justice John Marshall, wanted, and that of course is what we've ended up with. But imagine if the Court declared in 1805 that Americans do not have individual rights to own firearms. Do you think the Jeffersonians would have given up their firearms and genuflected to the black-robed deities of the Court? Hell no; they would have reached for them and commenced another revolution.

Unfortunately, we live in an era (and have for well over a century now) where the Supreme Court determines our rights for us; where its decisions essentially become the Supreme Law of the Land. As I explained yesterday, this should not be -- the court has no constitutional authority to overturn legitimate state laws. The Bill of Rights provides explicit limitations on federal power; it does not somehow grant the federal government plenary legislative powers over the states.

Given this widespread misapplication of the Constitution, yesterday's ruling "protected" an individual right that we already had, but it perversely did so for the wrong reasons. By exceeding its authority, it seems to many gun rights advocates that the court got this right because it "upheld" the Second Amendment. But what would we be facing now if, as Dr. DiLorenzo asked, Justice Kennedy went the other way? I shudder even to think, given our tendency to allow the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench.

It may appear that by applying the Bill of Rights to the states, the Supreme Court is merely extending constitutional protections universally. But this is a mirage. For one thing, it has no constitutional right to do so. But more importantly, to accept this notion is to give the federal government prima facie authority over virtually all state legislation, which contradicts the entire point of limiting its jurisdiction in the first place.

D.C. Gun Ban Ruling: Win/Lose

As expected, today the Supreme Court struck down the District of Criminals' draconian gun control law.

Many gun/freedom advocates, such as myself, are both excited and relieved by the court's ruling, but there's only one problem: it looks like the court's decision was wrong.

The good news to come from this decision is that the Supremes correctly ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms -- rather than, say, merely protecting the right to form militias, which almost certainly would be (perversely) regulated by the state in this day and age.

But the bad news is that the court seemingly has once again exercised extrajudicial authority; today's ruling is inherently unconstitutional because the Second Amendment is part of a bill of rights that limits federal authority, not state or local -- D.C. enjoys status as a pseudo-state. In short, as consitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman explained here, the Supreme Court has no authority to strike down valid state laws.

Given the Supremes' history of constitutionally approving federal statutes governing activities over which the U.S. government should have no legal jurisdiction (eg., the regulation of abortion and guns easily comes to mind), we've been somewhat conditioned to believe that the U.S. Constitution applies universally. However, it does not. For example, the First Amendment begins by stating, "Congress shall make no law..." It is a very distinct protection against federal usurpation of the right to free speech, religion, etc.; it does not prevent, say, Wisconsin from establishing criminal laws originating in religious dogma (eg., anti-sodomy laws).

However, comprehension of the federal government's authority vis a vis that states was severely compromised with passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, having been henceforth controversially and extensively interpreted by the Supreme Court to give the feds sweeping power to regulate the states, including the notion that each of the tenets outlined in the Bill of Rights applies to every state. Given that the Constitution itself was penned to guard against an omnipotent central state, I find it almost impossible to believe that the framers would have consented to the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment could be wielded to overturn legitimate state laws.

Libertarians are split on this issue, so if it is correct that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the states, then the Supreme Court got the D.C. gun ban decision right. However, if you, like me, believe the founders would have been aghast to learn that this amendment has been consistenly interpreted to allow for increasing federal authority over the states' rights they so jealously guarded, your only conclusion in this matter is that the highest court in the land should have allowed this law, however distasteful in its own right, to stand.

UPDATE: J.H. Huebert has more on the good -- indeed, great -- aspect of this ruling:

It notes that the Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, or any right at all -- it just stops Congress from infringing a "fundamental right" you already had according to "libertarian political principles."

Mr. Huebert notes further along in his commentary that we can probably expect to see more lawsuits applying the Fourteenth Amendment in the attempt to end gun bans in other cities, though he admits this may be a "dubious theory." More interestingly, he says this "wouldn't trouble me too much," no doubt indicating that if the Constitution is going to be misapplied so often to our detriment, it may as well work to our favor every now and then.

I know Grandma always told me two wrongs don't make a right, but such is life when you're bound by the state's hegemony. If we were truly free, there would be no state to confiscate our guns and our natural right to protect ourselves in the first place, so it certainly seems we're forced to "play the game" if we want even a glimmer of hope in wriggling out of the state's tyrannical stranglehold.

Ever Wonder Why the State Wants to Disarm You?

