The Logical and Epistemological Derivation and Progression of Rights

Here's a post I started writing about... two years ago I think? Maybe three? In response to a question about what rights were, and how we know they are rights etc... but I never finished it. The same question came up today, so I figured I'd finish the post. 

... It's still not QUITE finished... I need to do a bit more of an edit... but it's MOSTLY finished. 

By the by... if you think something is circular, or a tautology, you're reading it wrong. There are no tautologies here, there are only derivations from first principle, with reference to falsifiability, and non-contradiction; presented as logical and consequential proofs.

Meaning that all derivations FROM first principles in the progression can be derived back TO first principles, without contradiction or falsification... and that many but not all of them have, in order to illustrate this. 

As sentient beings, of sound mind, able to make our own choices and direct our own efforts; and to accept the requirements, obligations and consequences thereof; we have fundamental and inherent rights, which pre-exist and presuppose any society, state, collective, or other entity.

Rights exist because of self ownership, not because of society, or the state, or collective agreement or consent.We own ourselves, in the entire... rights, benefits, obligations and consequences.

We are not the property of others, or of society; and society (or the state, or any other collective or individual) is not the grantor of rights... though if legitimate, society, or the state, should be a guarantor of rights.

This is generally colloquially referred to as the propertarian principle of individual rights, or the principal of self ownership.

To my knowledge, it is the only logical derivation and progression of individual rights, as and from fundamental first principle, which does not require outside appeal to authority (i.e. faith, God, society, the state, the monarch etc... though conveniently, it also does not contradict most concepts of faith in God either)... though there may be others I am not familiar with.

This is a nearly universally recognized (if not necessarily universally accepted) principle, by those who actually study such principles (philosophy and philosophers), and the nature of principles, knowledge, and truth (epistemology... a field of philosophy which asks "how does one know anything at all, and within such knowledge, how does one know what is true and what is not).

It is generally accepted as the foundational first principle of the enlightenment... and critically it IS, clearly and explicity, the fundamental principle of the constitution of the United States... and of the nation defined by it.

Rights are not granted or provided by the constitution, or the state, or society... our rights are fundamental, inherent, and pre-existing... they are recognized, and protected by the constitution, by the state organized and formed by it, and... hopefully... by the society living with that state.

First, to get it out of the way right up front... lets talk about God for a minute:

1. Some believe there is no such thing as property, nor can there be... only stewardship
2. Some believe that we are Gods property

There can be conceptions of rights without property, including without self ownership, or even without individuals, as we think of them... but they are entirely different from conceptions of rights where there can be and is property... Generally granted by "tradition", or "honor" or "god" or "gods" etc... They are not derivable from any logical first principle, but instead require appeal to authority (even if that authority is "honor" or "tradition").

In most Christian and Jewish theological concepts which include people being God's property, this is morally and ethically indistinguishable from self ownership in the context of the propertarian principle; except internally, to your own moral judgement and conscience, of your stewardship of Gods property (as delegated to you, the individual...though certain Christians theorize and promulgate more explicitly collective stewardship as well).

In Islam, you are owned by God, and are in total submission to God... That is the literal meaning of Islam. You are owned by, and submit to the will of, God, in all things, at all times. Anything you or anyone else has, is Gods property, you only have temporary posession, use, and stewardship of it... including yourself. You have no rights, nor does anyone else... only privileges granted by God, as God wills it.

This piece is not about the epistemology of faith however, it is about the epistemology of rights.

So next, lets get the other common concepts of "rights"... which by the individual conception of rights are not truly rights at all... out of the way.

Some believe that there are superior beings, who have rights inherently (or granted by God, or society, or position etc..); and inferior beings, who do not, or whose rights are inferior to others (unless granted superior rights by those who posess them), and who can be the property of another, or can be subject to another. This is the fundamental principle of nobility or monarchy, and of certain types of oligarchy, and other explicitly hierarchical societies.

Some believe that people... or at least our bodies, and the fruits and products of them, and their efforts (wealth, profit, property etc...) are the property of "society" or some other collective entity or construct. If you believe that individuals are societies property... then you don't believe in rights at all... though you may call them rights, they are not: They are grants of privilege, immunity, entitlement, license, or franchise. They can be given, taken, and modified, as society decides. This is the fundamental principal of most collectivist societies.

It is also the fundamental presumption most people seem to have, in most societies around the world today... including, sadly, most people in America. They THINK they believe in rights, and in individuals... but they believe that rights are grants of society, or the state, or the constitution; and can be granted, modified, or revoked, as the needs or preferences of society require them to be.

They THINK they believe they are individuals, and own themselves... but they believe that society decides on rights... and if society decides, then you don't actually own yourself, society owns you.

What about right and wrong?

In either of these alternate conceptions; as the superior individuals, or society as a whole, are the arbiter of rights, then there can be no standard of right or wrong, except as determined by those superior individuals, or by common consent; and when society changes its mind, then what right, and what is wrong, also change.

There are no right and wrong... only allowed or not... Which, sadly, is what all too many believe.

If there ARE individual rights, beginning with property rights, then at least some things are inherently and objectively wrong... with or without society, even if society says they otherwise... Specifically those things which violate the rights of others, by force or fraud.

Oh and, if one knowingly does this wrong, by choice, then one willingly consents to their rights being abrogated as a consequence... We respect each others rights, so that others respect ours, and if they violate ours, we don't have to respect theirs... though we still should, and we shouldn't disregard their rights to any degree greater than required to compensate us for the violation of our rights, or to prevent further violation or abrogation of others rights.

THAT is the ACTUAL social contract by the way...

...Not some BS about society and altruism etc... etc... etc...

A contract, is valid consideration, offered for valid consideration in return; voluntarily accepted, with valid exchange and acceptance of said consideration, according to specified terms.

This equal offer of consideration of rights, fulfills all requirements of a contract; both as individuals, and collectively... as all so called "collective rights" are not... they either do not exist, or they are rights delegated to the collective by others.

... Remember... I said this was a full logical derivation and progression... 
Might makes right?

Three other important things to get out of the way...

1. Just because someone, or some society, or some state doesn't know about or recognize or accept such rights, doesn't mean they don't exist

2. Just because someone, or some society, or some state, is violating or abrogating such rights, does not mean they do not exist.

3. Just because someone, or some society, or some state, has the power, or has granted themselves the authority, to violate or abrogate such rights, does not mean they do not exist.

To "think" otherwise, is to make the same logical error, as thinking that because people violate the law, there is no law; the same logical error as thinking that because people do wrong, that there is no right or wrong.

This is the difference between licit, and legitimate authority and force. Licit, is that which is allowed by "authority"... be it society, the state, the monarch etc... Legitimate is that which respects both law, and rights... and the law itself must be licit and legitimate to be right.

Rights cannot be disposessed of, only respected, violated, or abrogated; whether by force, fraud, or willing consent.

... Willing limitation of rights, competition of rights, and intersection of rights in such contexts are MUCH more complicated questions...

Proof?

As I said above... The propertarian principal of individual rights, provides for a logical derivation and progression of rights, from first principle, without external appeal to authority.

So... here is the logical and epistemological progression and proof of individual rights; from, in reference to, and in the context of; the propertarian principle of individual rights, or the principle of self ownership.

First, our assumptions, and statement of principle...

Sentient individuals exist.

Property exists.

Rights exist.

Property may be held privately, by sentient individuals.

Sentient individuals may not legitimately be property of other individuals or entitites.

If we are sentient individuals, not owned by society, or any other superior individual or entity, then we must own ourselves.

Now, we derive our progression of rights...

