The Wandering Minstrel

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,

After Lt. Gen Cone’s lame declaration that Ft. Hood soldiers don’t carry guns because “this is our home,” it made me wonder why the most well-schooled-in-firearms people in the world should be excluded from self-defense. Michael Ledeen, who blogs at The Corner, wonders the same thing, and notes how the USMC gets it right, at least in the case below.

Gun Control on Military Bases [Michael Ledeen]

Lots of folks have wondered why there weren’t more soldiers with guns at Ft. Hood, and I’m one of them. Our younger Marine is home for the weekend from The Basic School at Quantico, and Barbara and I asked him if there were Marines with guns on the base. There are. Lots of them. And they move around all the time, checking places where Marines congregate, from classrooms to outdoor obstacle courses and parade fields and barracks. Apparently it occurred to the base commander some time ago that it was a bad idea to leave his men and women unprotected.

Amen.

While still employed in the aerospace mill, I would often get questions about my reasons for owning guns and shooting them regularly. I usually would respond with a rote quote of the words in the second amendment (not a bad place to start) and then some statistics about violent crime in Southern California and more statistics about slow police response times to 911 calls. I would usually wind up with a missive about how I should be able to protect myself outside of my own home with a firearm. After all, there are more criminals at large where I’m not ‘permitted’ to carry, thanks to the hoplophobic idiots in power.

John Longenecker makes many good points with his article today in the L. A. Gun Rights Examiner column: Gun control, campus violence prevention, and disappearances. I was particularly impressed by this elegant description of one meaning of owning a gun:

Gun ownership and the idea of lethal force is not a matter of owning a gun, it is a spirit of Independence and preferring to live with that over an exclusive reliance on others. Gun ownership is the knowledge that no one can take your place in your own safety, and acceptance of the fact that it is not anyone else’s job, including police. It is the understanding and acceptance that lethal force may be necessary.

Amen.

I will make a point in future discussions about gun ownership, to stress the importance of independence and self-reliance. These have always been two important traits with which I credit myself, but seldom invoke in firearms discussions.

L. A. Gun Rights Examiner is one of the several Examiners I visit frequently on the web. I also visit the National Gun Rights Examiner, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner and always the Columbia Conservative Examiner. You should visit them too.

“I took the classes - I have a concealed weapons permit.”

It’s all about attitude. Check out Rachael’s Chariot.

Hat tip - David Codrea.

A tip from Linoge in a comment to our previous article about a knife we added to the collection, caused us to consider adding the SOG Trident TF1 folding knife to our collection. The knives we ordered showed up today - one for me and one for the Better Half.

I shot this pantomime video today, showing off the knife. Integral to the knife is the slotted handle that allows cutting cords or seat belts with out opening the knife. To prevent accidental deployment of the blade, a safety in the handle locks the blade in the folded position. To open the blade, you must disable the safety, move the arc actuator lever toward the front of the knife and push the blade open with your thumb behind the thumb post on the blade. - Voila - it’s open!

Folding the blade back into the handle can be a one-handed operation, but takes some practice - hopefully, digital amputation can be avoided.

Here’s the information about this excellent folding knife:

The SOG Trident uses our well-proven means of delivering a knife blade to the open position with S.A.T. (SOG Assisted Technology™) Now using our patent pending Arc-Actuator™, the Trident locks stronger and releases easier. There is also a built-in safety to lock the blade closed. When it shows red, you are ready to go.

What also makes the Trident so unique is the patent pending Groove™ in the handle, which allows the operator to cut paracord, fishing line, etc. without having to open the blade. The handle also includes a Digi-Grip™ variable pattern for coarser grip in areas that require it. Our bayonet style clip is easily switched for right/left hand carry or removed for pouch storage.

• Blade Length — 3.75″
• Overall Length — 8.5″
• Weight — 3.6 oz.
• Edge — Partially Serrated
• Steel — AUS 8
• Handle — Zytel w/Groove
• Finish — Hardcased Black TiNi

Columbia Conservative Examiner suggests that the Obamination should start ‘bulldozing America’ right there in the festering open-sore inner city of Washington D.C. I can remember visiting there and getting a little lost and driving through some creepy, downright scary neighborhoods. That was 20 years ago, and it’s gotten worse since. Company policy where I work states that employees visiting D.C. ’should not stay in a hotel in the District or go there after dark.’

National Gun Rights Examiner has a story about a creepy media moron that wants to round up all of us whacko right-winger hate speech promoters.

In a comment to the post yesterday about getting a new knife, Linoge from Walls of the City suggested he might like to get a SOG Trident TF-1 knife. Damn if that ain’t a good looking piece of hardware. Only trouble for us in the ‘Golden State of outlawing everything good,’ this ‘assisted opening’ knife is probably illegal to possess.

Update: Speaking of Taxifornia, Ride Fast has a few on-target thoughts.