Funny Thing About Requiring Permission To Exercise Rights

They can get interrupted by things like weather and technical difficulties.

We're from the Government. We're Here to Help.

FEMA flies refugees to the wrong Charleston.

Your tax dollars at work.

This is like watching bad slapstick. All that's missing is the pie fight.

Bordering on Insane

I missed this story when it came out last week. I haven't seen it get much play elsewhere, either.

The Canadian border guards want to carry handguns, just like the police, and they've walked off the job to make that happen. While I'd feel more sympathy for them if they championed the right for citizens to carry as well, what they're up against provides a near-perfect example of official arrogance and stupidity. Either that, or something else.

An unnamed spokeshole for Public Security Minister Anne McLellan had this to say:

"Arrangements are made with police to ensure that when an armed presence is needed, the police can be contacted to work with the border agents to address a situation."

I can't believe anyone, even a government official, is that dumb. But why would anyone want to have unarmed border guards unless they didn't really want the border guarded?

[Hat tip to Liberty Belles]

Defending Liberty in the New World

Part Two is now posted on the Liberty Belles site.

Click here if you missed Part One.

Every Silver Lining's Got a Touch of Gray

Anti-gun pediatricians (are there any other kind?) are sounding the alarm about guns left unlocked and loaded in American homes.

Proving the pediatricians ivory tower fools is this AP story, which relates "The District may have a high number of gun related crimes, but a new report says the city has the lowest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns."

Are congratulations in order, or what?

On Conferred Rights

Friend, attorney and Second Amendment activist Peter Mancus has turned up an interesting case in his research, Capen v. Foster, wherein it was declared:

"[I]n all cases where the constitution has conferred a political right or privilege, and where the constitution has not particularly designated the manner in which that right is to be exercised, it is clearly within the just and constitutional limits of the legislative power, to adopt any reasonable and uniform regulations, in regard to the time and mode of exercising that right, which are designed to secure and facilitate the exercise of such right, in a prompt, orderly, and convenient manner;"

"Now," Peter writes, "think in terms of the Second Amendment and how it ends, '...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.'

"My point(s): 1) The Second, by declaring that this is a right that belongs to the people which shall not be infringed, conferred a right which 'designated the manner in which that right is to be exercised,' namely, it may be exercised to the fullest, without regard to time and place and mode restrictions; and 2) Based on that, and a ton of Rules of Constitutional Construction, e.g., no word or phrase is surplusage and all words and phrases must be given full weight and read in context, etc, no legislature has any constitutionaly legitimate power to impose a prior restraint against the exercise of this right; 3) The Congress and State legislatures retain the legitimate power to punish a civil negligent or criminal abuse or misuse of this right but they cannot, per the US Supreme Court, treat 'the right of the people' and/or 'shall not be infringed' as meaningless verbiage that does not impose meaningful limits on Congress or the State legislatures; 4) The Framers put in the Bill only that which they deemed to be important--fundamental, foundational; 5) The Second guaranteess, or at least codifies, a fundamental right that has always been binding against Congress and the States, from the get go, period."

I think Peter is on to something. I did have one concern that I wrote back to him about and urged him to address:

Main Entry: con·fer
Pronunciation: k&n-'f&r
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·ferred; con·fer·ring
Etymology: Latin conferre to bring together, from com- + ferre to carry -- more at BEAR
transitive senses
1 : to bestow from or as if from a position of superiority (conferred an honorary degree on her) (knowing how to read was a gift conferred with manhood -- Murray Kempton)
2 : to give (as a property or characteristic) to someone or something (a reputation for power will confer power -- John Spanier)

This reflects all too typical judicial arrogance and/or total misunderstanding of the purpose of the Constitution, i.e., to define the delegated structure and powers of the national government, and of the nature of the Bill of Rights demanded by the anti-Federalists.

The Framers understood rights to be “unalienable,” and “endowed by our Creator.” If they are “conferred,” they are done so by “Nature’s God,” not by a government document.

The Framers understood and held “these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal,” which makes it impossible for one group to “confer” rights to another, as that, by definition, requires them to be bestowed from a position of superiority.

In fact, the view of government expressed here is exactly backward: Government is the servant. Government is conferred powers, bestowed from those in a position of superiority, i.e., the people.

