A Reasoned Approach

Next, how about we throw the 2nd Amendment into the trash heap of well-meant but stupid historical statements. There is no right way to interpret it, and we're just being intellectually dishonest if we pretend there is.

Of course there's a right way to interpret the Second Amendment, Mark. Just because you say there's not doesn't make it so.

Be intellectually honest and do some research before acting like you're an authority and obscuring the issue.

Start by getting a copy of attorney David T. Hardy's "In Search of the Second Amendment" DVD, which interviews leading Constitutional scholars and examines the historical record on how the amendment was developed and the intent of the Founders. If you're going to set yourself up as an authority with credentials to negate evidence presented by figures like Kates, Polsby, Levinson, Halbrook, Malcolm, Amar, Barnett, Cottroll, Kleck, Lund, Johnson, Innes, Reynolds, Volokh, et al., then let's party.

Educating yourself so you know what you're talking about would be the "reasoned approach." Otherwise, you just come across as another self-impressed dilettante with a fashionable opinion and a following of equally shallow and uneducated sycophants.

GUNS Magazine: September 1957

"WHY NOT Have A Pro-Gun Law," is possibly the longest article we have ever published. It may well be also the most important article we have ever published.

The "call to arms" which ends the story, urging all firearms enthusiasts to write to the Director of the Alcohol & Tobacco Tax Unit,Treasury, Washington 25, D. C., to protest new revised federal regulations in the gun law field is a little like Paul Revere's "one if by land, two if by sea." Only now it isn't the "British are coming," it is the bureaucrats.

There has been some serious thought among Congressmen and Senators as to the activities of this branch of the Treasury which administers the federal gun laws. Some congressmen have been outspoken in expressing the view that the Treasury has been attempting actually to alter law, to make law, which is a privilege jealously guarded by the Congress. In "Why Not A Pro-Gun Law," the author brings up to date the present situation in anti-6rearms legislation.

We are now at a crossroads. For decades shooting enthusiasts have been complacent while lawmakers, directed by people who are not all well-intentioned by any means, have been chipping away at the edges of American freedom. Restrictive firearms laws are but one face of restrictive federal interference into American private affairs.

We exist in a republic which is supposed to guarantee liberty under law. When laws become destructive of these liberties, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or to abolish those laws, and to institute new forms of law which shall best effect their safety and happiness.

Old militiaman Tom Jefferson would doubtless applaud this paraphrasing of his immortal document, the Declaration of Independence. Fortunately, it is not too late. The revised regulations are not yet in effect as of press-time. A public hearing on the new revised regulations is scheduled for Tuesday, August 27, 1957, at 10:00 AM, room 3313, Internal Revenue Bldg., 12th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D. C. Any protests can be made in person there, and Eastern-area readers of GUNS may find their interests best served if they obtain complete copies of the regulations, read and understand their implications, and appear to register their protests in person.

The September 1957 issue of GUNS Magazine is now online. Go to page 22 to read the entire article in question, which brings to light much information I had not previously been aware of (and some controversy, as you'll see when the topic of bearing arms is discussed.) Still, how much fault do we want to find find with an author who advocates eliminating all federal "gun control" laws? And the anecdotes about gun-controlling authorities breaking federal laws, the recap of "Big Tim" Sullivan's corruption, and the refreshing voice of radicalism in that era are just plain fascinating.

And let's not forget the classic period gun ads.

But just to show that even then some gun owners had their heads up...a creek..., there's this letter to the editor:
Good rebuttal, Mr. Mann!

BATFU and the Wide Open Spaces

The ATF has issued a new 4473 form, this is the form that you must fill out in order to purchase a firearm.

Ryan Horsley of Red's Trading Post gives us the lowdown on the lowdown BATFU Harassment Agency's latest incarnation of their damnable Citizen gun owner registration record.

If I was Ryan's lawyer, I'd be asking DIO Richard Van Loan under oath why they widened the "Yes/No" entry spaces on the form in 2001, after Ryan's 2000 audit where many of the "violations" were found. That's nothing less than an official admission that the old form didn't have enough room to comply with writing the words out, practically necessitating a "Y" or "N" entry, and it seems Judge Lodge ought to be taking that into consideration.

Still, seeing as how BATFU has nothing better to do than penalize businesses for not doing exactly as ordered, no matter how petty or ridiculous, I wonder if they could cite a dealer for a violation if they didn't ensure quotation marks around the "Yes" or "No," as specified on the form instruction?

And there's one other thing no one else seems to be talking about. Ryan presents three versions of Form 4473 beginning in 1997. The 2005 revision shows an interesting major change, one that I believe was introduced in 2001. (Unexplained is why the official sample presented on BATFU's website has a revision date of "10-2001". They demand perfect compliance, and this is the quality of their information resources?)

