What do you have to do to get locked up for a long time in Philadelphia?

The title of this Philadelphia Daily News article, "A gun dealer's history of violence," might understandably lead one to believe that the article is about . . . well, a gun dealer. A bit of reading quickly reveals, though, that Rodney Phath is no more a "gun dealer" than a gang banger selling crack is a pharmacist, and that Phath is about as likely to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL), as he is to win the Nobel Peace Prize. To the Philly Daily News, though, the fact that he sold some guns on the Philadelphia streets makes him a "gun dealer."

In February, 24-year-old Rodney Phath was allegedly peddling assault rifles and the drug Ecstasy on Mifflin Street near 19th in South Philadelphia.

One of the rifles was an SKS, the same type of high-powered gun that killed police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski on May 3.

Note the obligatory mention of the "high-powered assault rifle" of the type used to kill Sgt. Liczbinski. That's not what I plan to focus on today, though--this is:

After Phath was arrested for weapons offenses, conspiracy and possession on Feb. 11, Bail Commissioner James O'Brien set bail at $25,000. Phath posted bail the next day and was free to go.

And this.

In September 2006, he was arrested again for attempted murder, simple assault, aggravated assault and related offenses for allegedly shooting a former roommate after an argument, according to court records.

When police arrested Phath, they confiscated a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, a .380 pistol, a .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle and a .25-caliber rifle from his home.

The charges were withdrawn or dismissed, court records show.

Beginning to notice a pattern here? Oh, and let's not forget this:

A month later, Phath was re-arrested on the aggravated-assault and weapons charges. The charges were eventually once again dismissed, according to court records, which didn't indicate the reason.

I won't count his 2004 arrest, for carrying a loaded BB gun in his car (you can get arrested for having a loaded BB gun?).

After Phath's posting of bail in February, he was still free to commit more crimes--a situation of which he, of course, took advantage. He was recently arrested again, after an armed home invasion/robbery. Philly's penchant for refusing to lock up violent criminals, allowing those experienced thugs to go on to commit more mayhem, has been discussed before, and as far as I'm concerned, makes the "justice" system an accomplice to every murder committed in Philly by violent, uncontrolled beasts who should have been locked up for their previous acts of savagery.

Mayor Nutter is so bent on "getting guns off the streets" that he is willing to break the law to do it--would it be inappropriate to suggest that perhaps he instead focus on getting the criminals off the streets?

By Illinois standards, this is kind of a big deal

In most parts of the country, formal endorsement on the part of the state Republican Party of the right to carry a defensive firearm would hardly be cause for celebration--it's something one would expect. This is Illinois, though, where the Republican Party sends statist, gun banning dolts like Mark Kirk to Washington. In other words, standards are quite a lot lower here. That's why we're forced to count as progress even as backhanded an endorsement of self-defense (more on that in a minute) as this (pdf file).

Specifically, we endorse:

Continued use of the Firearm Owners Identification system and use of criminal and mental background checks by licensed firearms dealers;

State pre-emption of local ordinances which impede the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms (see the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution);

We strongly endorse and support the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution. We believe every citizen (American) has the right to keep and bear arms. No state city or local law should be allowed to infringe upon this right;

Enactment of “Concealed Carry” legislation offering permits to properly trained, law-abiding citizens to bear concealed weapons for personal protection

It starts off pretty badly, obviously, with an endorsement of the continuation of the egregious FOID program. That was almost enough to make me stop reading, right from the beginning.

It gets better, though. Illinois is one of the few states without state preemption of firearms laws, and as a result, places like Chicago (and to a lesser extent, all of Cook County) are subject to gun laws even more draconian than those imposed on the rest of the state. It's therefore encouraging to see the state GOP finally going on record as being committed to changing that.

The claim to "strongly endorse and support the 2nd Amendment . . . " is hard to take very seriously, considering the first point of endorsement, but this being Illinois, I doubt they even see the paradox.

Then, the (sort of) big one--concealed carry. Not all that long ago, bringing concealed carry to Illinois was what I lived and breathed for. Over time, I have come to realize that getting the government to license a fundamental, human right is hardly the enormous victory I once thought it would be. Still, as I keep saying, this is Illinois, where merely slowing down the pace of new infringements is something of a victory.

The Illinois GOP is in tatters, with Democratic majorities in both legislative houses and in the governor's mansion (if he actually lived there, but that's another story), so their endorsement isn't exactly likely to carry the day, but perhaps this means that Republicans--Illinois Republicans--are finally starting to take gun rights seriously. This could be good for both gun rights and the Republican Party.

