Radioactive Communist Zombies

Cross a Border, Lose a Civil Right!

Back in January, one Meredith Graves, aged 39, of Louisville, Tennessee visited the 9/11 memorial in New Yuck City. There she was overheard by a policeman making disparaging remarks about President Barack Obama.  She was arrested and faces a felony charge.  She is currently free on $2,000 bail.  Ms. Graves didn't realize that she didn't have the same civil rights, i.e., First Amendment free speech rights, in New York City as she enjoys in Tennessee.  Mayor Michael Bloomberg was unsympathetic, stating that the city's speech laws save lives and are well know.

Oh wait.  I'm sorry, I'm wrong.  It was the Second Amendment that New York City was ignoring and Ms. Graves was arrested because she was carrying a gun.

Can someone please explain to me why all cities, states, and local jurisdictions are required to respect First Amendment rights (sometimes ab absurdum) and yet states, cities, and other jurisdictions are allowed to restrict Second Amendment rights?  How can you cross a border and lose your civil right?  It's as if you go into a different state and it has Alien and Sedition laws that don't allow you to speak badly about the president.

We need one, uniform gun control law in this nation, one that respects the Second Amendment rights the people enjoy (what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?).  This patchwork of differing laws is simply going to make instances like what happened to poor Ms. Graves more common.

Photocopier Control

In the aftermath of the shooting involving Congresswoman Gabby Giffords when people were calling for gun control and speech control, I wrote, satirically, that we needed photocopier control (actually, I called for an outright ban of photocopiers).

Well, in the column of "be careful what you joke about" the state of California, which has bigger things to worry about, had decided that "professional photocopiers" need to be licensed by the county they live or work in.  I'm not joking.  Apparently this is an attempt to control cyberbullying.  In Orange County the license costs $188.

As those of us who support gun rights know, first comes registration, then comes control.

Now why is California registering/licensing "professional photocopiers"?  Yes, they say it's to prevent cyberbullying (not quite sure how that works).  But could it be the first step in controlling free speech in a state where the government has gone wild?  I don't know.  But it would make me very nervous if I lived in California.  And unfortunately, what happens in California often models what Democrats do in Washington State where I live.

Unlawful Self-Defense in U.S.

I've written about how in Britain there is no right to self defense and they will put you on trial if you try to defend yourself or your property (see here and here).  Apparently that is also true in at least one U.S. state and wouldn't you know, it's one of the bluest states: Massachusetts (you know, where Romney was governor).  Michael Graham writing for the Boston Herald reports:

[Anthony] McKay is the young father who, seeing a local druggie breaking into his truck and stealing the tools he uses to pay the bills, confronted him, subdued him and held him for the police. When the police arrived, they found the bad guy had a knife, a billy club and — thanks to the unarmed McKay — a broken jaw.

Instead of thanking McKay for helping get an armed criminal off the streets, Swampscott officials charged him with a felony. As a Swampscott police spokesman said at the time, “We don’t urge anybody to fight back. We want them to call us.”

Thanks to media pressure, the charges were later dropped.  But according to Graham, McKay was lucky because not everyone becomes a media darling and has their charges eliminated.  So what are you allowed to do in the Bay State to protect yourself and your property?

[Lawyer] Wendy Murphy told me, “The standard in Massachusetts is you cannot defend yourself unless you’re going to die.”

And another lawyer:

Joe Flaherty told me, “You have the right to confront them and stop them  . . . but you don’t have the right to use force.” When I asked what I could do under Massachusetts law, he said, “You could scream and yell at them.”

"What are we supposed to use, harsh language?" as someone once asked.

Massachusetts also has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.  So they take away your rights and your ability to defend yourself and your property.  This is stupid and give criminals more rights than citizens.

Luckily this is just one bad state.  Most of the U.S. has much saner laws.  But if you live in Taxachusettes, you might want to invest in good insurance because apparently you are only allowed to call the police and watch the crooks steal your property.

Irony Can Be Pretty Ironic

The only thing the U.S. Constitution guarantees you may own is "arms" meaning guns, firearms, knifes, nuclear weapons, etc. There is no right to own cars, computers, houses, cell phones and pretty much anything else you own except "arms."  That means that California can ban you from owning cars or, what it is doing, is ban you from owning cars the state doesn't approve of.  I know, it sucks.  So this makes Congress' ban on incandescent light bulbs fully constitutional (well, sort of, because they are using the Commerce Clause to say they can control intrastate commerce, i.e., you buying a light bulb from Home Depot in your town).

Now the Supreme Court in Griswold vs. Conneticute extended that right to own something to birth control and Roe vs. Wade said some medical proccedures that kill children are a "right."  Now some would like to extend rights to free health care, a living-wage job, and education through their post-doctorate in Hispanic Studies.

