who's your nanny?

The Servile Mindset

Before you begin to blame the childish for being that way and join the chorus of those defending the general imprisonment of adults and the schooling by force of children because there isn’t any other way to handle the mob, you want to at least consider the possibility that we’ve been trained in childishness and helplessness for a reason. And that reason is helpless people are easy to manage. Helpless people can be counted upon to act as their own jailers because they are so inadequate to complex reality they are afraid of new experience. They’re like animals whose spirits have been broken. Helpless people take orders well, they don’t have minds of their own, they are predictable, they won’t surprise corporations or governments with resistance to the newest product craze, the newest genetic patent — or by armed revolution. Helpless people can be counted on to despise independent citizens and hence they act as a fifth column in opposition to social change in the direction of personal sovereignty. John Taylor Gatto

The government of Paterson, New Jersey is contemplating adult curfews to stem a rash of shootings in the city. 

"We're trying to think outside the box," said Mayor Jose Torres. "This was triggered predominantly by fear among city residents over the shootings that have been occurring this summer."

These shootings have been related to gang activity which is a result of the destructive War on Drugs. Moreover, New Jersey has very strict gun laws which impede its citizens from protecting themselves. This should come as no surprise for this is exactly how a protection racket works. The State creates the problem of crime through its drug laws which inevitably lead to violence. The State then proscribes or hinders its subjects from protecting themselves. Thus, the people are forced to rely on the State to protect their lives and property from a problem which the State created and exacerbated. The worse part of this, as Thomas Paine pointed out, is that the people provide for the very means of their own suffering through the taxes they surrender. But the more important question to explore is Why do the people submit to their own destruction?

Self-preservation is a natural condition of humanity. The "fight or flight" response to programmed into all of us. When we sense danger, we react to save our lives. Thus, it appears to me that adults who do not act on their own initiative to preserve their lives and the lives of their families have been taught otherwise. They have learned this lesson through force or deception. These adults may have been defeated in war by a superior force and learned that resist is futile. Such was the case of Southerns whose lives were controlled by carpetbaggers from the North after the War Between the States.

This is not our current situation, however. Adults today willingly give up their rights and freedoms under the pretense of safety. They have not been defeated in battle. They have been deceived. They have been taught to be dependent upon on the State for protection of their lives and property. A people who really believed that self-preservation was their right and duty would not tolerate gun laws of any kind. They would know that they are the first line of defense against whomever wishes to do them harm and they would not cede this right to be exclusively protected by the State.

In this country many people not only cede their own right to protect themselves but also demand that others give up their right in the name of safety. They foolishly believe that creating a class of individuals which has the exclusive right of bearing arms (the police, for example) will protect them from criminals. Such reasoning is baffling. If one believes that the an armed population will incessantly war among itself, why would one then believe that gun control laws will be obeyed? Clearly if humans were so venal, no civil society could ever come into existence. However, the very fact that most people do obey these laws shows that most people would not take the opportunity, if armed, to kill each other. Individuals who respect man-made legislation prohibiting gun possession are quite unlikely to disregard natural law against murder. But reason does not permit us to understand the mindset of gun control advocates. We must understand fear.

Property Rights Are Everything

Throughout college and up till about five years ago, I was known to engage in heated political debates with friends, usually at parties around the keg -- you know, where most of the world's problems are never solved. Since then, however, I've realized you're not usually going to change people's minds, especially when they're drunk.

On top of that, my New Year's resolution for the past few years has been to refrain from trying to reason with unreasonable people. I'm sorry if that comes across as an implication that my opinions are usually right, but hey, I'm a libertarian -- and an anarcho-capitalist at that -- so they usually are. Therefore, I not only no longer seek out debates with political foes, but I can barely tolerate engaging in them in person anymore either.

So that means that if you really care what I think, you're pretty much stuck reading my blog. It also means that if you decide to solicit my political opinions, there's a good chance you'll end up as the subject of a blog post too.

Take, for instance, a colleague of mine, who yesterday asked what I thought about a provocative Calvin Klein billboard ad depicting a threesome. I told him I didn't think anything about it because I hadn't seen it, so he described it to me and asked if I thought the government should have a right to prevent companies from using "inappropriate" advertising. I told him of course not, given that I believe the state is completely illegitimate and shouldn't exist in the first place.