Tricia Shore does, as she aptly explains that the "fewer armed citizens there are, the more powerful the government."

Almost seems a quaint notion these days, doesn't it, what with so much state intrusion into virtually every aspect of our lives?

Can you even imagine what some people would think nowadays if you suggested pulling a gun to defend yourself against armed government thugs who initiate violent raids on nonviolent activites like poker games, or against officers who deploy Tasers simply because you question why you were pulled over for speeding?

How long before police begin raiding bars under suspicion that they're flouting smoking bans? Should we simply sit on our barstools and wait for some SWAT cop to "accidentally" kill us as we enjoy a cigar before we decide it might be a good idea to put up a fight against the juggernaut that is today's police state?

Better yet, how about those times when the state comes to kidnap your children -- without due process, of course -- on mere suspicion of untoward activity? Property rights apparently cease to exist so long as the abductors show up in a state-issued uniform and badge.

We are either free or we're not. Unfortunately, so many sheep in this country have already voluntarily succumbed to their government herdsmen that we barely even recognize a true criminal when we see one. If someone violently busts through your door carrying a Heckler & Koch MP5 semiautomatic weapon, he is an intruder who poses a mortal threat to your livelihood. Period. It hardly matters whether he's a common thug or an agent of the state (but I repeat myself).

If -- especially if -- you're innocent, the price for defending your property holds far greater implications than if you yourself are a violent criminal, because it's well-known these days that the state can get away with sending us to our maker on the flimsiest of excuses and justifications.

However, if armed invaders come for you -- especially if their mission is to steal your children and throw them in some government cage -- I would argue that you not only have the right to retaliate with lethal force, but you also have a moral duty to do so.

We Don't Need No Stinking Guns

In the words of my buddy Jon: "Here's what strict gun regulations get you."

D.C.'s Gun Grab

In apparent anticipation of a Supreme Court ruling against the D.C. gun ban, District police are literally going door to door in the attempt to confiscate as much private property as possible before the ruling is issued.

Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the "safe homes initiative" is aimed at residents who want to cooperate with police. She gave the example of parents or grandparents who know or suspect their children have guns in the home.

If weapons are recovered, they will be tested and destroyed if they are not found to be linked to any other crimes.

Sometimes it's actually difficult to comprehend such sheer audacity. Residents are being asked to submit to voluntary searches, but how many people with something to hide are going to consent? And when they fail to allow to these "voluntary" searches, what then? SWAT raid? Won't police simply view a failure to accomodate these "requests" as probable cause?

And why would folks who have nothing to hide even consent to this madness? So the police could traipse through their houses and ticket or arrest them on ancillary charges? It's well-known that police state tactics like sobriety checkpoints are better at generating revenue from motorists driving without a license or registration than they are at catching drunk drivers. Why would home searches be any different?

Best of all, these searches are being conducted under the promise of immunity under D.C.'s current gun ban -- meaning that anyone found to be in possession of an "illegal" firearm will not be found in violation of the law as long as they hand it over to police. But why the hell would you give up a gun if owning one will be legal in the near future?

The most interesting thing about the D.C. gun ban case currently before the Supremes is that neither gun control nor gun rights advocates have it right. According to Kevin Gutzman, the District of Columbia is not governed by the Second Amendment because it enjoys status as a pseudo-state and therefore has the right to enact its own laws. As Gutzman points out, the Bill of Rights limits federal power; it does not empower federal judges to strike down valid state laws.

I believe in gun rights -- or more specifically, in the natural right to self-defense -- as much as anyone. In fact, because natural rights supercede any government right, I believe that government restrictions on gun ownership are absurd on their face. But since we're talking about the Constitution and its application vis a vis the states, I think a ruling against D.C. would constitute an abuse of power by the Court.

Almost as abusive as the D.C. police chief's decision to send her thugs to your doorstep under the tyrannical notion that she has more right to your guns than you do.

UPDATE: When I got home from work, Channel 7 news was airing a report on this. The reporter was interviewing a little old black lady -- police targeted primarily black Southeast D.C. (as long as a black police spokeswoman supports the policy, apparently it's OK to assume all blacks are gun-totin', drug-dealin' gang-bangers) -- who said, "It's like we live in a police state and they think they can just come in our houses."

No, ma'am: We do live in a police state, and our rulers hope we're too goddamned stupid to know otherwise. Good for you for standing up to the thugs.