What is ironic is that the thing states, cities, and other jurisdictions want to ban you from owning (or keep you from owning ones they don't approve of) are guns.  In a world where nude dancing is a Constitutional right as free speech, owning a handgun in some places is nearly impossible.  And as I've said before, exercising a civil right you have to jump through flaming bureaucratic hoops to exercise means you pretty much don't have that right.  Can you imagine if government put the restrictions on speech that they put on guns (don't tempt them, there were calls for speech restrictions a year ago in the wake of the Gabby Giffords shooting).

Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that your Constitutional rights are repressed in some places.  It's like you drive into Boston and suddenly you can't publish bad things about the President because Massachusetts has "speech control" laws.  That's how it is with your civil right to own and bear arms.  While I'm all for states rights they have to stay within the Constitution, too, including the 2nd Amendment.  That is why we need one, single gun control law for the entire country and it needs to be a law that allows law-abiding competent citizens to "keep and bear" almost any small arm.  Do we need howitzer control?  Maybe.  Do we want laws that prevent Bill Gates from owning a nuclear device?  Probably.  No Constitutional right is absolute.  You may not scream "Fire" in a crowded theater or protest in the middle of an interstate highway.  There is no absolute right to keep and bear arms.  But just as we try to error on the side of liberty in free speech, we should error on the side of liberty on guns.  And knifes.  And maybe howitzers.  Probably not nukes.

The irony is, the one thing the Consitution says you may possess, the government is most likely to ban.

Gun Rights Save Another Life (or Two)

I don't know why more politicians and jurisdictions don't do this simple thing to save lives: give their citizens full 2nd Amendment rights.

Story that's gone viral on the interwebs today about an 18-year-old widow (!) with a three-month-old baby protecting herself from an intruder armed with a knife.  She used her shotgun to kill the man after he broke down her door.

Luckily, she was in Oklahoma, which has gun rights for its citizens.  If she were in Illinois or Massachusetts she might be dead today, leaving her son an orphan.

We'll never know how many people are killed by gun control.  Nor can we know how mnay are save through gun rights (not all stories hit the news).  It's estimated there's something like 2.5 million gun self-defense acts per year.  If just one percent of them saves a life, that 25,000 lives per year.

We can only hope politicians and jurisdictions come to their scences and allow this bacis right to be exercised by all Americans not matter where they live.  Your free speech righs are not changed by crossing state lines, why should your 2nd Amendment rights be?

New York Times Shoots Itself in the Foot (Again)

I was in Starbucks earlier today where they, of course, carry the New York Times.  And I saw a headline on the front page: "Guns in Public, and Out of Sight"  with the subhead (from memory): "More Concealed Guns and Some are in the Wrong Hands." Wherein I assumed (correctly apparently) the NYT was saying "Hey, look, some concealed weapons permit holders have committed crimes! Aren't these permits a bad thing?"

What other position would the NYT take, after all?  And here's the crux of their argument:

More than 2,400 permit holders [in North Carolina] were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, excluding traffic-related crimes, over the five-year period, The Times found when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and licensees. While the figure represents a small percentage of those with permits, more than 200 were convicted of felonies, including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter. All but two of the killers used a gun.

(What do you want to bet "traffic related crime" is DUI, which has nothing to do with owning or carrying a firearm, although I would hope you wouldn't get drunk and pack heat.)

The first problem is, in any large population, you're going to have some bad people.  I wonder, for instance, who many killers could one find among NYT subscribers.  Doesn't mean subscribing to the TImes makes you a crazed killer (well, it might me).  But as Robert VerBruggen points out in The Corner, the NYT story proves that gun holders are more responsible and peaceful than the average North Carolinian (links original):

North Carolina has a statewide murder rate of about 5 per 100,000. Even without counting manslaughter, that’s 25 murders committed per 100,000 North Carolinians every five years. There are about 230,000 valid concealed-carry permits in North Carolina, so by pure chance, you’d expect these folks to be responsible for nearly 60 murders over five years. And yet only ten of them committed murder or manslaughter. Instead of “rais[ing] questions,” the Times has demonstrated yet again that permit holders are more peaceful than the general population.

Of course the New Yuck Times has an anti-gun agenda.  And it's easy to cherry-pick your data to prove almost anything (just ask so-called climate scientists).  Or as someone said "figures don't lie but liars figure."   Study after study shows that the more access the public has to guns, the less crime there is.  Being blind to the facts is part of the Time's stock in trade.  That they are lying about guns is no surprise.

States Rights Versus Civil Rights

Should a state have the ability to restrict a person's civil rights?  I thought that question was pretty much answered during the civil rights movement of the 1960s.  Congress passed laws forcing states to recognize the civil rights of everyone.