I still love the looks I get when those words spill past my steamy, voluptuous lips. (Ew, that even grossed me out; I should totally be banned from writing that.)

Anyway, once I elicit the deer in the headlights look by telling people the state should be abolished, I have to explain why no act is immoral unless it constitutes an initiation of violence against someone else. Thus, the state is immoral and therefore illegitimate because its very existence is predicated upon violence toward the innocent. My colleague's response was that this billboard was immoral because his daughters could've seen it and been offended. So I asked if his daughters had actually seen it. He said no. In other words, my colleague wasn't even offended by personally witnessing the billboard ad, much less witnessing it in the presence of his kids; he was just taking offense on behalf of other people who may or may not have been offended by it.

Does anyone really wonder why the state meddles in virtually every aspect of our lives when we buy into tyrannical governance allowing majorities to control the behavior of minorities? After all, when power changes hands so frequently, everyone's going to be offended by something someone else does, and in fairly short order. Whee, land of the free!

From what I gathered, the Calvin Klein billboard was posted on private property. So against my better judgment, I attempted to explain that property owners have the right to do whatever they like with their property as long as it does no tangible harm to someone else. (In other words, hanging an "offensive" porny picture for everyone to see: OK; hanging a porny picture in such a manner that it falls on someone and causes him physical harm: not necessarily OK.) I attempted to explain this by sharing the example of the Oklahoma state legislature, which a few years ago usurped the property rights of private employers by passing a law forcing them to allow employees to keep firearms in their cars on company property. My colleague believes gun rights are absolute, that one should be allowed to carry them on private property because "your car is your property."

Sorry, wrong answer. Your property rights end where someone else's begin. The reason guns are so controversial in the first place is because we have public property, which shouldn't even exist. The state obviously wants to own as much property as possible because this allows it to justify controlling our behavior more and more and more.

However, arguing that a company doesn't have the right to set its own gun policies on its own property is akin to arguing that a homeowner doesn't have the right to prevent others from walking onto his property with a sidearm. My colleague acknowledged that he would indeed have the right to remove me from his property if I decided to, say, set up camp on his front lawn one night with a six pack and an arsenal of automatic rifles, but he just couldn't grasp the idea that a private company enjoyed that same right. In fact, his response to me was that for me to hold the opinions I do, I'd "have to place property rights above everything else."

I didn't record yesterday's conversation, but I think my response to this comment was, "Well, duh!"

In very simple terms -- and yes, this is a very simple concept for people who actually like freedom -- there is no such thing as private property if property owners don't retain full control over its use. Anyone who claims that gun rights somehow supercede property rights in general is full of it (and in all honesty rather confused) -- without the right to control the use of your own property, you wouldn't have the right to carry a gun in the first place.

So, yes, this means that no matter how pro-gun you happen to be -- I'm as pro-gun as anyone, inasmuch as this means one has the right to arm himself in public as well as in private -- you have no right whatsoever to carry a gun on private property without the permission of the property owner. If you believe otherwise, you by definition must admit that you believe that the initiation of violence is legitimate -- and this doesn't do you much good when private or public criminals decide to come for you.

Tennessee's New Gun Law Is a Non-Issue for Restaurant Owners

"In Tennessee, we apparently are going to have 225,000 vigilantes shooting in bars."

That's a quote from Randy Rayburn, a restaurateur in Nashville who's complaining about a new state law that will allow gun owners to carry concealed in establishments that serve alcohol.

Rayburn's hyperventilation over this law is absurd at best, considering he's implying that all of Tennessee's handgun permit holders will turn local bars and restaurants into modern day versions of the O.K. Corral just as soon as they're allowed entrance with their sidearms.

But there are at least a few problems with this argument. For starters, gun owners are among the most responsible people around. Thirty-seven other states have similar laws on their books and they haven't yet devolved into the fabled "Wild West" (a myth in its own right). Furthermore, the Tennessee law prevents bar and restaurant patrons from drinking alcohol when in possession of a firearm. And unlike an Oklahoma law that trampled property rights by requiring employers to allow workers to keep firearms in their cars in company parking lots, restaurant owners in Tennessee still have the right to ban weapons from their establishments.