Bullet Serialization Bill Shot Down in Maryland

Well, how about that? The Maryland state legislature finally did something right by killing a bill (HB 517) that would have required ammunition manufacturers to laser-engrave bullets with a unique serial number that matched their box.

And, of course, every individual purchasing ammo would have been required to present ID so the state could tie them to the bullets and track how much they bought.

In a move that would have amounted to further restrictions on lawful gun owners and regulations that would have potentially crushed the ammunitions industry, it's at least a little encouraging to know there's still enough grassroots support for self-defense among Marylanders that this latest bout of nanny-state insanity could be killed.

More info on "encoded ammunition" here and here.

Tired of Saggy, Baggy Pants?

Blame government for creating this gangster fashion style.

Parents Can't Lay it All on Virginia Tech

According to the Washington Post, several families of students slain in the Virginia Tech massacre seem to be preparing for battle against the state of Virginia.

Peter Grenier and Douglas Fierberg, of Bode & Grenier, said the families are considering wrongful death suits and a federal civil rights claim against the state because they believe university officials could have done more to prevent the April 16 shootings by Seung Hui Cho.

Perhaps I can save everyone some time and money here. Of course the university could have "done more" to prevent the shootings. Even if Virginia Tech's "security" officers weren't the glaring exhibit of incompetence they ultimately proved to be as Seung Hui Cho conducted his killing spree, you can always "do more" in any situation. If authorities would have killed Seung Hui Cho after he'd killed 10 students and faculty members instead of 30, would relatives of the unfortunate 10 be satisfied that the university prevented more?

Maybe I'm even being a bit too harsh on the university. Although it basically did nothing to stop the rampage (Seung killed himself) and most certainly failed to protect the campus from a lunatic, even the most prepared among us can fall victim to attack. After all, if someone is bent on committing a crime, there's often precious little we can do about it until it's too late, even if we think we've taken all the necessary precautions. The key, however, is being able or being allowed to take these precautions in the first place.

Like most Virginia state universities, Virginia Tech prohibits students from carrying firearms on campus. Therefore, given the fact that all students and their parents were aware of the university's gun control policies, yet chose to attend or send their children to the school anyway knowing full well they would be completely disarmed against mass murderers, it's tough to argue that Virginia Tech -- and more to the point, Virginia taxpayers -- should be expected to bear the sole burden of responsibility for what happened that day.

This argument isn't intended to be an exercise in sophistry; I'm well aware that it seems a little ridiculous to argue that students should only choose colleges that allow handguns on campus when there seem to be so few that do. Indeed, I wish I could carry a loaded handgun in my truck for personal protection, but that would be against the law. And although Maryland law prevents me from doing so (or let's just say, the state isn't likely to grant me a permit anytime soon), I still travel around town in my truck without one. Does this mean I somehow "deserve" to be attacked because I choose to leave my house knowing I'm not as protected as I'd like to be? Not in a million years. But certainly I must admit that I'm taking my chances whenever I'm not in the safe confines of my home.

This illustrates very nicely how an oppressive government invents criminality. Even though most rational people would agree that someone with a gun isn't a criminal until he uses it against someone else in a coercive or violent manner, people who merely wish to protect themselves against external violence are turned into criminals themselves by immoral governments that restrict nonviolent citizens from carrying firearms if they happen to flout such unjust "laws."

So, most people who just want to keep to themselves and protect their own lives and property are faced with a difficult choice: obey unjust laws (remain free from government criminals (in theory, anyway) while remaining vulnerable to societal ones), or disobey unjust laws (remain free from societal criminals while remaining vulnerable to government ones). Neither choice seems particularly ideal or appealing, does it?

Sadly, we begin to realize that it's impossible to make the "right choice" the more we allow the government to usurp our freedom -- democratic governments cannot abuse their powers without endorsement from the voters who install them, and politicians couldn't hold so much influence if we didn't provide them with the incentive to sell it.

So where does that leave us? Under the thumb of tyrants who are more than happy to remain above the law in comparison to those of us who are complicit in our own demise, that's where.

A Reasonable Case for Gun Control

Courtesy of Charley Reese.

"Would It Make You Feel Any Better, Little Girl, If They Was Pushed Outta Windas?"

Gotta love Archie.

Happy Saturday.

Why Shouldn't the "Mentally Ill" Have Access to Guns?

It's no surprise that the Virginia Tech massacre has provided a new opporunity for both pro- and anti-gun activists to jump back into the political fray, so I might as well add my two cents.