Why did BATFU start compiling statistics on what race a gun owner is? Of what relevance is that, and who authorized them to require racial profiling as a precondition to buying a gun? Could the federal government enforce the same requirement for, say, voting?

And here's one of the better illustrations of bureaucratic incompetence I've seen in a long time: In this time of the "war on terror," when Sarah Brady et al. are railing about Middle Eastern terrorists exploiting "the gun show loophole" to procure unregistered .50BMGs that can shoot down the Starship Enterprise, does anybody see a category on BATFU's new "racing form" for...uh...Middle Easterners?

If we're all going to be forced into the cattle car, why do they get a pass? Hey, if you're going to classify Semitic people as "White," why is there a separate Hispanic/Latino category? If I were a Middle Easterner, I'd be offended if someone tried to lump me in with Europeans.

But really--how, in post-9/11 America--can BATFU possibly justify documenting gun purchases by Pacific Islanders, but not by people of Arab descent? And is this just more stupid, or is it intentional?

What this means is, if you refuse to allow the government to register your race (unless you're a Sunni from Fallujah?), they can deny your right to keep and bear arms. Since when has BATFU been given authority to do that, and who has the authority to give it to them?

I smell a potential lawsuit here. At the very least, it'd be fun to monkeywrench the bastards and publicly force them to go through another form change immediately after going through the expense and hoopla of issuing their latest revision.

"Probable Cause"

They obtained a warrant, searched my bag, determined that unless I was planning on throwing my physics notes at someone (which reminds me I left a notebook on the desk in class…. I’ll have to get it tomorrow) I had nothing that was illegal in my bag.

Posting on gun forums can get you searched. And that's all the "probable cause" needed to obtain a warrant in the police state we have allowed ourselves to devolve into.

I applaud this guy's refusal to allow the cops to search his backpack without a warrant--that showed courage most don't have.

That said, I would have objected to a search of my person as well, and I certainly wouldn't be posting after the fact about how polite my tormentors were during my coerced ordeal--where enemies who outnumbered me were prepared to kill me if I didn't comply with their orders. I certainly wouldn't be apologizing "for making [their] jobs harder."

I'd also be demanding to know who my accuser was. Problem is, most college students don't have the money to pursue legal claims, and it's not like this is meat for contingency lawyers--so unless someone like the ACLU steps up to the plate, and considering their position on guns that ain't gonna happen--legal resolution seems unlikely.

[Via RuffRidr]

We're the Only Ones "Well Regulated" Enough

They call themselves the Regulators.

They wear tattoos of a skull-faced man holding a shotgun, fire screaming from its barrels. They refuse to testify against their buddies. They've been accused of extorting and intimidating those outside their ranks.

No, they're not members of a street gang. They're Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies at the Century station in Lynwood.

Uh, yes, they are too a street gang. And they're the "Only Ones" we need fear. The others we can repel by force, if necessary, and have at least a chance against the resulting legal consequences. If we defend ourselves from these thugs, the entire force and resources of the state will be brought down on us with a vengeance.

They've gone from "peace officers" to "law enforcement officers" to "regulators."

I can't think of a better example for explaining crime lord Lee Baca's insistence on keeping the populace his arrogant thugs "regulate" legally disabled from fighting back.

[Via Tony G]

A Lesson from the Environmentalists

Environmentalists sued the federal government Wednesday alleging it had failed to regulate emissions from oceangoing vessels that pollute the air and cause respiratory illness around ports nationwide.

So if this ends up working, how about we try the same thing over guns and sue against its failure to stop infringements that cause deaths and injuries nationwide?

If they win, this seems like it will also create a general duty to protect...

We're the Only Ones Too Pooped to Participate Enough

The city's pooper scooper law applies to everyone, even police officers on mounted patrol and K-9 unit duty -- but a new statute may allow them to start leaving the evidence behind...the change is meant to allow officers in the saddle or partnered with canines to patrol events such as University of Wisconsin football games without having to stop to pick up droppings like civilian pet owners.

I can envision the scenario now--a mounted "Only One" writing a ticket against a citizen pet owner while his patrol horse evacuates. Or maybe they could sic their K-9 partner on them right after its done with its business.

Either way, this seems yet another example of rubbing...uh...special privileges in our faces.

[Via WmH]

This Day in History: September 6

The General has no doubt, but that every man who has a due sense of the importance of the cause he has undertaken to defend, and who has any regard to his own honor and the reputation of a soldier will, if called to action, behave like one contending for every thing valuable; But, if contrary to his expectation, there shall be found any officers, or soldiers, so far lost to all shame as basely to quit their post without orders, or shall skulk from danger, or offer to retreat before order is given for so doing, from proper authority, of a superior officer, they are to be instantly shot down, as a just punishment to themselves, and for examples to others.