If we own ourselves, then there must be rights, inherent to our nature as sentient individuals... These rights begin with, and proceed from, the right of self ownership; because without rights, there is no ownership... only possession.

If there is an inherent right of self ownership, and we are sentient beings, then we must have the right to freedom of conscience.

If we own ourselves, and have freedom of conscience, then we cannot be dispossessed of our rights even by willing consent; as self ownership and freedom of conscience cannot be dispossessed of without negating sentience and individuality.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience and cannot be disposessed of our rights, then our rights can only be abrogated or violated by force, fraud, or willing consent.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, cannot be disposessed of our rights, and our rights can only be abrogated or violated by force, fraud, or willing consent; then all sentient individuals have the same rights, and no individual can have any rights that are superior or inferior to the rights of any other individual.

If all sentient individuals have the same rights, which cannot be superior or inferior to any other, then no sentient individual can be superior or inferior to another.

If no sentient individual can be superior or inferior to any other, then no individual can own any other or be owned by any other.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, and cannot be dispossessed of our rights, then we must have the right of private property, which consists of the rights of posession, determination, use, exclusion, disposal, and benefit of such property (including our selves in the entire).

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, and have the right of private property, then we must have the right of defense of self.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, and have the right of private property, then we must have the right of self determination.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, have the right to private property, and the right to self determination, then we must have the right of association.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, have the right to private property, the right to self determination, and the right to free association, then we must have the right to form contract.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, have the right to private property, and the right to self determination, the right of association, and the right to form contract; we must also have the right to form voluntary collectives of individuals and to delegate certain rights and powers to them.

If we can form a voluntary collective of individuals, all individuals have the same rights which cannot be disposessed, no individuals can be superior or inferior to any other, and no individual can own or be owned by any other...

 ....then no collective of individuals can be a separate entity unto itself with rights separate from the rights of the individuals making up the collective, nor can any collective of individuals be superior or inferior to any individual, nor possess or exercise rights not posessed by all individuals, or which are superior to those of any individual.

... Thus, we are able to have societies, and states, which respect and protect individual rights, and which do not violate or abrogate them; without requiring collective rights, or collective ownership.

That's the epistemological progression from the propertarian principle, through to the existence of societies and states, with the exclusion of collective rights, and collective ownership... It is a complete chain of reasoning, derivable from and to first principles... progression and regression.

All things which are ACTUALLY rights, as opposed to grants, franchises, etc... can and must be logically and epistemologically justified within this progression, or from this progression. All things which cannot be logically and epistemologically justified within or from this progression... as dervied from and in the context of the propertarian principle... are not, and can not be, rights. They are something else, that are not rights.

A Simple Question

So... hardcore drug warriors out there... I have a very simple question for you...

Why?

You can't stop people from getting high. It's NOT POSSIBLE.

It literally does not matter how far you go, you cannot stop it.

We can't stop heroin from getting into supermax prisons, where there are no visitors allowed, and everyone is body searched in and out.

I just had a dedicated drug warrior fully sincerely advocate that we completely seal the border, and that every vehicle, container, and person should be fully cavity searched.

When I pointed out that cavity searches didn't stop heroin from getting in to supermax prisons, he said that we need to have full walls on all the borders, and boats to patrol the coastlines to stop smugglers.

You can't stop people from getting high. This is not an issue of sealing the borders.

Even if you actually sealed the borders successfully, then they would just grow it here.

How exactly would you stop that?

It would require constantly patrolling millions of acres of property, searching all greenhouses, and all forests, and all fields of any kind of anything, at least once every 90 days... in the entire country.

Doing so... aside from the massive violations of peoples rights, would require millions of law enforcement officers dedicated to it.

That would cost more than the entire budget of the United State by the way.

Even if you manage to completely eradicate all opium poppies, and all coca plants on the planet, they will just synthesize it in labs... and by labs, I mean, any quiet room with an electrical outlet, or anywhere you can run a generator, or a blow torch.

If you completely ban all substances that people could get high with, you ban thousands of legal products with legitimate and critical uses, including a huge number of critical medications.

You also have to ban all lab equipment, or closely license and track its sale. And all chemicals of all kind... and many kinds of foods. And most kinds of flowers.

And all machine tools, and glass blowing equipment... and blow torches, and pipes and tubes and sand...

And you'll have to dig out and burn out millions and millions of acres of plants.

We have 7,500 miles of border. We have 13,000 miles of coastline.

You can make it a death penalty offense to posses, sell, or use drugs, or get high. Many countries do in fact... and people still get high.

This dedicated drug warrior said that it didn't matter what it took, it didn't matter what it cost... It didn't matter if it wouldn't work at all... That we had to do it anyway.

When I asked why, he said:

"Because to do otherwise would be to surrender"

Then I asked "Surrender what? To who?"

He said "Surrender to the junkies and the dealers"

I asked "Surrender what?"

He refused to answer.

And again I asked "Why"

He refused to answer.

I said "You're advocating a police state, in order to stop people from getting high. Why?"

He refused to answer.

So... I have a very simple question for you...

You cannot possibly stop people who want to get high, from getting high.

You can't make it illegal enough. You can't ban or control enough. It's not possible... you have to know that it isn't possible..

Prohibition PROVED beyond all possibility of doubt that it's impossible.

The last 45 years of the war on drugs have proved beyond all possibility of doubt that it's impossible.

Maximum security prisons prove beyond all possibility of doubt that it's impossible.

But you still think we have to do it... No matter what it takes... No matter the harm it causes... No matter what rights get violated...No matter how much power it gives the state. No matter how much it costs...

Why?

It's a really simple question...

"Bad" or "Wrong" or "I don't like it" is not equivalent to "Unconstitutional"

In a comment on someone elses post, another reader wrote "The DEA is an unconstitutional and illegal agency".

This bugs me... We frequently see these sorts of statements made about the DEA, the ATF, the federal reserve (where ok, there's at least a rational and reasonable though flawed argument to be made... most of the people shouting stuff like that above aren't making those arguments, but still)... Basically any federal agency that they don't like, or which enforces laws, or uses delegated powers which they personally don't like.

No, the mere existence of the DEA is not unconstitutional or illegal. It is perfectly constitutional in that it is an executive agency chartered to enforce the laws promulgated by the legislative branch.

The fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority to outright ban or criminalize such substances as the DEA is chartered to regulate, or to ban or criminalize their manufacture, use, or possession (and only limited power to regulate their sale. No, sorry, regulating interstate commerce and making such laws as necessary for the general welfare does not grant them such broad and deterministic powers... and Wickard v. Filburn is bad law and needs to be overturned), does not mean that all laws relating to such substances are illegal or unconstitutional. There are legitimate regulatory powers that such an agency may lawfully and constitutionally exercise.

AS CURRENTLY EXTANT AND IN THEIR CURRENT ROLES AND ACTIONS... The DEA often engages in unconstitutional behaviors, and acts to enforce unconstitutional laws. That much is certainly true. But they are not inherently unconstitutional, or illegal.

Those are actually really important distinctions. Not just semantics or distinctions without difference.

This is so, because you go about addressing the issues, and solving the problems, differently. Things which are blatantly and directly illegal or unconstitutional are best addressed in one way. Things which are peripherally so, are best addressed in a very different way.

You have to shoot at the proper target, with the proper ammunition.

Also, it's really important to remember, that "bad and stupid" or "harmful" or "undesirable", or "pointless"; does not necessarily mean "unconstitutional". Nor does "constitutional" mean "good", or "useful" or "effective".

