The Wandering Minstrel

Mark Alexander, who writes for the Patriot Post, wrote an exceptional essay today on the right to keep and bear arms. The article is entitled Second Amendment — Still ‘The Palladium of Liberties’.

The article begins with this insightful quote from Founder James Madison:

“The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”
— James Madison

Toward the end of the article, the topic of how gun rights reduce the violent crime rate leads the author to this interesting conclusion about violence:

After all, violence is a cultural problem, not a gun problem, and certainly not a Second Amendment problem.

The article is certainly worth taking the few moments to read it.

Two headlines today have bolstered our confidence in the decision to relocate from Kalifornistan to the Arizona Republic:

California: Ventura County Assemblyman proposes ban on lead shot

Ventura County Assemblyman Pedro Nava, who three years ago authored a landmark law that barred the use of lead bullets by those hunting deer in areas where condors are known to forage, introduced new legislation Wednesday that would ban the use of lead shot by those hunting pheasant, quail, doves and other birds in California wildlife areas.

Note that there is no scientific evidence that lead shot is bad for the health of anything in the wild other than the target.

Arizona’s Concealed Carry Reform Bill (HB2347) Moving Forward!

Last week we told you that State Representative Adam Driggs (R-11), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was refusing to release House Bill 2347.

After extensive conversations with Chairman Driggs, he has assured us that he was simply holding the bill in order to work with the bill’s sponsor to consider how amendments which were being drafted would affect Arizona’s law-abiding gun owners.

Chairman Driggs released the bill from his Committee on Monday, February 22 with his full support, so please contact your State Representatives and ask them to support HB2347. Contact information for your State Representatives can be found by clicking here.

We understand Chairman Driggs’ desire to know the final content of this bill before releasing it from his committee. Chairman Driggs has been a consistent champion for Second Amendment rights and a friend of the NRA.

I recently came into possession of this nice leather jacket courtesy of a deal from the National Rifle Association. This was one of the premiums they offered with an upgrade to life membership. I got it in a size large enough to be able to conceal Fat Man or Little Boy.

A couple of days ago, I posted about preparing for our next road trip by investigating the gun laws of states we might potentially visit. I was using data available at the NRA-ILA for reference. In a comment to that post, Linoge, of Walls of the City, recommended HandGunLaw.us as a very good alternate for state gun laws.

I spent about a half hour visiting the HandGunLaw site today - it looks like their site is up to date and offers a more concise presentation of state gun laws. The summaries I consulted before were somewhat difficult to use, requiring you find the data embedded in paragraphs that weren’t consistent from state to state.

HandGunLaw.us has been added to the sidebar links under “Interesting Stuff.” Thanks to Linoge for sharing the information.

One of these days, the Better Half and I plan to hit the road for a long vacation. We’re going to travel to “flyover country” and have a look around at some of the attractions and drink in the local history, scenery and Americana. Also, I have a personal goal to visit the last two states where I have yet to set foot. This trip will do it.

I figured that since we are going to be in places we’ve never visited, that a good itinerary will be needed. I usually do a plan and use it as a guide and not a strictly disciplined journey. The inset map is for discussion purposes at this point.

Since we’re going to be bringing some of our arsenal for personal protection and possible sport, I further concluded that looking into the local gun regulations for states we may visit would be essential. Using data from the NRA-ILA Gun Laws by State page, I constructed the table below. Since we both have our Utah CCW, I included a column to indicate reciprocity.

Examination of the data in the Transportation Issues column reveals a wide range of things that must be considered while en route and when camping or lodging. Bottom line: we will avoid camping in states with quirky laws and no reciprocity with our CCW.

Disclaimer: The information below the fold should not be used to determine current laws.
Continue Reading »

This is my letter to the Assembly Committee on Public Safety as they prepare to hear Assembly Bill 357, the Right to Carry bill.

Dear Assembly Member *******,

The purpose of this correspondence is to encourage you to support Assembly Bill AB 357 – Firearms: License to carry concealed firearm. As you may know, current state law (PC § 12050) requires a concealed carry applicant to satisfy four qualifications: Good Moral Character, Good Cause, Residence Verification and Firearms Safety Training.

The second item above, Good Cause, is interpreted by the Attorney General’s office, to mean that “a fear for one’s own safety” is not a good cause. This is a bad interpretation for many reasons, not the least of which is the high violent crime rate in California and the tendency of criminals to victimize those weaker than them. Coupling the crime rate to the dismal response times to 911 calls by law enforcement agencies, and you have a pretty reasonable “good cause” to arm yourself. But, the absolute best cause is the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

I think that the Founder’s original intentions in writing the Second Amendment to the Constitution are as valid today as they were in the time the Amendment was written. Many contemporary politicians do not understand the amendment, so I offer the following:

The Second Amendment text is 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.