Admittedly, I don't have my finger on the pulse of Tennessee politics, but this new gun law appears to not only increase liberty for gun owners but also preserve the property rights of business owners. The only problem I could foresee is if the law, say, allowed guns in restaurants but not in bars, and the status of an establishment could actually change in the eyes of the state relative to the amount of food it served in proportion to liquor.

For instance, if a restaurant owner could be fined or closed down because his liquor sales outweighed his food sales at any given point -- in essence, he's a "restaurant" one day and a "bar" the next -- this would obviously be an undue burden. In such a case, it would be virtually impossible to monitor a business in a dynamic environment where transactions are occurring minute to minute, and the owner would never really know whether to admit customers with guns or not. However, this doesn't appear to be a potential issue given that the law seems to apply equally to bars and restaurants.

No public servant should have the right to determine policy for any bar or restaurant owner, whether the issue be carrying a firearm, smoking, or eating fatty foods on the premises. All that matters is that consumers are engaging in consensual transactions with the property owners. Bars, like any other business, should be allowed to determine their own policies and either reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of their stand in the marketplace.

Unless I'm mistaken in assessing this new law, people like Randy Rayburn simply have to post a sign reading "No guns allowed" if they don't want patrons carrying firearms -- the same thing they'd do in the absence of state laws in the first place. If this isn't good enough, then the only conclusion one can reliably draw is that Rayburn is a no-good busybody who wishes to use the state in order to impose his will on everyone else.

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.

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.

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.

The Supreme Court Hearts the Police State

This post is dedicated to all you conservatives out there who actually believe your Roberts-led Supreme Court majority will "restore" rights abducted by liberals, or even preserve individual liberties that, quite literally, are fleeting by the year. (Hint: The high court will never overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Rights to life, liberty, and property are not "granted" by any government. They simply exist naturally and ubiquitously. They are your rights no matter what. Therefore, governments can merely suppress them. Unlike the burglar who steals your wallet, the state can't even "give back" your rights after it's "stolen" them; these rights are still in your possession even if the state and its jackbooted thugs initiate limitless violence to prevent you from expressing them.

Case in point: Yesterday's appalling Supreme Court decision to allow evidence collected by police during an unlawful arrest to be used against a defendant. According to USA Today's Joan Biskupic:

When police mistakes that lead to an unlawful search arise from "negligence … rather than systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements," evidence need not be kept from trial, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 5-4 majority in the case from Alabama.

He was joined by the four other conservative justices: Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The four liberal justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer — dissented. They said that because the search violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the evidence should have been excluded. "The most serious impact of the court's holding will be on innocent persons wrongfully arrested based on erroneous information carelessly maintained in a computer database," Ginsburg wrote for the dissenters.

I'm the first to admit there's not much to like about any of the robed totalitarians who sit on the Supreme Court, but Ginsburg hits this one on the head given the specifics of the case, which Biskupic explains thusly:

A warrant clerk in Coffee County, Ala., mistakenly told a police investigator that a warrant from a nearby county was out for Bennie Dean Herring, who had driven to the Coffee County Sheriff's Department to get something from his impounded truck. The Dale County computer error was quickly discovered. But by the time the warrant clerk alerted the police investigator, Herring had been arrested and found with an illegal pistol and with methamphetamine in his pocket.

Given the fact that police didn't even have a valid warrant to search Herring in the first place, they most certainly didn't have a warrant to search for guns or drugs. What's more, this search wasn't even conducted by federal investigators; Herring was searched by county police and only then indicted on federal gun and drug possession charges, which ultimately accounted for his case being heard by the Supreme Court.

Worst of all, even though the feds are well on their way to controlling everthing we do by turning just about any behavior they disapprove of into a federal crime, this ruling could very well be enforced against every state in the union via the putrid incorporation doctrine. Yay, freedom!

No doubt there are conservatives and liberals alike who cheer this decision, if only in support of the evil drug war. However, despite immoral laws and tyrannical politicians and prosecutors, each of us has the right to do what we like with our property so long as we do no tangible harm to anyone else -- and that includes the right to pollute our own bodies with drugs or carry firearms down the street.

