Go Greyhound

And leave the driving to us.

Or not.

These are the incompetent kleptocrats who want to disarm us because we can't be trusted.

[Thanks to Jim Peel.]

Some Quick, Random Thoughts on the NO Gun Confiscations

• New Orleans is within the jurisdiction of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals--the court that said in Emerson that the Second Amendment is an individual right. No idea if that will factor into this at a later date.
• I wonder if cops who participated in the looting will be excluded from the confiscation parties. No, I really don't. Looks like some goons are gonna be adding to their throwaway collections--as well as getting nice inventories to sell to their gang buddies.
• The people who were prepared to hold out and defend their homes and lives, that is, the independent and self-sufficient, will now be coerced into becoming defenseless displaced dependents.
• The operative theme here: Let us save you or we'll kill you.
• So much for the gungrabbers saying we're paranoid for thinking registration will lead to confiscation.

UPDATE: I'm not sure what the NYT article was referring to--per NRA's site, there is no registration in Louisiana. Perhaps they meant those with permits for concealed handguns? Or perhaps they--or the police officials they spoke with--simply don't know what they're talking about.

Oh, Gee--What a Surprise

"Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here."

I nominate P. Edwin Compass III for Morlock of the Month.

This business of allowing private security to keep their arms strikes me as a clear abridgement of the equal protection guarantee--but then again, your life isn't as valuable as an NBC reporter's.

Expect the same thing when disaster strikes your town.

Squeeze, baby, squeeze.

[Thanks to Cornet Joyce II]

UPDATE: I'm not sure what the NYT article was referring to--per NRA's site, there is no registration in Louisiana. Perhaps they meant those with permits for concealed handguns? Or perhaps they--or the police officials they spoke with--simply don't know what they're talking about.

What, Hurricane Survivors Are Buying GUNS?

"It seems to matter little that the police have appealed for calm, and dismissed most of the reports of carjackings and armed robberies and other crimes as nothing more than rumour."

There, see? You don't need a gun. New Orleans is a model of lawfulness and order. You shouldn't believe all those nasty "rumours." The Financial Times said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Just one question: Would those be the same police that are in Aisle Three?

Yet ANOTHER Delay

Looks like the politicians up in Canada have bitten off more than the bureaucracy can chew.

Their Orwellian spinboob says the delay is to ensure the system is more "user-friendly."

Badaboom!

Looks like a leading contributor to the New Jersey political establishment just got popped on a gun charge.

That reminds me--I was gonna pick up that box set of "The Sopranos" DVDs...

"We Actually Saw the Police. They're in Aisle Three."

Amazing Facts links to a video of New Orleans cops looting Wal-Mart.

I guess if they get sent on that Vegas vacation, the hotels had better inventory their towels and ashtrays...

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.