Yet another bill to ban so-called 'assault weapons'

Back in April, I mentioned one of Bloomberg's pet Congressleeches, Brady-endorsed Mark Kirk (R-IL). He's a hardcore freedom-hater, and that's without even getting into his support for a Real ID-like revamping of the Social Security Card.

Last week, he introduced another bill to ban so-called "assault weapons," H.R. 6257, which I believe to be a word-for-word reprise of the ban that expired in 2004. That makes it somewhat less broad than H.R. 1022, and thus presumably more easily passed. It only has three co-sponsors so far, but it's one we need to watch.

More importantly, Illinois 10th Congressional district voters need to get Kirk out of Congress this November. His Democratic opponent, Dan Seals, is probably no better for gun rights (although I can't find specific mention of his positions on gun issues), but a vote for him would help remove a hardcore anti-gun Republican from Congress. For those who share my inclination to tilt at windmills, there's Allan Stevo (independent), running on a pro-Constitution, pro-gun platform.

It's time to start campaigning for one of those two (in other words, campaigning against Kirk), to get one of the most anti-gun Republicans out of Congress.

The 'shame' of liberty

I have never given much thought to open carry (as opposed to concealed), because A) I live in a state in which both concealed and open carry are illegal under most circumstances, and B) from a tactical standpoint, I would prefer not to surrender the element of surprise. Still, in the sense that open carry helps educate the public that criminals and the police don't have a monopoly on the means to use force, open carry has a real place in the gun rights activist's toolbox, as discussed in a recent LA Times article.

That is exactly why Boston Globe columnist James Carroll is so vehemently opposed to it.

"Open carry" aims to remove such visceral negativity, though the taboo amounts, in fact, to last ditch gun control. The "normalizing" of guns will inevitably normalize their use. From movies to legislation to political rhetoric - and now to "accessory" fashion: guns galore. And who, pray tell, will bear, not the arms, but the consequences?

Carroll, intentionally or not, makes the same point that many proponents of open carry make--that it helps to advertise the gun culture, and make it more mainstream. This clearly terrifies him.

In the great American gun debate, some would forgo the primordial shame the weapon still generates. Hence the "open carry" movement. But given the gun-deaths of children, and the sponsoring gun-paralysis of politics, Americans should have more shame, not less. A gun is no iPod. Shame is the children's last protection.

The anguished bleating of a sniveling herbivore like Carroll is the best argument yet in favor of open carry.

Celebrate Independence Day by planting a seed

For a while now, War on Guns has been covering a very worthwhile program, the Appleseed Project.

What the RWVA (Revolutionary War Veterans Association) is all about:
The Appleseed Program is designed to take you from being a simple rifle owner to being a true rifleman. All throughout American history, the rifleman has been defined as a marksman capable of hitting a man-sized target from 500 yards away — no ifs, ands or buts about it. This 500-yard range is traditionally known as "the rifleman's quarter-mile;" a rifleman can hit just about any target he can see. This skill was particulary evident in the birth of our country, and was the difference in winning the Revolutionary War.

Last night some more information was left in a comment:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Patriots Sought For Independence Day Instruction Opportunity

July 4th-6th, 2008

Proctor, VT
Piru, CA
Ottawa, IL
Ramseur, NC
Canon City, CO

The Revolutionary War Veteran’s Assoc. intends to ride the momentum of their April 19th Appleseed Training events into the Independence Day Weekend. On April 19th, 2008, 527 Citizens across the Nation, gathered at 14 different rifle ranges to simultaneously learn firearms safety, marksmanship, and some Revolutionary War History.

What is Appleseed? The Appleseed Project is a grassroots effort, by a 501.c.3, Non-profit, all volunteer organization, to preserve and pass on traditional rifle marksmanship skills, to Americans across this Nation. This is the third year that the RWVA has been hosting Appleseed Shoots, with the intention of rekindling the American Spirit that gave birth to this wonderful Nation. The Goals of the RWVA, have been high since the very beginning, doubling National attendance every year!

This year marks the 3rd year, and that goal translates to 4000 attendees over the course of the year. At first that may seem like a lot, but on 4/19/1775, 14,000 Volunteers showed up with only six hours notice! To aid us in our goals, Independence Day Weekend Appleseed Shoots are being scheduled across the Country.