That's not even a matter of judges discretion or interpretation... The constitution actually provides far less protection of rights, and limitation of powers, than people believe it, expect it, and wish it to (at least explicitly... the 9th and 10th amendments... there's much bigger and messier issue).

Franchise limitation isn't the solution to illegal immigration

A few days ago, Roger L. Simon of PJ Media posted "A Modest Proposal for Immigration Reform".

"So here’s my simple — call it simple-minded, if you want — solution, my modest proposal.  Illegal immigrants, assuming they have lived here for a decent period of time and have not committed a felony, can have amnesty, but they can NEVER be allowed to vote.  They can do anything else that is legal, but if they want to vote — or run for office or practice law in our country, as just happened in California — they must return home and go through the normal immigrant application process, however long that may take until they have citizenship."

Now, Simon is a smart and well read man, and by invoking Swift in his title, it's possible that he is cueing the reader that the piece is satire... but it reads as straight to me.

...Unfortunately.

Oh, on its face it sounds like a decent, practical idea, as Simon writes:

"This takes political motivations off the table in immigration policy and allows it to be about the lives of the people themselves, not the advancement of politicians and their parties.  If our Democratic friends mean what they say about their “compassion,” they should have no objection. If they do, they simply expose themselves as political opportunists with no real interest in the welfare of what they euphemistically choose to call “undocumented workers,” only in creating a voting bloc."

That would be nice... and overall, denying the franchise to illegals given amnesty citizenship seems like an OK idea... better than nothing, better than most legislation ideas being bandied about, and addressing one of the biggest problems with mass amnesty.

Except that passing such a law would, in fact, be disastrous.

Sebastian of PAGunBlog referred to the idea as "Amnesty Light", which isn't a bad way of putting it. More accurate though, would be to call it "Citizenship light"... which is a problem in several ways.

First of all, purely from a practical standpoint, the franchise limitation provision would fail in its intended goal.

The core issue, is that if such a law passed, it would effectively create multi-tiered citizenship: "Amnesty Citizens" and "Full Citizens"

In addition to the MANY other areas where this could be legally problematic; this would almost certainly be ruled, by just about any court, to be a 14th amendment violation (a privileges and immunities clause violation at the least, and possibly an equal protection violation).

Of course, it is not necessarily unconstitutional to limit the franchise by legislation (though based on court rulings over the past 60 years, that has some pretty strict, if ill defined, limits). For example, federally, we limit the franchise to those over 18. In most states they limit the franchise of felons, to some degree or another.

It is almost certainly unconstitutional however, to permanently deny franchise en-bloc, based on arbitrary characteristics, or on acts that were committed prior to passage of such a law.

It may even simply be ruled to be a fundamental violation of our system of citizenship as a whole; and that congress does not have the power to create a limited class of citizenship through legislation.

... I actually think that's likely. I don't believe congress has the power to create a limited citizenship by legislation.

I'd say that was absolutely the case, but there is a little wiggle room in the constitution, the 14th amendment, and the body of citizenship law; which potentially leaves it open to interpretation by a judge.

In that case, creating a limited citizenship would require a constitutional amendment... which will NEVER happen.

Oh an important aside... Some may suggest that the legal problems could be circumvented by requiring amnesty seekers to voluntarily agree to give up the franchise as part of their citizenship agreement. Effectively, each amnesty seeker would sign a consent decree voluntarily surrendering the franchise.

Normally, a consent decree can be used to enforce conditions that the government otherwise would not have the power to enforce, but there here are a few major exceptions.

This country has a body of anti-slavery and anti-abuse jurisprudence, which has enshrined a basic principle of law and contracts: American citizens cannot voluntarily give up their basic rights, privileges, and immunities. They can agree to reasonable restrictions such as non-disclosure agreements, but they can't contract themselves into slavery for example.

There may be some ways to make it work legislatively of course. For example, in order to get citizenship via the amnesty, each illegal immigrant would have to plead guilty to a felony (don't get me started on felonies), but that could get very messy very quickly.

Really though, which specific issue the franchise restriction was struck down for is unimportant. There are enough issues here that eventually (likely very quickly), there would be a successful challenge.

Given that any law passed would almost certainly have a severability clause, and that the supreme court would almost certainly strike down such a broad restriction on the franchise (certainly, many groups would litigate the issue constantly, and until they got the result they desired); effectively there would be no compromise. A few years after the law passed... possibly even a few months.... the voting provision would be struck down, and the amnesty citizens would be voters.

And let's just ignore fact that this would inevitably become an incredibly nasty race issue...

It's not just impracticable though. As a matter of principle, such a law would be morally and ethically wrong, and corrosive to our liberty.

Citizenship is, and must be, absolute. It's an all or nothing thing. The United States cannot create multiple classes of citizenship, de jure or de facto, and survive in any recognizable form.

Simply put, that way lies tyranny.

This is not to say that all people should be treated the same at all times.

Individuals may, through their own actions and choices, cause the PRIVILEGES* society grants them to change. A society can restrict certain privileges to certain individuals, who qualify by their own actions and choices; or deny them to others, disqualified by their actions and choices.

... so long as all have equal status under law, and the law is applied equally.

*The franchise is a privilege, not a right; as for that matter, is citizenship. They can be granted or denied by society, as society defines; so long as the law is applied equally to all, and not arbitrary or capricious.

Citizenship though, is absolute in this country. With one single and extremely limited exception, a citizen is a citizen, with equal rights, privileges, and immunities.

In this country, you can't say "you're a citizen EXCEPT...". It just goes against the nature of what we are... or at least what we're supposed to be.

There's a reason why there is only one office in this country that a naturalized citizen can't hold (Ok, technically two, since you have to be qualified to the the president in order to be the VP... but it's entirely likely that part of the constitution will eventually either be changed, or that the supremes will decide the 14th amendment moots it). There's a very big reason why it's explicitly called out in the constitution, as the sole exception to the rule that citizenship is citizenship, no matter what.

When the constitution specifies very broad rights and principles, and very narrow restrictions and exceptions to them, that's not an accident.

I'm not denying that giving somewhere between 10 and 20 million (and no matter what the propaganda says, largely unassimilated. I've lived in Arizona, California, Texas, Florida) illegal immigrants the franchise all at once could be a major problem. No matter what, it would be incredibly destabilizing, and we almost certainly shouldn't do that.

Neither though, should we weaken the essential protections our rights, privileges, and immunities have against an overreaching state, in order to attempt to address that problem.

It's a matter of the camels nose... or if you prefer, perhaps the slippery slope (slippery slopes may be a formal logical fallacy, but they do in fact exist. That's how incrementalism works).

Today, it's former illegal immigrants having the franchise restricted. If we allow that though, in principle, it could be acceptable to remove the franchise from any group. You'd simply need to come up with "compelling justification".

If you try to say "oh, that can't happen here"... it already has. In the civil war, WW1, WW2... The internment of the Japanese is the best known example, but far from the only one.

The fact is, several times in our not so distant past, the government has arbitrarily decided, based on "compelling interest"; that some people weren't "real" citizens, with all the rights and privileges thereof. That it was acceptable to simply ignore these peoples fundamental rights as human beings, never mind as citizens.

... and each time, the supreme court ruled it constitutional.

The principle of absolute citizenship should be just that, absolute. You either have citizenship, and all the privileges and immunities thereof... or you don't. That's it. there is no "in between"

Of course and unfortunately, these are principles that we rarely manage to uphold. The "real world" has more examples of inequitable treatment under law, than you could ever count.

That this is true, despite what are in theory our best efforts, should not make us discard the principle however.