Instead of upholding the natural rights of all citizens, the Supreme Court has violated them once again -- and in the process rewarded police negligence, which will result in more and more sanctioned abuse of the innocent at the hands of the state. And to take Justice Ginsberg's admonition a step further, such abuses won't merely be restricted to computer glitches and to innocents who've already been arrested; warrants will now essentially be meaningless, as they will be written narrowly and applied broadly as police will have license to search for anything and everything once they've gained legal access to your home. Indeed, what few protections the Constitution originally afforded are long, long gone.

This case was a no-brainer for anyone willing to apply a literal interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, which requires police to obtain, via probable cause, a warrant for any person or thing that is to be searched or seized. It does not give police the right to seize any property they just happen to stumble upon while searching for someone or something else.

Well, until yesterday anyway.

"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)

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.

Coward

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, that is, whose shrill, infantile demands that prosecutors make an example of New York Giants receiver Plaxico Burress expose him as nothing more than a narcissistic charlatan.

According to Bloomberg, Burress -- who no more committed a "crime" by accidentally shooting himself in the leg than he would have had he given himself a paper cut or cut himself with a broken beer bottle -- essentially deserves to be incarcerated because he's a celebrity. Apparently, only corrupt New York City mayors deserve special treatment.

As yet, no actual crime has been committed in the fiasco; you'll know one has when frauds in suits and robes condemn to prison a man who's done harm to no one.

Plaxico Burress is not being prosecuted. He's being persecuted. And you wonder why he was afraid to call the cops?

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.

Bend Your Knee to the State!

Tragically, an 8-year-old Massachusetts boy died last Sunday when he accidentally shot himself in the head while shooting an Uzi under adult supervision at a firing range.

Of course, that isn't stopping the local DA from trying to find someone to pin criminal charges on (my emphasis).

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. - Authorities in Massachusetts are considering whether criminal charges should be filed in the death of an 8-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself with an Uzi submachine gun at a gun show.

Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett said Tuesday he hasn't been able to find any law that would authorize a child to possess or fire a machine gun.

The reason Bennett hasn't been able to find a law that would permit a child to fire such a gun is because laws are generally written to prohibit people from doing things.

It's bad enough that we're legally required to understand the incomprehensible litany of laws that are shoved down our throats by federal, state, and local governments; now, apparently, we're supposed to tiptoe around wondering if the state's deigned to allow us to partake in particular activities that haven't yet been legally outlawed.

(Thanks to Kramer)

Gun Saves Another Life

A Buffalo man is alive today because he had the ability to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.

A pizza deliveryman fought off three robbers at gunpoint and shot one of them in the back Thursday night, police say.

The deliveryman, who works for Tomatoes Pizza on Kensington Avenue, walked up to the house in the 400 block of Dartmouth Avenue and was confronted by the three would-be robbers, police said. At least one of the bandits had a gun.

[...]

Buffalo police say that the deliveryman, who was not injured, has a legal permit for the gun and apparently used it lawfully.

Permit schmermit. We all have the natural right to protect our person and property as we see fit so long as we do no harm to anyone else by taking these precautionary measures. The state does not grant rights; it merely limits (or eliminates) those we already have.

The Fascist NRA

Steve Chapman correctly explains why there is no right to keep and bear arms on someone else's property -- despite claims to the contrary by the National Rifle Association, which is content to use its political influence to lobby for political favors in the private sector.

Incidentally, this is also why I'm no longer "the NRA."

Too Cool for School

A small Texas school district is set to allow teachers to pack heat to protect against school shootings.

Still, this is an example of fighting the symptom instead of the disease. Because politically correct bureaucracy makes it virtually impossible to expel thugs from public schools, the state facilitates school violence in the first place.

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.

Connecticut's Gun Grab

Via Manuel Lora, police in Connecticut are taking advantage of a unique state law that allows the government to disarm gun owners on mere "suspicions that they might harm themselves or others."