So the Second Amendment does not confer to me any right to keep and bear arms—it merely articulates and recognizes that right, further stating it shall not be infringed. The limit is again on government, not on me.

So when you say: “The Second, by declaring that this is a right that belongs to the people which shall not be infringed, conferred a right which…” you are ceding this important concept to the enemy.

This is an important point and not mere quibbling over word choices. As you point out, “no word or phrase is surplusage and all words and phrases must be given full weight and read in context…”

I think your other points have much merit. I just think that this business of conferring rights also needs to be pointed out, and you shouldn’t fall into the trap of using “conferred” in your arguments, unless it is to point out the fallacy of the concept.

A Book Burning in Kanab

A high school football team posed for a fundraising calendar with weapons. The young men liked it, the coach liked it, the businesses that funded the calendar liked it, and the sheriff liked it so much he supplied the weapons.

A handful of local wimps didn't like it, so the principal caved and ordered the calendar's recall.

So much for the Founders' idea, that the militia would include young men. I guess it's better to let them reach military age ignorant of all things martial.

The recall of these calendars is nothing less than a good old fashioned Nazi book burning. So much for teaching the principles of freedom. The lesson here is the exact opposite: Ideas that make some uncomfortable must be suppressed and destroyed.

Hey, if there's no Second Amendment, why should there be a First?

This would be a great hot potato to throw the ACLU.

California Dreamin'

Perata’s snottiness explains much. It’s not about public safety — it’s about harassing gun owners and political opponents. That’s why we see endless proposals designed to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms — something Attorney General Bill Lockyer denies exists.

"California Dreamin'," my September Rights Watch column for GUNS Magazine, is now online.

New Orleans: A Wakeup Call For California

"When politicians tell you that only law enforcement and police should own guns in today's 'modern society', tell them to go to hell... or New Orleans. There's no difference between either at this point in time."--Ralph Weller

What Kind of Example Are These People Setting for Our Children?

"I was standing on the front porch with a shotgun keeping an eye on things. I could hear people breaking into houses right around the corner. We knew. We knew we had to get out. There was no police presence. The people are just going crazy. There doesn't seem to be any authority at all...

"Earlier today, a man came up to me. I think he wanted the canoe. He saw I was armed and gave up.

"We happened to pass this mall and people were looting it.

"People told us the police went in there so they started shooting at the police. So the police left. They (looters) just set the place on fire. We saw it burning and we saw the fire department not even going near the place because the looters were going nuts."

The Brady Center, of course, knows better:

"Recent research has shown that most Americans feel less safe when others in the community acquire firearms: 71% of all Americans and 85% of non-gun owners came to this conclusion. Clearly, as the authors noted, 'the decision to own a firearm is more than solely a personal or a household issue - it affects others in the community as well.' The decision to allow citizens to carry firearms outside of their homes would arguably have an even more detrimental effect on feelings of safety.

"More importantly, one has to wonder what the National Rifle Association's mantra that 'an armed society is a polite society' is teaching our children. The rhetoric of the gun lobby suggests that only by carrying a weapon can one be safe in the United States. They claim that law enforcement cannot be trusted to protect society."

New Orleans Journal

Awesome and compelling commentary.

Thanks to McGath.

More "In Your FACE!" to CA Gun Owners

Mark Ridley-Thomas thinks we're not mature enough to select our own ammunition at gun stores.

Ridley-Thomas also promulgates a communist redistribution of wealth edict "that would impose a fee on ammunition to partially offset the financial costs incurred by firearm victims."

Along with then-mayor Tom Bradley, he told police to keep a low profile during the outbreak of the Los Angeles riots. Per former LAPD Assistant Chief Robert Vernon, "They listened to the politicians and those two quadrants of the city are where we had the trouble."

So he does what he can to disarm you, and then sets up conditions where you'd better be armed if you want to survive.

Let's see what Arnhole does with this one.

"Trade Your Gun for Cameras and Equipment"

Don't worry--this isn't another odious "gun buyback" program where some anti trades you merchandise gift certificates to "get guns off the street." It's an ad in the September 1955 issue of GUNS Magazine placed by the National Camera Exchange of Minneapolis, MN, which would sell you a gun as well (looks like they're out of the gun trading business--oh, that's right, the City of Minneapolis is currently harassing The Last Gunshop out of existence).