On the contrary... That this is true, should make it incredibly clear, that we should avoid deliberately writing inequality into law; no matter how compelling the cause, no matter how limited the scope.

Oh... There's one thing I agree with Simon on in the entire:

"Our country lives by the rule of law — at least we should.  Immigration policy has been a farce."

Because it's Right... and Because it's Tactically Sound

A few days ago, an NBA player of no particular note came out as gay...

Which, really, should also be of no particular note.

But then ESPN decided to put a moronic bigot (whose name I won't mention and whose video I won't bother linking to here... why publicize idiots like this) to discuss the issue... and predictably he spouted moronic bigotry all over the screen, and made it an even BIGGER spectacle...

Now, the intarwebs are full of folks reacting against the reaction against the reaction against etc... etc...

They're caught up in the noise, and not the issue.

I try not to do that... and to smack it down when I can.

I take issue with the way issues surrounding homosexuality in public life are covered by the media, and often with the strategy and tactics employed by activists... but I believe in, and work for equal rights and equal protection for homosexuals (and before anyone gets offended by my use of a single word... you're an idiot... YOU are part of the problem... because you are offended stupidly by nothing, and not working towards a real solution).

Chris Kluwe, NFL Punter, wrote a post in support of the gay community in HuffPo yesterday... I normally don't link to them, but I think this is a rational and correct position, reasonably well put...

Really, my position and reasoning are simple...

I speak in support of equal treatment for homosexuals, not because I am one, but because it is the right thing to do.

Because I believe in equal rights and treatment for EVERYONE.

Whether I approve of them or not.

Further, I do so, because anything which can be used against those you disapprove of... can also be used against those you DO approve of...

...or YOU.

Take Back Your Government

Tuesday night, I spoke before the Bonner County Republican Party Central Committee (all elected county officials in Bonner county are Republicans right now), in support of a resolution (which I had a small part in writing) supporting the second amendment and:

"Strongly urging" the county commission (all commissioners are Republicans) to enact an ordnance

1. Declaring all federal firearms laws in violation of the second amendment

2. Requiring the Sheriff (also a Republican) to refuse to enforce, or allow to be enforced, and to prevent enforcement in the county; any laws abrogating, violating, or substantially limiting our natural and pre-existing right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and others.

This resolution was adopted by acclimation by the county party, and was forwarded to the Idaho state Republican party, so that they can include it (and the similar resolutions of all 44 counties in the state) in the statewide resolution of the Idaho Republican party (which will be substantially similar):

Quote:

A Resolution of the Bonner County Republican Central Committee to be known as
The Second Amendment Resolution 

WHEREAS, The United States Constitution guarantees the natural and pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, and 

WHEREAS, Only laws made “in Pursuance of” the Constitution are deemed valid, and 

WHEREAS, The State and The People of Idaho possess and retain all powers not granted to the federal government, including the powers mentioned in the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution, and 

WHEREAS, Bonner County being a duly recognized political subdivision of the state of Idaho, has the authority of the State of Idaho to honor Constitutional laws and disregard laws not made “in Pursuance of” the Constitution, 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT, The Bonner County Republican Central Committee strongly urges the Bonner County Commissioners to enact the following Ordinance; following the example of the Founders and many States, Sheriff’s and local jurisdictions throughout the United States to wit: 

AN Ordinance, which shall be known and may be cited as the “2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance.” 

To prevent federal infringement of the right to keep and bear arms; nullifying all federal acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BONNER COUNTY DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 

SECTION 1: The Bonner County Board of Commissioners finds that: 

A. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” 

B. All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the 2nd Amendment 

SECTION 2: PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS 

A. The Bonner County Board of Commissioners declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations – past, present or future – in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers; and are hereby declared to be invalid in this county, shall not be recognized by this county, are specifically rejected by this county, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this county. 

B. It shall be the duty of the Sheriff of this County to take all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

SECTION 3 EFFECTIVE DATE 

A. This act takes effect upon approval by the Bonner County Board of Commissioners

We have been winning this issue on the federal issue for a number of years. With Heller and McDonald; and the great work of Alan Gura (of Gura and Posesskey), Alan Gottleib of the Second  Amendment Foundation, the NRA, JPFO, and others; we are going to keep winning this in federal courts.

But we have to do more. We have to make it clear that we will no longer accept the ratcheting violation of our rights and our liberty.

Further, the most restrictive laws, and the biggest dangers aren't at the federal level; they're state by state, and in some cases city by city. The way to win the country is to win state by state. The way to win each state, is to win county by county, and city by city. 

We need to win these issues locally. We need to take back our government. 

Every argument for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, in just 8 minutes

Political Captial, Fundraising, Mission Focus, and Propaganda

So, the GOA has cranked up their idiot propaganda machine, once again proclaiming "The evil NRA has sold us all down the river", regarding the current debate in congress on trying to pass a new campaign finance reform law, now that the supreme court struck down most of McCain Feingold.

The GOA is saying that because the NRA is not explicitly opposing, and shouting from the rooftops their opposition, every provision and the mere existence, of a bill that hasn't even made it out of committee; that somehow they are in an evil pact with the democrats to sell out gun owners etc... etc...

Bullshit, as usual, from the GOA... whose chief concern and activity has for years been, and now seems to be; telling gun owners how awful everyone else is, so they will send more money to the GOA.

Let me be VERY CLEAR ONCE AGAIN here:

The NRA is ALWAYS AND ONLY about guns and hunting.

Any other issue, they don't care about.

They don't give a damn about any other freedom or liberty, unless it helps them advance their mission about guns and hunting.

AND THATS WHAT THEY SHOULD BE.

The NRA is a single issue organization.

There are other organizations to fight for free speech. There are other groups to support conservative values. There are other groups to support conservative candidates.

That is NOT the NRAs job.

The NRA has one job (politically speaking), fighting for gun and hunting rights.

Opposing legislation completely unrelated to gun rights; so long as their mission to protect gun rights is not hurt by said legislation; is not in their interests, or the interests of the gun rights fight.

The NRA does not take a position on things that do not directly effect them, or their fight for gun rights.

That is the ONLY logical way for a political action group to exist.

Here is the official statement from the NRA:

STATEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT

The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.

In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.

The NRA’s opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.

The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.

The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.

Thus, the NRA’s first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America’s lawful gun owners.

On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.

The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.

The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.

If you think there is any other position the NRA should take, you are not only wrong, you are a fool.

A Perception Issue

If you ask most people in this country whether we have gun control, they'll say no we don't. If you ask them why, they'll say something like "because the NRA keeps it from passing.

This may seem impossible to those of us in the gun world, but the vast majority of people in this country are entirely ignorant about gun laws... in fact I'd wager to say the majority of gun owners are even ignorant.

Frederik Pohl is a quite well known science fiction author; who has recently decided to start a blog. In one of his first posts, he mentioned his wife was a college professor, a former state rep, and worked with the teachers union in her state; and in the comment thread someone made some disparaging comments about such unions.

She responded with a defense of her union; but also an attack against the NRA, and gun rights supporters:

"So I take exception to my union’s being linked by my husband with an organization like the National Rifle Association. I admit, their members are primarily not lobbying for financial gain either, but I also do not believe that the majority of people who are card-carrying members of that organization are as fanatic as their leadership in defending the right of anyone to bear automatic assault weapons. Many of their members are simply hunters or collectors who want to join an organization which is supposed to defend their right to own rifles and shotguns."

I see this thing everywhere, all the time. It is completely and utterly false; but usually it is motivated not by bigotry, but by ignorance; as most people are informed only by those hostile to gun rights, and their accomplices, the media.