That’s good - the Founders boiled it down to specific, unambiguous language. In it, there are five key nouns - ‘militia,’ ‘state,’ ‘right,’ ‘people‘ and ‘arms.’ There are two key verbs - ‘keep‘ and ‘bear.’ Keep these keywords in mind as you continue to read.

The phrase “the right of the people” also appears in the First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Fourth Amendment guarantees: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .”

Opponents of Second Amendment rights want you to think that this identical wording means something different in the First and Fourth Amendments. You can’t have it one way with freedom of dissent and freedom from search and seizure, and a completely different meaning when it comes to the ‘right of the people‘ to keep and bear arms.

The constitutional text distinguishes between “the people,” “the militia,” and the “States.” The Second Amendment refers to “a well regulated militia,” but the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed to “the people.”

That’s quite clear: militia does not equal people. The ability of the militia to provide security on behalf of the state depends on the right of the people to own and bear arms. The ability of individuals to provide for their own security, likewise, depends on this right.

The Second Amendment refers to the right to “keep” arms (such as at home) as well as to “bear” arms (meaning to carry them). Protected arms include commonly-kept firearms that one can keep and carry for lawful purposes, such as ordinary rifles, handguns, and shotguns, and not crew-served or heavy weapons.

Despite laws to the contrary, every law-abiding citizen who has reached majority should have the right to own and carry his/her gun at all times.

And now, the meaning of “state” . . .

The Amendment declares a well regulated militia to be necessary to the security of a “free state,” which means a free country, and is not restricted to a State government.

All fifty states in the Union are part of the Founders “free state.” Clearly, the State of California is a part of the Union.

Of course, the scope of the above argument is beyond the scope of AB357. All we, the people of California, ask, is that you change the key phrase “may issue” to “shall issue.”

Very Respectfully,

We posted this about a year ago when the Obamanation was telling us that “we have nothing to fear” from his incoming reign of socialism . . .

Nothing to Fear?

From the NRANews Channel

Nothing to Fear? - 17 Dec 2008 - Wayne LaPierre

Barack Obama says gun owners have “nothing to fear” from his incoming administration.

But instead of simply promising he won’t support new gun-control legislation, which would actually mean something, gun owners get empty statements of support for “common-sense gun safety laws.”

Is a 500 percent increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition a common-sense gun safety law? What about a ban on Right-to-Carry? A ban on the most popular sporting rifles in America? These are just some of the laws Barack Obama has supported in his short political career.

Millions of American gun owners disagree that these laws have anything to do with common sense, and that’s why they’re exercising their Second Amendment freedom now. They’re afraid they may not be able to do so as freely or fully in the future.

Given President-elect Obama’s rhetoric versus his record, gun owners have every reason to be concerned.

Nothing to fear? It’s worse than we ever imagined.

I’m sure there are many current events about firearms and the right to keep an bear arms being covered by our comrades in arms. I am struggling for a topic to post, so I thought I would re-post an article I wrote two years ago when the Obamas were saying things they think we want to hear just to get past the Democratic primaries . . .

Obamas Show ‘Concern’ for 9-1-1 Response Times . . .

. . . in Iowa, that is. This is just another case of gun-grabber Democrats telling a segment of voters what they want to hear:

Obama: My wife sees need for rural gun ownership “And by the way, Michelle, my wife, she was traveling up, I think, in eastern Iowa, she was driving through this nice, beautiful area, going through all this farmland and hills and rivers and she said ‘Boy, it’s really pretty up here,’ but she said, ‘But you know, I can see why if I was living out here, I’d want a gun. Because, you know, 911 is going to take some time before somebody responds. You know what I mean? You know, it’s like five miles between every house.’

“So the point is, though, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities because some unscrupulous gun dealer is, you know, letting somebody load up a van with a bunch of cheap handguns or sawed-off shotguns and dumping them and selling them for a profit in the streets.“

So let me get this straight . . .

Urban and suburban areas have congestion and limited law enforcement resources and lousy 9-1-1 response times - how can that be any more effective than the local county sheriff and his deputies having access to wide open country roads from widely deployed patrol sites? I’ll bet the sheriff and the boys win any 9-1-1 response time contests.

And then there is the serious “unscrupulous dun dealers” loading up vans with “cheap handguns and sawed-off shotguns” problem. Right. This problem is as common as when your Glock jams in target practice. Asshole doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.

Obamas are just as bad for our second-amendment rights as the Clintons. Maybe worse.