Three days of Marksmanship Instruction and Revolutionary War History lessons will undoubtedly leave an impression on all of the attendees. That impression, the RVWA hopes, will be a freshly instilled appreciation of the Founding of this Country and the confidence instilled by newly developed marksmanship skills and knowledge of the safe use of firearms.

Appleseed Shoots are family friendly, and by far, the most cost effective marksmanship instruction available. Attendees under the age of 21 and all members of the Military can attend FREE! This special July 4th presentation of the Appleseed Shoot offers a third day FREE to all who attend. The standard fee (with pre-registration) for an Appleseed is $70 for two days (plus range fees, if any), however, this July 4th will have 3 days of Appleseed for the price of 2! Attendee’s are responsible for their own rifles and ammunition (expect to use 250 rounds of ammunition per day), and eye and ear protection. For further information, please visit us online at: www.appleseedinfo.org

Or you can contact us at:

RWVA
PO Box 756
Ramseur, NC 27316

For specific Proctor, VT information go here;

For specific Piru, CA information go here;

For specific Ottawa, IL information go here;

For specific Ramseur, NC information go here;

For specific Canon City, CO information go here;

It's hard to imagine a better or more appropriate way to spend one's Independence Day holiday.

Missed something--Dennis Henigan's version of the Second Amendment returns

Thursday, I wrote about concerns held by Willard G. Jones, that the Supreme Court might issue a ruling in Heller that would protect individuals, rather than only government-approved militias, from the epidemic of gun laws.

Somehow, though, I managed to miss something in his quote of the Second Amendment (or, more accurately, something that's not in his quote).

The Supreme Court, for the first time, is about to render a decision regarding the Second Amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state (our nation), the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Aside from his helpful interjection that "free state" refers to our nation (thanks for clearing that up, Willard), he seems to prefer the Dennis Henigan version of the Second Amendment to the one that's actually in the Constitution:



That preference, I suppose, is shared by a great many advocates of forcible citizen disarmament. It would be so much easier to justify disarming the people if the amendment didn't explicitly specify that the right it guarantees is a right of the people.

A fresh coat of paint on the 'patrol rifles' vs. 'assault weapons' fiction

Last fall, I wrote about an editorial in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel (the editorial has long since been removed from the Sun-Sentinel's website, but I have a screen capture of it) about the acquisition by several Florida police agencies of what advocates of forcible citizen disarmament refer to as "assault weapons." The Sun-Sentinel's editorial board was quite supportive of this measure:

People shouldn't be opposed to cops having these weapons.

It's the idea of anyone else having such firearms that we're supposed to oppose, according to the Sun-Sentinel.

What people should oppose — strongly — is the guy across the street having one.

In itself, of course, this was nothing new--the media has long championed the idea of restricting the people to less effective arms than are available to the "Only Ones." What made this editorial special was the editorial board's verbal sleight of hand when referring to the weapons in question.

Understandably, officers in more South Florida police agencies have been arming themselves — at their own expense — with patrol rifles to be on more even footing with criminals — particularly gangs — they encounter.

How did that happen? A minute ago, they were "assault weapons"--now they're "patrol rifles"? Pretty nifty transformation, and you apparently don't even need any gunsmithing skills whatsoever to bring it about--it depends simply on whose hands are holding the weapon.

I don't want to come across as self-aggrandizing, and I really have no idea if my blog post back then had anything to do with this, or not, but that blog post got a fair amount of attention (at least for a little, insignificant blogger like me) on the gun blogosphere, and the Sun-Sentinel pulled that editorial from their archives much more quickly than is their typical practice. They also, as far as I am aware, have never used the term "patrol rifle" since.

My point today is that they still haven't quite gotten out of the mindset that arms that are a horrid menace to society when in the hands of the public magically transform into noble tools for society's protection, when in the hands of the police. From another South Florida Sun-Sentinel editorial, about the Fort Lauderdale Police Department's acquisition of rifles, in yesterday's paper:

At least we are getting assault-style weapons into the hands of people who actually should have them.

Not "assault weapons," but "assault style weapons." Not as blatant as the "patrol rifles" reference, but we're still expected to believe that an AR-15 in the hands of a private citizen is a scary "assault weapon," but the very same firearm is merely in the "style" of an "assault weapon" when a cop is holding it.

These are the same editors, remember, who claimed that "assault weapons"

. . . have one purpose — to hurt or kill people, namely cops. And the assault weapons ban needs to be reinstated by Congress.

So police need a weapon for which the only purpose is "to hurt or kill people, namely cops"?