As gun owners, as gun lovers, as gun rights activists, and as those who support human freedom; we MUST correct such perceptions wherever they arise.

We must do so politely, and in an informed manner; and we must engage anyone who is willing to listen; rather than simply shouting "what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand" and "from my cold dead hands" over and over again.

I left this rather long comment; which I hope they choose to publish (update: they did publish it) but even if they don't perhaps at least one or two people will be more informed, and will not take the medias pronouncements to heart so uncritically:

I realize you mean well here, and you make your comments out of ignorance; but as you are angered by people speaking about teachers unions without direct knowledge or understanding; you should recognize that your statements on guns and gun rights are similarly ill informed.

From what you have said, and how you have said it, I'll wager your information and perceptions of the NRA, gun rights, gun owners and shooters are primarily created and informed by media and lobbying groups hostile to guns and gun rights.

Oh and by the way, there is no functional difference whatsoever between a hunting shotgun or many hunting rifles, and the so called "assault weapons" banned under various state laws (and federally from 1994-2004); excepting that the banned weapons are in fact LESS powerful than weapons typically used for hunting.

The common perception, falsely created by anti-gun lobbying organizations, and reinforced at every opportunity by an uncritical and largely anti-gun media; is that such laws keep machine guns out of the hands of criminals. This is completely and utterly false.

Machine guns are legal in the United States (in about 40 out of 50 states)for civilians to own by the way; and always have been. Since 1934, they have been subject to strict federal regulation and background checks; and they cost enormous sums of money (the cheapest are around $5000 and they can easily exceed $100,000).

Since machine guns were specially regulated in 1934, only two crimes have ever been committed using lawfully owned machine guns; and both were by police officers (both were instances of domestic violence).

These "assault weapon" bans;and there is sure to be another proposed shortly now that Obama has been inaugurated; do nothing more than restrict lawful access to law abiding citizens, weapons that LOOK LIKE machine guns.

There are constant calls for "reasonable gun control" when in fact we already have a HUGE amount of gun control in this country.

Most people hear this repeated propaganda about "easy access to guns" etc... and simply assume that it's a wide open field for everyone to buy guns willynilly out there with no control. This is also utterly false.

It is illegal for a felon, the mentally ill, the legally incompetent, substance abusers, and anyone who has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, or has a domestic violence restraining order against them; to own, purchase, or possess any firearm. It is also illegal to sell, give, or loan a firearm to those people.

Firearms can only be sold across state lines by federally licensed dealers. Firearms cannot be sold mail order. Firearms cannot be purchased over the internet without first being shipped to a federally licensed dealer (unless both the buyer and seller are in the same states, and that state allows private sales without a dealer).

All firearms purchases from federally licensed dealers must be approved through the national instant background check system; which verifies that the person the gun being sold to is not prohibited from owning or possessing firearms under the law.

And that's just federal. There are 28,000 federal, state, and local gun control laws in this country.

And not one of them has any impact at all on criminals. Criminals don't buy guns from federally licensed dealers. They don't buy guns from law abiding citizens. They buy guns from other criminals. The law doesn't do a thing to stop them, BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

I could go on like this for hours, but I hope I have illustrated my point. If you want to make such a comparison, please educate yourself first; and don't count the media or those who oppose that which you'd like to talk about as valid sourcees. You wouldn't treat any academic subject in such a manner, you shouldnt treat this subject as such.

If we don't do this, we lose. It's that simple.

National Parks Carry

Just recieved from the NRA:

National Parks to Allow Right-to-Carry

Fairfax, Va. - The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), through the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has announced the final amended version of its changes to rules on carrying of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.

DOI’s move will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes on most DOI lands, and will make federal law consistent with the state law in which these public lands are located. The National Rifle Association (NRA) led the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms on these federal lands.

“Today’s announcement by the U.S. Department of the Interior brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's National Parks and wildlife refuges.”

DOI announced the rule change today and will publish the new regulations in the Federal Register. The new regulations allow right-to-carry permit holders to exercise their Second Amendment rights on national park and wildlife refuges in those states that recognize such permits. The move will provide consistency across our nation’s federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while lands managed by DOI did not.

The NRA has long held that amendments to those regulations were needed to reflect the changed legal situations with respect to state laws on carrying firearms. Earlier this year, fifty-one U.S. Senators sent a strong bipartisan letter to the DOI supporting the move to make state firearms laws applicable to national park lands and refuges.

“These changes respect the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens as they enjoy our public lands,” concluded Cox. “We applaud the Interior Department’s efforts to amend these out of date regulations".

I live in Arizona, and am surrounded by Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado. Do you know how many national parks there are, and how much land that was excluded from right to carry in those states (I'm just going to ignore California here)?

This is spectacular news.

Now let's see Obama try to ban it by executive order so we can take THOSE toxic pieces of pseudo legislation to the Supreme Court.

Gunblogger conference call with Missouri Governor Matt Blunt

Earlier today, I participated in a conference call with Missouri governor Matt Blunt, on the subject of gun rights, John McCain, and Barack Obama.

You may recall that recently, the Obama campaign worked directly with democratic party elected officials in the state of Missouri; engaging prosecutors and county sheriffs, to intimidate local media outlets, and prevent them from taking advertising criticizing Barack Obama.

Governor Blunt delivered a scathing rebuke of this blatant ethical misconduct (and violation of at least federal election regulations, if not federal law):

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s
Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

Governor Blunt, who has decided not to seek re-election; has been campaigning in Missouri, and across the country, for gun rights, and for John McCain.

On the call with me were the organizers, Bryan Pick and John Henke from QandO.net, Jonathan Blank of the Cato Institute, Nicky Fellenzer from The Liberty Zone, Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute and DaveKopel.com, David Codrea of The War On Guns, JR of A Keyboard and a .45, Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell, Cam Edwards of NRA News and the Cam and Company radio show, Bitter of The Bitchgirls, Dustin of Dustins Gun Blog, John Donovan of The Donovan, and Caleb of Call me Ahab.

It has been agreed that we can release the full audio of our conference call with the governor. I've put it up here:

Sorry, I cant get the embeddable streaming widget to work. Here's a link to the full file, and an embedded player that works, at archive.org.

Gunblogger conference call with Missouri Governor Matt Blunt

I have edited nothing from Governor Blunts comments; only the introductions and some chat between my fellow bloggers at the beginning and end of the call.

If time permits, I will post a transcript later.

I Have A Dream

40 years ago today, James Earl Ray murdered Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Ray died in prison, 10 years ago (almost to the day); still insisting that his brother Johnny "assassinated" King on the orders of a man named "Raoul", who was working for the CIA.

Ray is nearly forgotten, but King is not; and his words will live on forever.

Sadly, most people have never read them, or heard them in their entirety. "I have a dream" makes a great 2 second sound sample to play in commercials and history montages; but it's meaningless without context.

Some are critical of King (myself included) for his willingness to accommodate the leftists and anti-Americans that flocked around his movement. Some criticize him as a hypocrite, preaching one morality in public, practicing another in private. Certainly, he has been elevated to a position in many peoples minds far above that of a mere mortal man; to a degree I suspect King himself would find distasteful, and perhaps even idolatrous.

But...

His words, and his impact, do live on. They are his immortality.

It's just a pity that so called "black leaders" have followed the worst examples of his time, and become little more than race baiters and poverty pimps.

I think their dream is a bit different from Dr. Kings. I don't think the content of a mans character matters much to them.

ABOVE: Martin Luther King, Jr., delivering his 'I Have a Dream' speech from the steps of Lincoln Memorial. (photo: National Park Service)

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

What would YOU do?