CNN reports today that Virginia law provided Seung-Hui Cho with a legal loophole that allowed him access to guns, even though it's more accurate to say that Virginia failed to report Cho's mental status to the federal government. In any event, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine is apparently contemplating executive action that would tighten the state's reporting requirements.

This is a move the governor should resist. For one thing, making legal gun purchases even tougher may discourage nutjobs and whackos from buying firearms from a licensed dealer, but it will do absolutely nothing to stop them from buying their guns illegally and going on to commit their crimes anyway.

What such a move would be sure to do, however, is discriminate against anyone with a mental illness, the vast majority of whom are law abiding citizens who have just as much right as anyone else to protect against violent predators.

While some people (like Cho) clearly exhibit psychotic disorders that can be dangerous or fatal, there is a vast array of illnesses that cannot realistically be construed as potentially harmful to others. As certain as I am that we've all endured physical ailments, I would guess that virtually all of us have suffered from some form of mental illness at some point in our lives, as well -- even if symptoms were so minor that we had no idea there was even a problem. How many people can honestly say they've never gone through a bout of depression after a bad breakup, or have never experienced varying levels of anxiety or mood swings in a variety of situations?

Using "mental illness" as a excuse to prohibit gun sales would be little more than a measure that would significantly restrict the majority of the population from buying guns legally. It would be window dressing, a political maneuver giving the illusion of protection from dangerous criminals, while in reality taking aim at law-abiding citizens forthcoming enough to admit they've seen a psychologist in the past.

If we really want to increase our chances of surviving violent attacks, we need to have more freedom to protect ourselves, not less. Ask yourself: How many people would Seung-Hui Cho have been able to kill in those classrooms last Monday if the first person he pointed his gun at had the chance to point one right back at him?

You'll Shoot Your Eye Out!

Unless you live in Baltimore, apparently.

Air rifles and BB guns would be prohibited in Baltimore under a proposed ordinance introduced in the City Council yesterday, a response to a series of robberies in which the weapons have been used, supporters said.

The legislation, which was referred to the council's public safety subcommittee, was proposed weeks after Baltimore outlawed the possession and discharge of paintball guns - except for on private property - and days after a federal court struck down portions of the District of Columbia's stringent gun law.

"They're being used in a disruptive way, in a dangerous way," said the bill's lead sponsor, City Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke, who represents portions of Northeast Baltimore. "They're also being used as ... a weapon to someone being robbed. It appears to be a real gun, but it's not. But it has the same effect."

Interestingly, Mary Pat Clarke appears to have a brain, but...

Homicides and Football, That's What Maryland Does!

Baltimore has surpassed its reported homicide count for 2005 by hitting 270 over the Christmas weekend.

Last year, Baltimore saw a slight decline in the number of homicides compared with 2004; the city had posted increases the previous two years.

The homicide rate is still significantly lower than its peak in the mid-1990s, when more than 300 people were killed each year, but far from the goal of 175 per year that Mayor Martin O'Malley set when he took office.

Anyone else think it's a little perverse for a mayor to set a "goal" of 175 killings per year? For someone who's reportedly made a name for himself as a "zero-tolerance" crime-fighter, it sure doesn't appear as if O'Malley earned his promotion from mayor to governor.

Okay, let's cut the governor-elect a little slack. It's not like he's actually been roaming Baltimore's streets, slashing throats and taking names. But inasmuch as a mayor, and to a far greater extent, a governor, is responsible for setting the tone for policy that impacts the murder rate, Martin O'Malley has been less than impressive. Instead of shuffling around public funding and resources to simply react to the problem, O'Malley could take a far more proactive role in reducing homicides by urging the repeal of Marylands' strict gun control laws.

Of course, that's not going to happen. O'Malley, who gets an "F" for Second Amendment friendliness from the National Rifle Association, will replace the pro-gun-in-theory Gov. Bob Ehrlich next month and likely lobby for even tougher gun laws. After all, Maryland doesn't have an outright ban on guns yet, so there's still work to do!

But the point remains: Disarming the citizenry amounts to little more than an invitation to criminals to proceed unabated against potential victims who pose little to no threat to someone intent on doing harm.

Only Criminals Can Carry

Via the Chicago Sun-Times:

A 28-year-old man was in serious condition after being shot during an attempted carjacking late Sunday on the Southwest Side.