Oops--silly me--that just applies to bona fide "assault weapons," not "assault style weapons," or (to nostalgically resurrect an old term) "patrol rifles."

One more?

I've been (intermittently) keeping track of how many co-sponsors have signed onto H.R. 4900, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2007, for some time now (most recently here)

I happened to notice today that with the latest flurry of new co-sponsors, the total comes to two hundred sixteen. One sponsor, plus two hundred sixteen co-sponsors, equals, if my math is correct, two hundred seventeen likely yes votes. That, I believe, is one short of the number necessary to pass it in the House.

Let's git-r-done, folks--and give Bloomberg a big poke in the eye.

Maybe Helmke can tell him how to spin it as a victory.

Written, Constitutional guarantee of rights is a bad idea, according to British subject

It's certainly not news that there is widespread disdain in the UK for the Second Amendment's Constitutional guarantee of the absolute, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. What is surprising, to me at any rate, is seeing it argued that enshrining the protection of any right in a written constitution is a silly, outmoded idea. That, however, is apparently the position of George Robinson, a member of The Guardian's editorial staff.

He starts out with the typical (in the UK) contempt for the Second Amendment, specifically:

The so called 'right to bear arms'. The Second Amendment.

It's not "so-called 'right to bear arms'"--it's a genuine, bona fide, fundamental, human right.

The untouchable written clause in the American way that gives anyone - from a yeehaa Texan President to a yahoo Detroit drug dealer - the God-given right to wield a weapon capable of causing death.

For an Englishman, George's grasp of English seems a bit . . . less than impressive, when he refers to the right to keep and bear arms as being "given" to the people by the Second Amendment (a fallacy that is a real pet peeve of mine), and then, in the same sentence, refers to it as "God-given." It can't be both, George.

How? Why? I don't get it.

You certainly don't, George--finally, something on which we can agree. I suppose we have found common ground, after all.

So, far, of course, he has said nothing that should surprise anyone familiar with how the right to keep and bear arms is viewed in the UK--or among the advocates of forcible citizen disarmament here, for that matter. It's the next bit that floors me.

For anyone who doesn't know, America is governed by a written constitution. A series of amendments cast in stone - like the Commandments handed to Moses.

The UK is governed by an unwritten constitution. The UK's laws are not easily changed, but if a law becomes archaic, out-dated or unworkable, it can be changed. You've got more chance of hell freezing over than you have of changing the US constitution.

First, even if one discounts the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights, hell has apparently frozen over seventeen times, most recently in 1992, when the Twenty-Seventh Amendment was ratified.

That blatant mischaracterization of the U.S Constitution is not what has me worked up, though--it's his apparent contention that an "unwritten constitution" (which sounds about as useful to me as an unloaded gun) is somehow superior to a codified set of limits on governmental power.

These laws were adopted in 1789, a time when a police force per se did not exist. The reason people kept arms was because the people WERE the police. They were asked to keep watch on the community and confront any suspicious persons.

So let me get this straight. The most powerful and developed country in the world is being run in accordance with rules set when people still thought the Earth was flat?

Well, not quite, but you can see my point through the hyperbole.

The "Earth is flat" idea had obviously been pretty soundly discredited about three hundred years before the late 18th century ratification of the Bill of Rights, and although Robinson acknowledges the use of "hyperbole" in that reference, he liked it enough to use it both in the quoted text and in the title of his little editorial.

If ever there is a Tyranny's Best Friend Award for which to compete, Josh Horwitz probably has it locked up on the U.S. level, but Robinson's opposition to written constitutions will make him tough competition on the global level.

An excellent point

This is directly related to my earlier post about the Brady Campaign's apparent surrender on the issue of whether or not the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a "collective" one, but the point is one I believe worthy of its own post.

Indefatigable gun rights advocate and Constitutional scholar David Hardy pointed out in a comment responding to my earlier post that this retreat on the Brady Campaign's part isn't likely to do much to rally support for forcible citizen disarmament.

Wonder how Brady is going to fundraise now. I doubt anyone gave to them in hopes of getting, oh, one gun a month or private sale background checks, and then going home. The draw for contributors was that after those things they'd move on to more, and more, and more.

I hadn't considered that, but it's a compelling argument. It's also not as if they're in a very good spot to weather a cash flow bottleneck.

Mr. Hardy goes into more detail here.