As he is wont to do, Joe Huffman asks an important question or two:

At the end of the day (figuratively speaking, literally it will be next spring), the question is what will people do if we are ruled against. Uncle says, "Then, giddy up." Armed Canadian says he would expect the NRA to engage in its biggest fund raising drive in history. Sebastian says it will motivate people in the short term and then the RKBA will gently fade away.

One alternative is a constitution convention as discussed in the comments to Kevin's post. Yeah, right. Our country completely and totally abandoned the enumerated powers model of the constitution during the Roosevelt administration. There wasn't enough outrage then to do a constitutional convention and the loss of just one amendment that is only exercised by something like 40% of the population won't meet the bar.

Going back to the revolutionary war we find that only about one third of the population were in favor of revolt against the tyrant King George. Another one third was opposed and one third were uncommitted. So, based on that model a case could be made that enough outraged gun owners might be able to pull off an illegal action of some sort.

I'd like to imagine there would be some sort Unintended Consequences revolt to the decision but from talking to many gun owners I know that won't happen. I know of three different FFL holders that were outspoken defenders of the RKBA and told of how if they ever gave up their FFL they would have a "mysterious fire" and all the 4473s would be tragically lost. When it came down to it, all of them turned them over to the ATF with only a mild whimper. Another person was exceedingly outspoken about how strongly they believed in their right to free speech and the RKBA. It wasn't even government action, merely pressure from potential investors and employers that convinced them to take their blog offline.

Several years ago one IPSC shooter I know was complaining about the stupid gun laws and how wrong they were. I asked, "So what will you do when your guns are declared illegal and you are told to turn them in? What will you do?" He gave me a confused look and said in a tone that indicated that he thought I was insane to even ask such a stupid question, "I'll turn them over. I'll complain, but I'll turn them over."

Who do you know that has actually followed through on some illegal activity in pursuit of securing liberty for future generations? Okay, if they are smart they won't tell anyone they broke law. So lets reword that a little bit; Who do you suspect may have broken the law in pursuit of securing liberty for future generations? I'll bet you can count them all on the fingers of one hand with several fingers left over.

Well, let's just say this, as to the first question "what will you do":

I will die before I will give up my guns; and I don't plan on dyin'

I figure, maybe 5% of gun owners HONESTLY feel the same way; and of those, maybe 5% will actually do something about it.

...250,000 is more than enough...

Even if I'm wrong by a factor of 10, 25,000 is more than enough.

Now, as to the second question, "how many people do you know or suspect have broken the law in pursuit of securing liberty":

Well Joe, it aint one hand, or two... let's just say that.

Perhaps this is a radical proposition...

I was reading Michael Bane today, and he noted something that Sandy Froman (outgoing NRA president) wrote:

More Thoughts on the Supremes I'm not the only one who's feeling a bit queasy as Parker makes it was to the Supreme Court. This from my friend and former NRA President Sandy Froman, writing in World Net Daily: If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court finds that the Second Amendment only grants states a collective right to arm National Guard units, then the consequences for the gun-rights movement could be disastrous. From that moment forward, Second Amendment rights for private citizens would be in serious jeopardy. Gun ownership could become a privilege, not a right (unless you live in a state where the state constitution contains a right to bear arms provision.) Many millions of Americans, especially those in the middle of the political spectrum, tend to defer to the Supreme Court on constitutional questions. When the Supreme Court speaks on a matter, they tend to trust in its judgment and authority. Right now, over 70 percent of Americans accept that the Second Amendment gives individual citizens the right to own private firearms. But if the Supreme Court were to say otherwise, you could expect that number to plummet. The next generation of lawyers, scholars, academics and even judges would all be taught as they were growing up that there is no constitutional right to own a gun. These people would shape public opinion and educate those coming after them, until eventually the percentage of Americans believing in the individual rights view might only be 20-30 percent of the population. Frankly, I think I would rather see Congress strike down the D.C. law, which would automatically negate Parker...either that or have one more card-carrying conservative Justice on the high court. Maybe I'm worrying needlessly about teh Court, probably the consequences of living with a lawyer for a long time.

It is important to note, the constitution does not GRANT us the right to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves, any more than it GRANTS us the right to practice our religion.

We have these rights inherently, as free men.

No law, or court ruling, or amendment can take away my right to defend myself, by force of arms if necessary; and I will actively resist the enforcement of such a law against me, with violence if necessary.

I am no second amendment absolutist. I recognize that violent felons, through their actions, have lost their right to bear arms. I recognize that people who are intoxicated or insane should not have access to arms. I believe that there should be limitations on the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction; and there should be storage and safety requirements for high explosives and poisons.

What I will not allow, ever, under any circumstances; is the government to disarm me without just cause; and no law arbitrarily disarming the populace could ever be just, under any circumstances.

There are 70-80 million gun owning household in this country; perhaps as many as 200 million people with guns in their homes. If only 1% of gun owners feel as I do thats at least 700,000 active resisters, perhaps as many as 2 million... and somehow I think it's more than 1%.

The entire United States armed forces, and every cop in America couldn't do it.

I'm no conspiracy nut, or separatist, or exilist or milita crazy etc... I'm a veteran, a husband, a father, a churchgoer and an upstanding member of my community.

I took an oath to defend my country, and my constitution, against all enemies foreign and domestic, and I intend to do so. Anyone who would pass or enforce such a law has become a domestic enemy of my country, and my constitution.

I WILL kill to defend my rights; and your rights; and everyone else's rights. I will kill cops, I will kill soldiers, I will kill politicians; I will kill anyone who attempts to abrogate our fundamental rights in such a way; and I have no reservations about dying in the process.

Some things are worth dying for.

I am no radical; I simply recognize that the first step to mass extermination is disarmament; it has been in all cases in recorded history, and will continue to be so. History did not magically disappear, and change human nature with it, when world war two ended. The only proof against mass slaughter, genocide, and democide is an armed and educated populace. It always has been, and always will be.

I am not advocating the violent overthrow of the united states or it's government; but I tell you right now, if the supreme court decides that we don't have the right to bear arms in our own defense, against any who threaten us; then the second American revolution will be a heartbeat away.

Now, what I don't understand, is why this is thought of as a radical proposition. To my mind, we should all feel this way.

"There Oughta Be A Law": A conversation with someone who just doesn't get it

A few months ago, Arizona passed a statewide comprehensive smoking ban in all work places and public gathering spaces, excepting private clubs, or those that earn 51% or more of their revenue from tobacco.

Essentially, as of May first, it will be illegal to smoke in public in Arizona; except on the sidewalk (away from bus stops), in your own car, in a private club, or at a smoke shop.

Mel and I went to a casual Mexican restaurant in Scottsdale for lunch today, and when we asked to be seated they asked us the normal question, "Smoking or Non-Smoking". A bystander said "Ahh no more smoking as of May first thank god".

I answered "Non-Smoking", and then I turned to the gentleman who had spoken and said "Well sir, I don't smoke, and I would prefer to not have people smoke around me, but this law is a bad thing".

The gentleman responded "Why's that?"

"Well sir" I replied "It's a violation of property rights".

"Property rights? How can it be a violation of property rights. I just don't want people smoking around me when I eat".

"Sir, It's a question of self determination. A private property owner should be able to determine on his own, whether people can smoke on his property or not. If the government can tell you that people can't smoke on your property, they can tell you anything"

"Ok" he replied "I understand what you're saying and I agree with it as far as it goes; but I don't want people smoking around me".

"Well sir, then you should choose non-smoking sections" I countered.