I was drawn to this particular paragraph of the report, which tends to give lie to the notion that this law is anything but a legal avenue for the state to ultimately confiscate the property of all gun owners:

Under the law, any two police officers or a state prosecutor may obtain warrants to seize guns from individuals who pose an imminent risk of harming themselves or others. Before applying for warrants, police must first conduct investigations and determine there is no reasonable alternative to seizing someone's guns. Judges must also make certain findings.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that any individual has the right to harm himself, why would the police need special permission (a warrant) to prevent imminent threats? The term "imminent" itself means impending; in this case, it means that a crime against someone's person or property is actually in process. By any reasonable measure, everyone -- not just government personnel -- has the right to use defensive force in order to forestall imminent attacks on themselves or others.

But that's not really the point of this legislation, as protecting property rights is (ahem!) at least ostensibly inherent to the role of the police officer. Indeed, like sobriety checkpoints, speed traps, and existing limitations on firearm possession, this is yet another example of how the government prosecutes us for our sheer potential to commit a crime instead of punishing those who are actually guilty of violating the property rights of others.

We all have the "potential" to harm someone else, even if inadvertantly, so this gun law should be seen for what it is: a wholesale attempt by the state of Connecticut to disarm even perfectly peaceful citizens.

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.

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.

Sometimes You Get the Bear...

...sometimes the bear gets you.

Two thugs attempt to rob a Subway restaurant at gunpoint. Seventy-one-year-old customer and retired Marine John Lovell pulls his own gun and shoots both men, killing one. Family of the punk who learned his lesson the hard way condemns Lovell for "taking the law into his own hands," saying that he was wrong for pulling the trigger.

To that I will add: BWAAAAAAAAAAAAH-HA-HA-HA!!!

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.

Arizona Is Freer Than Maryland

Not only does the Grand Canyon State have a conceal carry law, but the state legislature has just voted to opt out of the Real ID -- something Marylanders know the pro-state, powermad Gov. Douchebag has refused to do.

Michigan Is Freer Than Maryland, Part II

I was talking yesterday with a few of my pilot friends who flew to Detroit for the Red Bull air races last weekend, and they again remarked on how amazing it was that there were so few police officers present among a crowd of thousands during the event.

You'll have to forgive us Marylanders for standing in awe of a state that doesn't seek to inundate you with state and federal authority at nearly every turn.

Naturally, one friend commented that Michigan's status as a shall issue state may have played a big part in the decision not to waste police resources during the event -- in short, inherent to conceal carry laws is the assumption that individuals are capable of and responsible for protecting themselves.

After doing only a little digging this morning, I discovered that violent crime in the city of Detroit declined 23 percent from 2000 to 2004, and a 2006 study found that crime in downtown Detroit was much lower than national, state, and metro averages. Any coincidence that this drop in crime follows the conceal carry law passed in 2001?

None of this suggests that Detroit doesn't still struggle with violent crime or that its current rates are acceptable -- even one crime is one too many -- but it's safe to say that it would be much worse if law-abiding citizens didn't have the capability of protecting themselves in public places.

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.

'Students Want Chance to Defend Themselves'

University of Cincinnati student, Michael Flitcraft, is lobbying college brass to allow concealed-carry on campus. As expected, the issue is being met with the requisite resistance from gun control advocates.

"I don't think the answer to bullets flying is to send more bullets flying," said Gene Ferrara, the police chief at the University of Cincinnati. "My belief is we ought to be focusing on what we do to prevent the shooting from starting."

Some might say this is exactly what Flitcraft is doing, as not even gun-toting criminals are complete dumbasses.

Charlton Heston, RIP

Civil rights and gun rights advocate Charlton Heston has died at 84.

Just as "liberals" sunk so low as to make fun of a man suffering from Alzheimer's all those years, they can't help but celebrate his death.

Cowards.

NRA Supports Property Rights Abuse

Once again, the NRA encourages property rights abuses as long as it furthers its own agenda. This time, the organization has successfully lobbied the Florida legislature to "allow" employees to bring their guns to work.

The measure (HB 503) is a watered-down version of what the NRA had hoped for but is seen as a compromise that the Senate is also expected to sign off on.

Under the proposal, employees and visitors who have state-issued concealed weapons licenses would be able to bring their weapons to work and leave them locked in their vehicles.