Leaving aside whether those would pass muster ... how does the Brady Campaign hope to survive on them? I'd wager that a LOT of its contributors give only because they believe those are stepping stones to things more significant, a "good start" rather than an end. If they faced a reality in which everything would stop with background checks, an AW ban, and one gun a month -- that they'd never get beyond that -- they might well bail out.

I would love to see what the VPC has to say about Helmke's new position--I certainly don't think Tom Diaz would like it.

Diaz is known for his public policy stances that eschew the incremental political approach taken by others in the gun control community, such as Americans for Gun Safety and the American Hunters and Shooters Association.

Potential trouble in gun banner paradise?

Does the truth hurt, Paul?

"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore?

With the Heller ruling not even announced, the Brady Bunch appears to be unhappy with where they expect it to go. Oh, and Paul? That the Second Amendment is a Constitutional guarantee of the fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms isn't a "theory"--that's the fact of the plain text in the Bill of Rights. Get used to it.

Even with a favorable (for us) Heller ruling (which I refuse to see as anything close to a foregone conclusion, as much as I'd like to), the advocates of forcible citizen disarmament have no intention of giving up and moving to the UK, however.

While the Brady Campaign is waving the white flag in the long-running debate on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms or merely a state's right to assemble a militia, it is hoping that losing the "legal battle" will eventually lead to gun control advocates winning the "political war."

"We're expecting D.C. to lose the case," Helmke said. "But this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side."

You bet, Paul--I figure Lee probably wanted to lose at Gettysburg, too. By the way, if you think losing Heller is your strategic master stroke, what was the thinking behind the amicus brief? What's with your statement expressing the hope that the "ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District to enact common sense gun measures they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families"? Why did you publish novellas calling the DC Appellate Court ruling "judicial activism at its worst"?

That was the old strategy, apparently. The new strategy, evidently, is to try to take the slippery slope argument away with assurances that "see--we can't ban guns (not all of them, anyway), even if we wanted to."

If the Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. gun ban, the Brady Campaign is hoping that it will reorient gun control groups around more limited measures that will be harder to cast as infringements of the Second Amendment.

"The NRA [National Rifle Association] won't have this fear factor," Helmke said.

Brady Campaign Attorney Dennis Henigan said there are multiple gun control measures that would not run afoul of a Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. gun ban.

"Universal background checks don't affect the right of self-defense in the home. Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home," said Henigan. "Curbing large volume sales doesn't affect self-defense in the home."

Guess you didn't notice, Dennis, that "self-defense in the home" is not the only purpose, or even the main purpose, of the Second Amendment, which exists as "the palladium of liberty"--the last bulwark against tyranny. Then again, what can we expect from the man who (in speaking about the Second Amendment and the Heller case) "forgot" about the people in the Second Amendment?

Besides, if the Supreme Court nullifies a ban on handguns, how would one justify a ban on so-called "assault weapons," which are used in a tiny minority of murders and assaults?

Helmke acknowledges that the Brady Campaign has "lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means." That's a pretty damned big battle, and any battle that the Brady Campaign loses is a battle that America wins.

See also: Days of Our Trailers, Snowflakes in Hell, and undoubtedly others that I haven't noticed yet--I have a feeling that this is going to be a popular subject among the Unorganized Militia Propaganda Corps blogs.

So the Supreme Court should listen to this guy?

Willard G. Jones is concerned that the Supreme Court is going to get it wrong when ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller. Wrong in what way, you ask? Could be any of a range of things--from ruling that the right protected by the Second Amendment is actually a right, or that "of the people" means--you know . . . the people, or that "shall not be infringed" somehow means that the right . . . shall not be infringed. He apparently doesn't want SCOTUS to come to any of those conclusions.

His grasp of history (and facts, and logic) seems a bit slippery:

The Supreme Court, for the first time, is about to render a decision regarding the Second Amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state (our nation), the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," Certainly during and after the Revolutionary War an armed militia was critical to achieve and maintain independence since no armed forces existed.

"No armed forces existed"? There was no Continental Army, to which the militia was considered an adjunct? Boy--a whole lot of historians got that wrong.

Many citizens believe that the first part of the amendment, forming a "militia," establishes the justification for the second part, "the right to keep and bear arms."

If the first part (or any part) of the Second Amendment exists for the purpose of "forming a militia," it's a bit surprising that nothing in the language of the amendment actually does that. Silly me--here I was thinking that it was Article 1, Section 8 that did that.

Yes--the security of a free state requires that the people have the ability to form militias; and for those militias to fulfill their function, the people must have access to effective combat arms.