Well, Congress is about to do that same thing, and some are saying this is an issue of "state's rights" and Congress shouldn't impose this on the various states.

The issue is concealed weapons permits.  Some states have "shall issue" permits (the legal authority must issue a permit unless it finds a reason why not) and some states have "may issue" where the legal authority may issue permits (but often does not).  And then there's Illinois and Washington D.C. which issue no permits.  And a couple of states don't require permits at all.

A bill in Congress would require all states to recognize the carry permits of all other states.  That means if you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon in, say, Idaho (a "must issue" state) you can carry your pistol concealed in New York, California, and even Illinois.

States can't restrict your First Amendment rights, so why can they restrict your Second Amendment rights?  Some say this law violates the Republicans' core value of states' rights.  But I say it's a civil rights issue.  Why should I give up my civil rights when I travel over a state border?  Illinois can't stop me from blogging in their state, why can they stop me from carrying a gun.  Both are civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution.  (I know, some people don't believe that, but some people believe in Keynesian economics, too.)

It's sort of a moot point; I doubt the bill will get through Harry Reid's Senate.  But it makes a statement about civil rights.  Just as Democrats in the South had to be stopped by federal action from denying some people their rights, Democrats in Illinois and other states need to be stopped by federal action from denying everyone their rights.

South Carolina Sheriff: Carry a Gun

(Hat tip: Instapundit)

A sheriff in South Carolina is suggesting residents carry a gun for self protection because the justice system isn't going to protect them. WYFF.com reports:

Sheriff Chuck Wright opened his news conference by saying, "Our form of justice is not making it." He said, "Carry a concealed weapon. That'll fix it."

Wright was unhappy because a woman was assaulted by a man, Walter Lance, who had the proverbial rap sheet as long as your arm:

Wright said Lance had been charged numerous times with crimes against women, and other crimes such as resisting arrest and escape. Wright said Lance had been on probation for a federal gun charge . . . Wright said Lance has had more than 20 charges dating back to 1983.

On probation and attacking women.  What a shock.  Our catch-and-release justice system is not working.  That's why in the '90s starts started passing three-strike laws over the howls of liberals.  As Sheriff Wright says:

"Liberals call me and tell me the chain-gang form of justice isn't working. Well, let me inform you, your form of justice isn't working either."

Funny thing is, when you lock up criminals, crime goes down. And when civilians can carry guns, crime goes down.  And when liberals run things, crime goes up.

Record Low Number Americans Want Handguns Banned

In 1960 (the earliest I could find) the violent crime rate in America was 160.9 per 100,000 residents.  Thanks to liberal policies on incarceration, gun control, police procedures, and the welfare state, by 1970 it had more than doubled to 363.5. The violent crime rate peaked in 1991 at 758.1 and by 2010 had dropped to 403.6, still well above 1960 levels.

Interestingly, since 1959, the number of people supporting gun control has dropped.   According to Gallup,  support for stiffer gun control is at the lowest they've ever measured.

For example, Americans wanting a ban on handguns stands at 26%, down from 60% in 1959.  And 60% of Americans say we should enforce current gun laws, not pass new ones.  Even a slight majority are against an "assault weapons" ban.

Now you can wonder why when crime was almost 1/4th what it is now people were more in favor of gun control than they are today.  I think it's because the American people are smarter then we give them credit for.  In the 1990s they became fed up and demanded stiffer sentencing for repeat offenders (three strikes laws).  But they saw that handgun bans did not make the places they were enforced safer.  Rather the opposite.  Even Clinton's "assault weapons" ban (basically a ban on ugly guns) did not reduce crime.  But incarceration did.

Frankly, if want to reduce crime, you need to eliminate most gun control and then put someone in jail who uses a gun in a crime for a very long time.  I think the American people are becoming aware of this.

More Guns: Less Crime (Again)

(Hat tip: Instapundit)  The Supreme Court overturned Chicago's gun ban, and an amazing thing happened to crime.  It dropped.  John Lott writes in a Fox New editorial (links original):

Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate . . . In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982.

What, you hadn't heard that?  Well, as Lott points out:

Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.

One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen.

The Chicago drop in gun crimes doesn't surprise anyone educated about gun control and how it does not work. The same phenomena happened in Washington D.C. after the Heller decision:

Similarly, in the year after the 2008 "Heller" decision, the murder rate fell two-and-a-half times faster in Washington than in the rest of the country.

It also fell more than three as fast as in other cities that are close to Washington's size. And murders in Washington have continued to fall.

Of course when law-abiding citizens can protect themselves against criminals (who ignore gun control laws) crime goes down.  Criminals prefer unarmed victims.

If we had true 2nd Amendment rights in this country the crime rate would probably drop to something like it was in the 1950s.  You know, before gun control laws started being passed.