"I do; but why should I have to put up with other people smoking around me at all?" he asked; seeming genuinely puzzled how I (as a non-smoker) could disagree with him.

"Sir" I politely and patiently explained "It's not your property, it's not your decision; or the governments for that matter. If you don't want people smoking around you, you can always go to restaurants that don't allow smoking. If it is profitable for restaurants to make such restrictions, then they will do so".

"Some of them already do, and I don't see why they all shouldn't".

At this point I'd given up on the idea that the person could see the problem with what he was saying, but I gave it one more effort responding with "Why should the government, or you for that matter sir, decide what a private property owner can do with his property?"

"But smoking is bad. I just don't like it. I don't want people smoking near me"; was his final argument (actually his first, final, and only argument).

He just didn't get it. He didn't understand why the government shouldn't step in and force a private property owner to do whatever HE personally wanted them to do. He thought it was entirely reasonable that his preferences should be made into law, and should infringe on the rights of the property owner. As far as he was concerned, because he didn't want people smoking around him while he ate, then no-one should ever be allowed to smoke in a restaurant.

As we were about to be seated I turned and made one final statement: "Sir, d'you know what the most dangerous words in the English language are? 'There oughta be a law'"

Nothing More, Nothing Less

In a comment on another blog, someone said "I don't see why people need submachine guns" and "I don't see why anyone needs an arsenal"...

Heres the thing; you don't need to see why someone could have "an arsenal" or a sub-machine gun, because limitations on rights aren't about justifying why I should be able to do something, they are about you justifying why I shouldnt.

Oh and what exactly is "an arsenal" (no I dont want to get into the legal definition, I know it already, I'm talking about what the anti-gunners think an arsenal is)? One man can only shoot one gun at a time, how is it more dangerous that they have several? How is it more dangerous that someone has a lot of ammunition?

Disregarding that as the irrelevancy it is, why should a law abiding individual be treated like a criminal because his possesions could be used in an unlawful way?

The last time an automatic weapon (which is what a Sub-machine gun is) was generally avialable to the civilians outside of law enforcement was 1934. Since the passage of the National Firearms act of 1934 there have been extremely strict restrrictions as to who can buy or own an automatic weapon of any kind. ALL Firearms, from single shot to fully automatic, were restricted even further with the gun Control Act of 1968 (conventionally known as NFA and GCA'68 respectively).

Most new machine guns of any kind were banned in 1986, and the rest were banned by 1994 (actually back-banning items that were already here before '86, but somehow missed being banned before), except for the most strictly limited purposes... or of course for the military and law enforcement.

You can still own the machine guns made before '86, but you have to go throuh a 1 year FBI investigation and background check as well as a background check and approval from your local senior law enforcement official (police chief or sherrif generally).

Again, this is true unless you are in law enforcement. Ironically, since 1934 there has only been one murder commited with a legally owned machine gun, and it was a police officer who used a department owned weapon to kill his wife.

Stepping away from automatic weapons, the department of Justice estimates that approximately 70 million people legally own firearms in this country, out of a population of 295 million. Of those, one in 140,000 will commit a crime with that legally owned firearm.

1 in 140,000.

Almost all crimes commited with firearms are commited by prior felons who have been banned from owning firearms since 1968 federally, and in most states long before that.

Of all fatal shootings, at least 25%, and some estimate as much as 40% are one criminal killing another. Another notable statistic, 50% of all deaths from gunshot wounds are suicides (or more, considering some are reported as accidental). Further restriction of guns isn't going to change the number of deaths here, it will jsut change the means; actually it probably wont even do that, because in many states it is FAR easier to purchase a gun illegally than legally. I can go jsut about anywhere in this country and get a gun for $100 in an hour.

Restricing legal gun ownership wont in any way change these problems; putting people who commit crimes with guns in jail will.

Justifying gun restrictions "for the greater good" is nothing but illogical rhetoric.

Thats just like saying that because 44.5% of all prisoners are black, and 28.5% of all black men in America will spend some time in prison, that black men are a menace and should be locked up.

Sure, not all black men are criminals, but given the percentage, isn't it worth doing, for the greater good of society?

(statistics from human rights watch)

Please note again, the percentage of law abiding gun owners who commit crimes with those legally owned guns is ridiculously small. 1 in 140,000 is .0007%, and amounts to about 500 actual criminal acts performed per year with legally owned guns out of the 70 million owners of 200 million or so legally owned guns in this country.

Guns don't make people into criminals, nor do they make them more likely to be criminals. A gun is a tool, a piece of metal, an inanimate object. Guns have no inherent danger; the danger is in the intent (or negligence) of the user.

Those who would restrict, or ban guns are simply saying that no-one but the state is responsible enough, or adult enough to own a gun. They are convinced that guns are the cause of crime, and that they must be controlled by the government. This is risible on it's face. If you subscribe to this logic, let me point you to this:

Sensible Penis Control

What guns ARE to those who would misuse them, or who would ban them, is a symbol. To the immature and criminal, they are a symbol of power. To hoplophobes (people who are afraid of weapons), they are a symbol of hate, and fear, and evil.

But neither of these is a rational evaluation. Symbology is not reality.

Guns are tools which allow you to extend your reach and power. They allow the weak to defend themselves against the strong. They are a fine mechanical instrument, and skill in them is personally gratifying.

Used rationally, and responsibly, a gun is far less dangerous than common houshold chemicals, or your car (both of which kill far more people every year than guns do, especially if you factor out suicides, who will find a way to die whether they have a gun or not, and even more so criminals killing criminals).

People who want to ban, or restrict gun ownership are actually saying they dont believe that people are capable of being rational and responsible.

Of course they dont see it that way, they see themselves as "helping to reduce the danger", but this is completely facetious. The danger exists in mens hearts, and minds, not in a piece of steel.

All they are doing is assuaging their emotions; fear, doubt, and irresponsibility.

Nothing more, nothing less.

A Citizen or a Subject

What is the difference between a citizen, and a subject?

Very simple. A citizen has rights, a subject has privileges.

Some believe that one can be free in a monarchy, if the laws are structured properly. That in fact, their societies can be more free than more democratic ones, because the head of state can overrule any law that would violate the freedoms of the people.

Others believe that since no government, no matter how it is structured, can be depended upon to not vote itself more power, more money, and more control; that anarchy is the solution, and in fact only under anarchy can people be free.

I have to make it clear, both of these thoughts are entirely mistaken.

It is as sovereign individuals, participating in a free state, where we are subject to none but ourselves, but where we are citizens bound by justifiable laws, that we are most free as a people.

There is no way that anarchy can persist over time, without the weak becoming subject to the strong.

As individuals we may be more free under anarchy for a time, but as a people, the strong will dominate the weak, and our society as a whole will suffer for it, as will each individual member within it eventually. That's a second order effect that anarchists don't tend to see. They don't follow their argument to its eventual end.

There is no monarchy, even a constitutional monarchy, where the people are truly free, because they are subjects not citizens.

It all comes down to the difference between a citizen, and a subject.

Even though in the United States our government has overreached greatly, and grown into the monster it is today, we are still at core free men, different from almost all others in this world.

Taking as an example Britain; as a subject of the queen, technically speaking you don't have any rights, you have whatever privileges the queen allows you.

Though the royals haven't ruled that way since the early 19th century, and their absolute control was curtailed by the magna carta, and again after the failed republic (and the somewhat disastrous but thankfully short Stewart restoration) the freedoms of the British peoples are entirely a matter of tradition, not of law.