The first half of the amendment is independent, and the second part depends on the first for its meaning.

Not a grammarian, are you, Willard? Here's a little experiment for you: Take the first part of the amendment (the "independent" part), and have it stand alone--you get "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." Hmm--I sense a problem. That doesn't even form a meaningful sentence. By contrast, the part that Willard claims is "dependent" on the first--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," does just fine as a sentence--all by its lonesome. I just love having the Constitution explained to me by someone who gets the meaning of independence exactly wrong.

Some argue that the Constitution is a static document not to be influenced by evolving history.

Anyone who argues that "the Constitution is a static document" is apparently unaware that a mechanism exists for amending it (which would seem a rather difficult detail to miss). Or, by "static document," did you mean that some reject the notion that the text takes on new meanings, as if by magic, with the passage of time? Yeah--I fear I'm one of those people who believe it means what it says, until it says something different.

However, it is hard to imagine the need to form a militia to defend our nation when we have a well-armed military and National Guard.

And who is to defend our nation from our "well-armed military and National Guard"?

Had our forefathers envisioned the proliferation of automatic and assault weapons, one wonders what impact it might have had on the Second Amendment.

Perhaps "one wonders" about that--a great many of the rest of us, on the other hand, are confident that the Founding Fathers would realize that today's militias should be able to equip themselves with the most effective light infantry weapons available.

Jones titles his screed "Supreme Court must shun outside view on Second Amendment." If he fancies himself an "insider," I'd say it's the inside view that must be shunned.

Willard G. Jones is a longtime resident of Greeley and former administrator of the University of Northern Colorado.

Let us all thank goodness that he wasn't an instructor.

Taking a gander at Horwitz's latest attempt to cook liberty's goose

Josh Horwitz, of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, is once again arguing that the people of the United States have no right to resist tyranny (this is far from the first time he has made such an argument)--this time, oddly enough, using Mexico to illustrate his "point."

Here in America we often hear the gun lobby spout off about how freedom is best preserved by unfettered access to firearms, but the current situation in Mexico demonstrates that reality can sometimes get in the way of public relations slogans.

[ . . . ]

Additionally, Vice President Dick Cheney and a majority of Members of Congress recently endorsed an "insurrectionist" reading of the Second Amendment in an amicus brief in the landmark Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller.* The Court is reviewing a decision by a panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals which held--without precedent--that the Second Amendment, among other things, protects an individual right to possess arms to defend against the "depredations of a tyrannical government." Practically, this would mean that individuals would have the constitutional right to arm themselves and violently overthrow our government once they decided it had become oppressive (not unlike the unilateral action that Timothy McVeigh took in bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995).

Unfortunately for Josh, the argument he never tires of knocking down is a straw man, and is not, as far as I am aware, made by any gun rights advocates. No one, to my knowledge, claims that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to revolt against the government. Such a right does not even make sense--revolution waged with the permission of government isn't revolution.

The Second Amendment exists not to safeguard the right to revolt against the Constitutional government, but to protect the people's means to resist a government that refuses to be bound by the Constitution. While the government adheres to the Constitution, the people are obligated to obey the laws written and passed by their elected representatives. If and when the government ceases that adherence, all bets are off. The Second Amendment is the mechanism by which those "bets" will be rescinded.

I was planning to write more, but other matters intrude. Perhaps later.

P.S. ThirdPower and I seem to be on similar wavelengths again--Days of Our Trailers covered this, too.

Illinois taxpayers footing the bill for Illinois' War on Guns

Back in April, I wrote about the Chicago Public Schools system's taxpayer-funded program of using Chicago public high school students (a whopping 51% of whom graduate) as lobbyists for yet more draconian gun legislation in the state. The legislative session has ended, and the forcible citizen disarmament lobby's highest priority goals remain unmet.

Undeterred, there will apparently be a Chicago Public Schools-organized rally at Soldier Field today.

Chicago Public Schools is planning a large student rally in Soldier Field Tuesday morning. The goal is to persuade state lawmakers to boost funding for public education.

Over the last few weeks, the district has been e-mailing all its principals to recruit students for the event. Though it's not required, one district spokesperson says it could become, quote, "the largest civics class in history." Officials say they expect tens of thousands of students at the stadium.

So, with fuel costs at record levels, they're busing tens of thousands of students (I'm told that 1,200 buses will be used)--to lobby for more money. I would guess that they'll need to shake the legislators down for quite a lot of money, just to break even.

The relevance to guns? Glad you asked.