That's not all that's changed since this issue was printed.

Take a look back at a different time. Enjoy.

"Shoot to Kill"

That's what I'm hearing a lot of in regards to New Orleans looters.

Without getting into a debate on the many causes of the effects we are now seeing, I just want to point out one thing: A confrontation where looters or rioters are shot and killed by authorities could be the catalyst for riots in many other urban areas.

With each new report of lawlessness and violence, the potential for this seems more likely.

I hope that I'm wrong.

Good For Me, But Not For Thee

NBC News has sent private security personnel to the increasingly dicey Gulf Coast region to help keep its employees safe while covering the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The private security officers, usually former soldiers or police, are licensed to carry firearms and are trained to keep the situation under control so that journalists can do their jobs safely.

Wait a minute...isn't NBC one of those "Publication and Media Outlets" listed as anti-gun on NRA's website?

And they've operated under the protection of armed guards before? And so have their competitors?

It seems when it comes to protecting their own elitist hindquarters, the Establishment media isn't really that anti-gun after all.

"Better Late Than Never," Indeed

An AP Katrina aftermath survival story, via Whose Paranoid:

"We had excellent plans. We had enough food for 10 days," said Peggy Hoffman, the home's executive director. "Now we'll have to equip our department heads with guns and teach them how to shoot."

An Open Plea to President Bush

I just received my "personal invitation" from the Second Amendment Foundation's Alan Gottlieb to attend the "20th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC), which will be taking place September 23, 24 and 25, 2005 at the Los Angeles Airport Marriott in Los Angeles, California."

We're promised "Scheduled speakers this year include: myself, Joe Tartaro, Wayne LaPierre, Sandy Froman, John Lott, Massad Ayoob, Eugene Volokh, Larry Pratt, John Snyder, Joe Waldron, as well as staff from the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, KeepAndBearArms.com, and Gun Owners of America. President George Bush has been invited as well. "

President Bush, I have never in my life begged anything from a public official.

Please attend this conference. PLEASE!

I'd pay good money to see all the nationally recognized "gun rights leaders" line up to get cavity searched for weapons--just so they can pay tribute to you for supporting their right to keep and bear arms.

Please?

Ann Coulter--Neocon Shill

"Conservative" columnist Ann Coulter disdains "...the (nonexistent) 'right to privacy.' "I know as much about the 'right to privacy' as I know about any other made-up, nonexistent right," she snickers to her readers. Yes, Ann, free people do indeed have a right to privacy. The lie you and other neocons perpetuate--that it is not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights so therefore doesn't exist--is an intentional bit of disinformation. In a real sense, this propaganda abets the state in its control over people's lives and freeedom. You know damn well the Constitution is not intended to enumerate all rights of free Americans, but to define the limits under which the national government can legitimately exercise power. You know damn well this was one of the concerns against adding a "Bill of Rights" to the Constitution--that people like you would construe it to mean only the rights mentioned must be recognized. And you know damn well that what you espouse would have been alien to the Framers, who wisely (in addition to Amendment IV) added:

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

If the federal government has no authority "to deny or disparage" other rights, Ann, what makes you think you do? The argument that privacy is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is hollow. The rebuttal ought to be "Exactly. So it follows the government has no authority to give itself privacy-invading powers that haven't been specifically delegated to it."

That's Why They Call It Global Gun "CONTROL"

Russia wants the UN to pass rules outlawing unauthorized use of Russian weapons designs. Russia hopes to piggyback this on a UN effort to limit the illegal distribution of assault rifles. It's all about money.

It's not about eliminating small arms--it's never been about that. It's about who controls, possesses and profits off them.

The do-gooder shills who get all the PR and tug at heartstrings with tales of woe are mere pawns. Their primary function--whether they realize it or not--is to keep the sheep distracted while the wolves sneak around the flank.

Pay no attention to the men behind the Iron Curtain.

A Lesson in Democracy

Nicki and Kevin can't believe how stupid some people are.

Just remember--not only are some people stupid, but their votes cancel out ours.

You don't think all this talk about spreading "democracy" has anything to do with relying on the ease with which stupid people and their opinions can be manipulated, do you?