The man was driving a 2001 Chevy Tahoe north on Talman Avenue at 11:55 p.m. when two men exited a gray sport-utility vehicle in front of the Tahoe at 43rd Street, according to Deering District Lt. Thomas Shouse.

"They brandished a gun and ordered him out of the car," Shouse said. “Instead, he put the car in reverse."

The two men fired several shots and struck the man twice in the chest and once in the arm, Shouse said.

"He is in serious condition, but he's expected to live," Shouse said.

Ho-hum. Another terrific example proving only criminals are allowed to carry guns. Someone really should remind those two chaps that driving around with guns in Chicago is illegal.

If Words Could Protect Us..

..we wouldn't need guns. Yet that doesn't stop some people, like a colleague of mine today, from claiming that people in big cities shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

Well, if it's any consolation to him, many aren't. But if we're really interested in cutting violent crime in our inner cities -- like Baltimore and Washington, D.C., which are among the most dangerous nationwide -- big-city residents are precisely the ones who need gun rights the most. Even criminals aren't dumb enough to break into a house when they know they'll likely be staring down the barrel of a gun as they enter.

But protection against crime isn't the primary reason the Founders gave us the Second Amendment, as Rep. Ron Paul explains in an article today:

The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.

Is it really any wonder government tries so hard to prevent us from owning firearms?

Bloomberg's Sticking to His Guns

So you can't have yours.

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is leading a coalition of city leaders from 44 states to Capitol Hill to lobby against "illegal guns."

Anti-gun activists use the term "illegal guns" to describe any gun they can persuade Congress to declare illegal, and I think it goes without saying that their intent is to ban as many as possible, and ideally, all of them.

But that aside, check out the ridiculous analogy Bloomberg uses to criticize the federal regulations pertaining to revoked dealer licenses.

The House of Representatives last month passed H.R. 5092, which includes a series of provisions backed by gun industry lobbyists. Under the bill, gun sellers whose licenses were revoked by federal law-enforcement officials would still have 60 days to "liquidate" their firearms inventory.

"Just imagine the outrage if Congress allowed doctors who lose their license to prescribe drugs for 60 days," Mr. Bloomberg said yesterday.

Yes, just imagine! This mindset is typical of those who empower the state to be the arbiter of everything that is right and wrong in society. If Bloomberg really thinks a state-sanctioned license is the sine qua non of achievement, he obviously hasn't visited his city's public schools or made a doctor's appointment in Southern Maryland -- where for anything more than the common cold it's often a better idea to seek treatment in D.C. or Annapolis.

I don't necessarily condemn licensing requirements across the board, but they're hardly guarantors of intellectual acuity or professional ability. Depending on the profession, licenses can be issued after folks have completed simple tests, which often have little to do with what will be required in the career field. This can give potential clients and customers a misleading impression of competence, and licenses also tend to reward mediocrity, as those who possess them often meet some arbitrary standard and become complacent.

Whether we're talking about guns, teachers, doctors, or lawyers, individuals ultimately will be better served to put more faith in themselves than the state when determining who to trust for quality service.

Time to Control Gun-Controllers

Maryland gun dealer Sanford Abrams is being run out of business by the federal government. According to the Baltimore Sun:

The license revocation in the Abrams case was based on more than 900 violations of record-keeping regulations designed to help police track guns used in crimes, according to the ATF.

The Americans for Gun Safety foundation ranked Abrams 37th out of 80,000 dealers for the sale of firearms between 1996 and 2000 that were later used in crimes. An analysis of ATF data by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence found that Valley Gun sold 14 firearms from 1993 to 1997 that were later used in homicides.

So which is it? Is Mr. Abrams guilty of failing to track gun sales, or doing so efficiently enough to allow authorities to track down criminals in homicide cases?

It's a little more than ironic that Abrams' license is being revoked for violation of record-keeping regulations given that extensive record-keeping regulations in Maryland, one of the most gun-control-friendly states in the country, invite inefficiency.

Moreover, considering the fact that private vendors are required to possess government licenses to sell anything nowadays from liquor to haircuts to lemonade along the sidewalk, it seems pointless to debate the merits of firearms licensing.

What should not be beyond the realm of debate, however, is that the ATF and gun control advocates like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence increasingly imply that gun dealers should be held as accountable for gun crimes as the actual criminals themselves. It should go without saying that this mentality can set extremely dangerous legislative and legal precedent.