The rally's organizers also say they'll be addressing the state's gun laws and how they relate to the violence surrounding schools.

As I pointed out back in April, it's a pretty slick scam. Gun owners from all over the state, through their tax dollars, help fund efforts to put laws in place that would make their guns illegal.

Clearly, one does not need to be stupid to be an advocate of forcible citizen disarmament--being devoid of scruples is enough.

Days of Our Trailers is also on this.

New York City's War on Freedom

This has already been covered by Days of Our Trailers, War on Guns, and undoubtedly others, but what Jay Wallace (of Adventure Outdoors) is enduring at the hands of Mayor Bloomberg and his minions (a group that includes the Judge, Jack Weinstein) needs as much exposure as it can get.

As mentioned last week, Commissar . . . er, Judge Weinstein decided not to risk something as fair as a jury trial for Mr. Wallace, and decreed that the jury would serve only in an advisory capacity. Seeing the futility of trying to play the game with such an impossibly stacked deck, Mr. Wallace and his attorney backed out of the case, with the idea of skipping directly to the appeals stage.

That brings us to the latest development.

But Taber [an attorney for the city] said in a telephone interview Wednesday, “We have serious doubts about the appealability of any of the issues arising from these proceedings. There is some case authority … for the proposition that when you default in a case this late in the game, you don't have any further appellate rights. The default terminates the action.”

Not being an attorney myself, I have no way of judging the legal merits of Taber's argument. Whether or not there is a legal basis for his contention, there certainly is no moral or Constitutional justification for A) denying a trial by jury, and B) denying the right to appeal. I should also point out that Taber seems to base his assertion that Wallace lost his right to appeal by withdrawing "this late in the game," but Taber apparently sees no problem with Weinstein changing the rules and denying a jury trial less than a week before the proceedings were to begin.

Jay Wallace is doing his part (much more than his part, really) to defend the Constitution against a jihad waged with the combined resources of a billionaire mayor and New York City's vast tax revenues. We cannot ask Wallace to fight that battle alone.

Snuffy returns

It seems that when I posted last Tuesday that Snuffy Pfleger might be gone for good, I was a bit overly optimistic.

Father Michael Pfleger will return to the pulpit at St. Sabina Catholic Church on June 16, after Cardinal Francis George forced him to take a leave of absence over controversial comments about U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton.

I notice, with considerable bemusement, that Snuffy has apparently received the following admonishment:

Parishioners said Sunday morning that they have been told Pfleger will return to the church on June 16 on the grounds that he can not discuss politics.

If Snuffy considers himself to be above federal law, it's a bit difficult for me to imagine him being very frightened of Cardinal George's authority.

Mass killing in Japan--but at least no one was shot

It occurs to me that if a man were to kill seven people and wound ten more with a gun, the advocates of forcible citizen disarmament would hail the atrocity as a reason to support their agenda. When the sick thug instead uses a truck and a knife for his evil, though, we hear nothing.

Are the deaths of innocent people murdered by means other than firearms somehow less appalling, less tragic, than shooting deaths?

I submit that they are not.

Police require court order to return property

Days of Our Trailers tells of yet another case of a police agency in Illinois simply making rules up as they go along. As is typical in Illinois, those rules tend to be stacked against gun owners.

Oak Forest police received an unusual request last summer, when they were asked to store guns for a man being released from a mental institution.

Joe Bouril and his wife, Janice, gave the six guns to police voluntarily and planned to get them back once Bouril showed that he was no longer a threat to himself or others.

Now, Bouril says he's better and wants his guns back.

But police have balked at relinquishing them, saying they need a court order before they do so.

Janice Bouril has a valid Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, and has every right to own firearms (and Joe Bouril has transferred ownership of the firearms to her), but the police refuse to return them to her without a court order.

In anything resembling a free society, a court order is one of the requirements to revoke a right. Here in Illinois, though, you have to get one to have your rights honored.

The Bouril family is unable to afford the grotesque legal fees involved with obtaining the required court order, and thus appear, for the moment at least, to be out of luck.

I don't know how I continue to manage to be surprised by this kind of outrage.

Chicago Alderman Loophole update

When I posted the latest information I had on Alderman Mell's Chicago Alderman Loophole Ordinance yesterday, I was apparently operating on incomplete information. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the version of the ordinance approved by the Chicago City Council's Committee on Police and Fire Wednesday is significantly broader than Mell's version.