Another way to put it is that Florida has passed a bill forcing companies to allow guns on private property. You should cheer only if you believe the government has the right to tell you who and what you may allow in your own house.

You may remember the NRA-led boycott of Conoco-Phillips a couple years ago after the company fought an Oklahoma law requiring employers to allow employees to keep firearms in their cars on private parking lots. The NRA argued absurdly that the oil company was restricting Second Amendment rights, but no one can take away something he's under no obligation to provide in the first place. The Bill of Rights is a contract between government and individuals, not two individuals.

The NRA's selective respect for property rights illustrates its tacit consent to erode the very liberties it claims to protect.

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.

The Almighty Gun

The ideal self-defense weapon.

Don't Shoot Yourself in the Foot

As I sat in the pediatrician's office this morning waiting to be called for my son's appointment, I realized how fortunate I'd been to read this article by John Lott over the weekend. Lott explained that some doctors have begun grilling children about their parents' legal gun ownership, implicitly suggesting that children are at higher risk of injury and death if parents own firearms and, in some cases, they've even reported parents to local authorities if their kids answered in the affirmative.

The office secretary asked my wife to fill out a questionnaire prior to our meeting with the doctor, and sure enough, about halfway down the page under the heading "Safety Risks" was the question, "Do you have guns in your house?" Given that I didn't see an option for "None of your goddamn business," I urged my wife to answer 'No'. If I don't have guns in the house, well, I suppose our pediatrician doesn't need to worry about my kid getting shot with one of them; if I do have them in the house, however, at least I'll know I'll be prepared to defend my wife and son in the event an intruder attempts to harm them.

Perhaps the doc simply wants to know if her patients live among firearms so she can reinforce to parents the importance of keeping them out of the hands of irresponsible children or teaching youngsters how to handle them appropriately. If that's the case, I'd say she's just doing her job. However, I'm just not willing to take the chance that there are ulterior motives at play, especially since the police state only continues to grow by the day. After all, if I do own firearms legally, they're already registered with the state. I'd hardly need my kid's pediatrician and her proxies in the government meddling in my private affairs.

Questioning anyone's gun ownership is appalling in itself because no one has the right to tell us what we can or cannot own if we mind our own business and initiate no violence against others. And it's especially misplaced considering the fact that there are many everyday household products that are much more likely to harm kids than guns are. In fact, according to Lott:   

In 2003, for the United States, the Centers for Disease Control reports that 28 children under age 10 died from accidental shots. With some 90 million gun owners and about 40 million children under 10, it is hard to find any item as commonly owned in American homes, as potentially as lethal, that has as low of an accidental death rate.

[...]

Over 1,400 children were killed by cars, almost 260 of those deaths were young pedestrians. Bicycle and space heater accidents take many times more children’s lives than guns. Over 90 drowned in bathtubs. The most recent yearly data available indicates that over 30 children under age 5 drowned in five-gallon plastic water buckets.

So do yourselves a favor. The next time someone asks you whether or not you keep guns in your house, you may want to verify their motives before answering. The government will usurp enough of our rights by force; no need to take the chance that we're volunteering our freedoms away, too.

At Home on the Range

I thought I'd share some photos I took Saturday morning during a very therapeutic shooting session with friends. Aside from a few expert marksmen in our midst, most of us couldn't hit a twenty-five cent whore with a roll of quarters in our pocket, but it was some good fun nonetheless.

Not really sure what's going on with that grip there.

Amanda's virgin voyage!

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.

Blueprint for Freedom

Lew Rockwell's 30-day plan for less government.

You might notice that this was originally published in 1991, but freedom is a timeless concept. Funny how it's even more relevant today.

Jesus Would Tell You to Pack Heat

And if you don't already own a gun, you might want to go out and buy one if Chuck Baldwin's suspicions are correct.

A startling television news report from Shreveport, Louisiana has revealed a sinister plot hatched deep inside the diabolical brain cells of the Bush administration to use America's pulpits as promoters of tyranny. That is a strong statement, I know. But it is true.

According to KSLA television in Shreveport, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intends to use America's preachers to help pave the way for martial law in the event of another terrorist attack upon the United States.