Britain is often referred to as a constitutional monarchy, but this isn't actually true. There is no written guarantee of either the limitation or structure of government, nor of the rights of the people.

Britain is governed according to the principle of common law, where tradition and precedent are the primary means of enforcing structure and shaping legislation; but that's all there is. The only real limitations as to what parliament can or cannot do are tradition, prior acts of parliament (which can always be changed or repealed), or the will of the crown.

Unfortunately, British subjects have had this proven over and over again in the past decade, as their traditional rights, privileges, and immunities... their basic freedoms and liberties... have been ever more curtailed in the name of the security state, the nanny state, and "crime prevention".

The British subject is under perpetual surveillance, and legally disallowed from defending or protecting themselves to the point that they are no longer speaking of gun control, but KNIFE control.

Americas governmental structure is radically different. In America we have a constitution which defines the form and structure of our government, and (at least in theory) very strictly limits how that government can restrict our liberty as free men. The constitution itself makes explicitly clear that the governments powers are limited, and that power rests in the people.

We are not subject to anything, or anyone but ourselves, as free sovereign men.

As free men, we have no obligation to comply with laws, or regulations that are unconstitutional.

Sure, there are situations where folks disagree (or pretend to disagree) about what the constitution says, or how it says it, or what it means.

Here's the thing: Nuance and subtlety are not in the language of the constitution.

Let me say this again, there is no nuance in the language of constitution. If you think there is, read the federalist papers for reinforcement. The constitution was written quite plainly.

There is without a doubt both subtle and profound genius in the concepts of the constitution, but it's only because it is written in 18th century high cant that anyone can legitimately see any ambiguity.

Again read up, you'll figure it out.

Of course lots of folks pretend, or convince themselves there's real ambiguity, but they are either mistaken or they are lying.

Oh and the spot in the constitution that says we shouldn't follow any laws that are not explicitly authorized by the constitution?

Well you can't get more explicit than the 10th amendment:

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.

Not surprisingly, that ones not too popular among legislators, liberals, or far right conservatives, because it very clearly states they aren't allowed to make any law they want to.

The government cannot under any circumstances make law that is unconstitutional. If they do so, that law is not legal, valid, or binding.

In most countries, you are only allowed to do what the government lets you. Almost all countries in the world other than the U.S. are like this (even Australia, the second freest country in the world).

In America we can do anything we like, so long as it is not specifically limited by the government, and the government can only restrict us in ways that are in the constitution.

That's a pretty radical concept. When it was first instituted, it had never actually been tried before. In fact everyone predicted it would fail quite spectacularly.

Instead, some 240 years later (I'm from Boston, we remember the revolution started on April 19th 1775, not July 4th 1776), we have the most stable and long lasting government since the roman empire.

Of course the government has taken upon itself to intrude, and to regulate, far more than the constitution explicitly allows, both for good and for ill.

The vast majority of federal law and regulations flow from a few basic statements in the constitution, which I'll paraphrase here: The federal government has the authority to promote the general welfare, secure the peace, negotiate with foreign powers, make war, ensure the full faith and credit of articles (licenses, marriages etc...) between the states, to resolve disputes between the states, and to promote and regulate interstate commerce.

The problem mainly lies with that last one, promoting and regulating interstate commerce. It's a pretty vague clause, and it can (and has) be stretched to encompass almost anything. This isn't really in the constitution as such, but if a judge allows it...

As our government was conceived, the states were, for most purposes, their own independent entities. The states had all the power to tax, and control of all laws and jurisdictions within their states, except in matters that would conflict with other states, or with the constitution. The federal government had EXTREMELY limited power and authority.

Even up until the early 20th century, the average citizen in America would have no contact or interaction with the federal government in any way, for their entire lives, except perhaps through the military, or during wartime.

Unfortunately, as a result of the growing tensions between the states, and several wars, there were a series of rulings by the supreme court in the 19th and through the early 20th centuries, which were very questionable as to their constitutionality, but very clear in their intent to grant the federal government ever increasing authority and control.

During and just after the civil war the president, and the out of control congress, did many things that were blatantly unconstitutional. They also packed the supreme court with justices that would allow them to do so. Or the simply ignored, or didn't allow to go to court, issues they didn't like. After restoration things calmed down significantly (though not back to where they were before).

It wasn't until World War 1 that the federal government laid any sort of regular permanent direct tax on citizens. In fact their authority to lay this tax was successfully challenged (several times), and they had to pass a constitutional amendment to get the right to re-institute it.

The last straw for our original intended system of federal government was Franklin Roosevelt, who used the circumstances of the great depression to multiply the size, and power, of the government by quite literally a factor of 10. Before 1934 most people never heard or saw the feds in their entire lives, afterwards, the feds became the dominant force of government, eventually relegating the states to near irrelevance.

This continued apace through the second world war, then Korea, and into the 60's; until by the time Lyndon Johnson was done, the federal government was over 20 times the size it had been before 1934, for a less than doubled population. In this same time frame, the number of federal laws and regulations expanded to over 1000 times what they had been before 1934.

Almost all of these things were in fact unconstitutional, but they were done while the country was reeling through 40 years of continuous crises; from the great depression through the cold war.

Anyone who challenged the government during this time was totally marginalized as a kook, or their point was acknowledged and ignored because "these things have to be done for <-- data-blogger-escaped---="--" data-blogger-escaped-crisis="crisis" data-blogger-escaped-day="day" data-blogger-escaped-here="here" data-blogger-escaped-insert="insert" data-blogger-escaped-of="of" data-blogger-escaped-the="the">".

By the time anyone thought to mount serious challenges, there was a huge bulwark of time and precedent surrounding the changes, and we've been trying to chip it down ever since. 

Anyone who has protested too vigorously has been declared crazy, made into a criminal, been harassed, or even been killed (Randy Weaver was a racist ass, but he was deliberately targeted for being anti-government, and what they did to his family is wrong in every way).

Meanwhile the sheep continue to munch away... but even with all this intrusion, we are still free men, subject to none but ourselves.

A very graphic, and simple illustration of the structural differences between America and Great Britain, and what it means, to be free, and not be a subject:

In America all elected officials, and all military officers and enlisted men swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. They do not swear to the president, or even to the constitution. They swear, to THEMSELVES, and to their fellow men, that they will uphold the constitution.

In Great Britain elected officials and military officers serve at the pleasure of her majesty, and officers commissions are granted by her majesty. Each man swears his oath to the sovereign, who he is subject to. He is not a free man, but a subject.

All prison sentences and court decisions are at her majesties pleasure as well. The final recourse of justice is in all cases a petition of right, which supersedes all courts, where one directly appeals to her majesty for a decision, and that decision has the force of law.

So here's where we stand. The British, most liberals, anarchists, and some conservatives seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding, and make some improper assumptions about American government.

The British are subjects. They have been raised as subjects, and do not perceive how any government can be any other way. They are bewildered by our talk of unconstitutional law, and limitation of government, or of the thought of disobeying the law not being wrong, or not being a crime.

So are many liberals. They have the mentality of subjects.

Anarchists believe that one cannot have any government without being a subject.

We are not subjects, we are citizens. We do not have privileges granted us by the government, we have rights inherent to our nature as men.

A subject is required to obey all laws propagated by those he is subject to. A citizen is able, and perhaps morally required to disobey, and in fact to actively resist, all laws that infringe against his fundamental rights.

A subject is raised to believe that government is ultimately in power. A citizen knows that it is himself, and his fellow men, who are in power; he is answerable to none but his own soul.

Liberals want us all to be subjects. I wish to remain a citizen, and I will die before I am made a subject.

From the declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
...
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.