What started as a month-long amnesty tailor-made for a powerful alderman who forgot to register his guns has turned into a 120-day grace period for every Chicagoan who ever owned a registered gun here.

The City Council's Police Committee agreed today to re-open gun registration in Chicago -- and not in the narrow manner proposed by Ald. Richard Mell (33rd).

[ . . . ]

It would have applied, only to gun owners who attempted to re-register their guns between May 1, 2007 and April 1, 2008 only to be rejected on grounds the registrations had lapsed.

The ordinance approved today quadruples the amnesty period. If approved by the full Council, it would apply to everybody who "possesses a firearm that was at one time validly registered to that person in the city of Chicago."

That would certainly apply to a great many more people than Mell's original version would have.

Police Committee Chairman Isaac Carothers (29th) said the prior wording appeared to be tailor-made "for an individual."

That's because it was specifically tailor-made for an individual, Isaac--someone give the man a cigar.

The specific wording of the revised version of the ordinance is not yet available, but I think it will eventually be, here, by scrolling down to the line marked June 4, 2008, 11:00 AM, Committee on Police and Fire. When "Summary" becomes an active link, there will hopefully be some more information.

By the way, War on Guns has an excellent suggestion:

If I were an Illinois gun owner, I would be pressing organizations claiming to represent me to file a freedom of information demand for copies of all correspondence from Chicago gun owners who told the city they were in the same predicament as Richard Mell. Conveniently I notice he mentioned he was called, so perhaps phone logs could be included at as well. You could do it in a way to protect their identities, and use it to validate that the city has been "inundated" and the new law will benefit "thousands."

Hell, I'd think a quick audit of police records for how many have not renewed during the designated time period ought to give a good quick 'n dirty snapshot, once you factor in people who moved or died--but then again, maybe not, because who in their right mind would play along with this evil game?

Good question.

The (distorted) view from Canada

Toronto lawyer Tom O'Driscoll, not being a politician in the U.S., doesn't have to even pretend to have any respect for the Second Amendment. So, he doesn't.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Twenty-seven ill-chosen words, three badly-placed commas, one unrivaled legislative botch-up.

And that's just the first sentence.

Opponents in the gun-control debate ascribe very different interpretations to the amendment. To gun-control advocates, it is nothing more than the protection of a state's right to maintain a militia; to the pro-gun gang, it is nothing less than confirmation of an individual's constitutional right to own a gun.

So those who advocate forcible citizen disarmament are "advocates," while those of us who oppose it are a "gang." And here I am not even knowing what colors I'm supposed to wear (I suppose it would be camo, but which camouflage pattern?).

While we admittedly have our fair share of gun-control issues and controversy in Canada [you don't say!], at least our law-makers aren't faced with an arguable gun-ownership right being inscribed in our constitution in all-but-indelible ink.

What the HELL does he mean by "all-but-indelible"? Maybe he should just try erasing the Bill of Rights (he wouldn't be the first to try), and see where that gets him. Oh, by the way, the gun-ownership right might be "arguable," but I'd hate to be one of the poor saps arguing for the other side.

Incredibly, if the questions and comments from the Court during the D.C. vs. Heller hearing last March are any tip-off, that is about to change: The Court appears ready, by a five-to-four margin, to rule that the amendment gives individuals the right to own a gun.

If SCOTUS does rule that the Second Amendment "gives" individuals the right to keep and bear arms, the justices need to demand a refund on their law school tuitions. Preexisting, fundamental human rights aren't given--they're honored.

Isn't the amendment's thirteen-word preamble a clear-cut indication of a militia-related purpose?

And doesn't "the people" mean the people (I don't remember seeing anything about "the right of militias to keep and bear arms")?

Shouldn't the social context in which it was passed -- a fledgling nation, having spit the bit of imperial oppression and wary of replacement tyranny -- be examined in interpreting its meaning?

Has tyranny, and the possibility of its return, ceased to exist since the 18th century?

Needn't notice be taken that firearms were already blazing away in 1789, thus the "fire" prefix -- if intended to apply to "arms" -- could have easily been inserted?

As arguments go, that one (as tough as the competition is) might take first place, in terms of stupidity. We are to believe that because the Founding Fathers didn't limit the protected arms to firearms, firearms were thus not included?

If the intent of the amendment was to confirm the right to own a gun, why didn't it simply state that?

It did, you sniveling dolt.

Sadly, only this is quite clear about the Second Amendment: Whoever drafted it shoulda been shot.

Ah--the last refuge of "non-violence" advocates.