The KSLA report begins, "Could martial law ever become a reality in America? Some fear any nuclear, biological or chemical attack on U.S. soil might trigger just that. KSLA 12 has discovered that the clergy would help the government with potentially their biggest problem: Us."

Why I'm Letting My NRA Membership Lapse

I've been growing more and more skeptical of the National Rifle Association's commitment to our constitutional right to bear arms ever since Executive V.P. Wayne LaPierre criticized oil conglomerate ConocoPhilips for opposing an Oklahoma statute requiring companies to allow employees to keep guns in their cars when parked on private parking lots.

Here's what I wrote in an article almost two years ago (related piece here):

Reacting to a federal lawsuit filed by ConocoPhillips to block an Oklahoma law preventing companies from firing employees for keeping legally owned firearms in cars parked in company parking lots, LaPierre stated, "[W]e're going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights."

As a member of the NRA, I support its campaign to encourage corporations to allow employees the benefits of firearm [protection] on company property. But Mr. LaPierre nonetheless should have known better than to suggest that a private corporation has any duty whatsoever to uphold our right to bear arms.

The Bill of Rights is not a contract between two citizens. It's a contract between government and its citizens. It places limits on the government, not the people. The Second Amendment expressly prohibits the federal government from infringing upon the right of the people to bear arms; it does not grant it the right or responsibility to regulate the states or its citizens.

Consequently, the federal government has absolutely no right to demand that states conduct background checks against law-abiding citizens attempting to purchase guns. However, the House has just passed H.R. 2640, which aims to close a "loophole" in the National Instant Check System (NICS) that ostensibly led to the Virginia Tech massacre.

Sadly, the NRA fully supports this legislation, stating, "No piece of legislation will stop a madman bent on committing horrific crimes. However, those who have been found mentally incompetent by a court should to be included in the NICS."

I'll admit that I don't necessarily like the idea of the mentally ill running around with guns. I also don't particularly like the idea of guns in the hands of husbands who catch their wives in bed with other men or fathers who've found out their daughters were raped, either. But this protocol is ripe for abuse, regardless of what politicians and the NRA claim today.

According to Gun Owners of America, H.R. 2640 is nothing more than "a deal with Democrats," not to mention one that "involves legislation introduced by the most anti-gun member of the House, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)." The GOA proceeds to note that this policy will also unfairly target military veterans who have suffered from conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. To wit:

The Brady law already contains a procedure for cleaning up records. But it hasn't worked for the 83,000 veterans that are currently prohibited from buying guns. Gun Owners of America is aware of many people who have tried to invoke this procedure in the Brady Law, only to get the run around -- and a form letter -- from the FBI. The simple truth is that the FBI and the BATFE think the 83,000 veterans, and many other law-abiding Americans, should be in the NICS system.

Note to Wayne LaPierre: This is bad legislation. Not only does it further empower the FBI and federal government with greater oversight and control over our gun ownership, but the N in NICS stands for national. For an organization that thrives by claiming to represent our constitutional rights to own firearms, it certainly misses the entire point of the Constitution in the first place.

The NRA has undoubtedly done much good over the years in advocating on behalf of gun rights. However, it appears to have morphed into an organization that is more concerned with serving its own political ends as opposed to the individual rights of its members.

It is for all of these reasons that I will not renew my NRA membership and instead consider joining an organization like the GOA to help protect our guns and our rights from the federal government. Go here if you'd like to do the same.

Guns! Lots and Lots of Guns!

"Violence in Baltimore has to stop!" blah blah blah.. "This spike in homicides is unacceptable!" blah blah.. "Can't we all just get along?!" blah blah blah..

It sure seems like Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon is in a pickle (celebrity quotes partially imagined):

As of yesterday, 128 people had been killed in Baltimore this year compared with 113 at the same time last year. By late May, meanwhile, the number of shootings had climbed to 303, up 35 percent.

Dixon, who has been in office four months, shifted away from the zero-tolerance policing of past mayors. She is focusing more attention on individual violent criminals, adding foot patrols and expanding city services to troubled neighborhoods - all part of a larger effort to prevent crime before it happens.

One really good way to start reducing homicide rates is to let law-abiding citizens carry firearms for protection (check the data for yourself). It recognizes our human right to protect ourselves, and whether you're for or against this, it can only promote freedom and liberty. Even where concealed-carry laws haven't noticeably reduced violent crime, they haven't been shown to increase it, either, and they haven't encouraged more gunfights, as many critics have worried.

Putting more cops on the beat will probably help Dixon's problem. But what can we say about politicians who continue to behave the same way -- in this case, taking guns out of the hands of defenseless citizens -- yet expect different results?

Einstein would call them insane. I just call them idiots.

Ah, Freedom!

It just doesn't get much better than this. Ten-month old "Bubba" Ludwig recent received his very own Illinois gun permit.

Illinois State Police oversee the application process. Their purpose, said Lt. Scott Compton, is to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, those under an order of protection and those convicted of domestic violence.

"Does a 10-month-old need a FOID [firearm owner's identification card] card? No, but there are no restrictions under the act regarding age of applicants," he said.

[Father Howard] Ludwig, 30, of Chicago, applied for the card after his own father bought Bubba a 12-gauge Beretta shotgun as a gift. The weapon will probably be kept at Ludwig's father's house until the boy is at least 14.

Actually, if I have one bone to pick, it's that the state requires gun owners to purchase a FOID in the first place. Such regulations merely provide the government with the means to track -- and eventually confiscate -- our guns in the first place.

But I suppose I won't protest too much. After all, Illinois apparently understands who should be responsible for making the decisions regarding Bubba's use of handguns -- his parents.

The Second Amendment Lives

In a stunning and historical decision, a federal appeals court has ruled that D.C.'s ban on handguns in the home is unconstitutional.

This is a huge victory for gun rights, as the decision recognizes an individual right to bear arms. Predictably, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty is "disappointed" and "outraged" by the decision, stating, "It flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia."

It's true that gun violence has decreased in the District, but it remains one of the country's most violent cities. And for crying out loud, the ruling merely allows D.C. residents to have guns in their homes; it didn't even address carrying firearms in public. So the point remains: D.C.'s gun ban has done virtually nothing over the years to reduce crime in any meaningful capacity, much less create an atmosphere where residents feel they're empowered to protect themselves from violent criminals. The least D.C.'s "leaders" could do is try something new.

Here is the actual ruling, via Radley Balko, who also notes that, mysteriously, the NRA has at every step fought the suit opposing the ban. Balko shares his thoughts on why this might have been, and if he's even half right I'll be canceling my NRA membership immediately.

Still Not Enough

The Washington Examiner reports that D.C.'s murder rate is the lowest it's been in 21 years.

WASHINGTON - Washington will likely end 2006 with the fewest murders in 21 years, and the second-lowest total since the mid-1960s, when the city earned the nickname the “Murder Capital on the Potomac.”

With less than two weeks remaining, the District has had 157 murders this year, down from 196 in 2005 and 262 three years ago. The murder rate represents the lowest in D.C. since 1985, when the city had 147 killings.

Meanwhile, murders across the country rose 1.4 percent and robberies by 9.7 percent during the first six months of 2006, according to an FBI study released Monday.

Sure, murders might be "down," but it's still not good enough. I want to know who's going to have the stones to call for the District to rid itself of its ultra-restrictive gun laws, which reassure criminals that law-abiding citizens are sitting ducks.

One of those 157 this year was my friend's old high school buddy, who was walking down the street with his mother one night over the summer when they were approached by a couple thugs who demanded the mother's purse. After she promptly surrendered it, one of the muggers pulled a gun and shot her son in the face.

Too bad no one informed this murderer that guns are illegal in D.C. Surely that would have prevented him from killing that night.

There's a simple way to cut crime without increasingly forcing taxpayers to pay for more cops and their requisite benefits and overtime costs: Allow law-abiding citizens to conceal-carry in the District. I'd bet good money the murder rate would be cut in half in only one year.

Then again, that wouldn't necessarily allow political opportunists to convince the easily misled that we're doing all we can to fight crime, now would it?

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.

Small Steps Toward Crime Prevention?

This is just too cool.