Players are prepared to resist violent criminal assaults but NFL management is sacrificing to idols of political correctness. When I reviewed much of the information about the NFL’s position on players exercising their Second Amendment right of self defense, I was reminded of the Deacons for the Defense. Most people do not realize that there was a branch of the Civil Rights movement that bore arms in order to resist the night riders that were prepared to kill civil rights workers. Not just the NFL management, but the Democratic Party has had a long history of racism that has been closely linked with the history of gun control.

“That Every Man be Armed” by Stephen P. Halbrook, deals with the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment and provides a startling account of the newly freed black Americans and how the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in order to stop Southern militiamen that were actively attempting to disarm blacks who tried to protect their homes and families from lynchings. Many of the blacks returned from fighting (on both sides of the Civil War- some for the North and some for the South). The homes of black Freedmen were searched by white night riders in order to discover weapons.

White men were the only citizens allowed to have firearms under the newly passed Jim Crow laws and failure to submit to the authorities’ unlawful searches and seizures often lead to lynchings in which innocent black men, women and children were literally skinned alive and mutilated.

When the Fourteenth Amendment was debated, the Southern Democrats indignantly denounced the language of the proposed Amendment, declaring that due process protection would include the right of Negroes to be armed the same as white citizens had the right to be armed pursuant to the U. S. Constitution. At that time, during the 1870s, the Northern advocates of civil rights for blacks (mostly Republicans) vehemently asserted that the Southerners were exactly right- due process for black citizens included the right to keep and bear arms just like it did for whites!

This legislative history should be discussed again when the Supreme Court hears DC v Heller. The Court will be dealing with the issue of whether the Second Amendment is an individual right. The Congressional debates leading up to ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment show that both sides acknowledged that the Second Amendment was an individual right that adhered to all citizens. Most Constitutional scholars, the U.S. Department of Justice and most state legislatures are recognizing the importance of armed citizen empowerment related to deployment of deadly force in personal protection and for protection of families and homes.

The City of Washington DC is administered under Congressional authority and therefore the issue of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states will be a very live issue. The Parker court stated very clearly that the Second Amendment does not restrict regulation of firearms by the states but how far can regulation go without constituting a de facto prohibition? That is the issue that the U.S. Supreme Court may soon decide in connection with the District of Columbia. It should be noted that the cities like Washington DC and Chicago that have great numbers of poor blacks are also the cities where gun control has the greatest stranglehold.

Many cities have virtually outlawed possession of pistols and other firearms; in Washington DC weapons have to be kept unloaded, disassembled and locked with a trigger lock. The City’s fiat thereby makes any such weapon effectively useless in a community that has one of the highest crime rates in the U.S. The law prohibits transporting a firearm in any location and the City’s attorneys apparently did not dispute the allegation that moving a firearm from one room to the other in your own home constitutes a crime under DC’s draconian regime.

New York City and Chicago area may be good places to look for a test of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. The author of “That Every Man Be Armed” provides a persuasive brief hammering home that the right to keep and bear arms may be one of the most fundamental protections- a Constitutional protection that is intrinsically rooted in a well ordered society. The ability to defend our lives, our families and, at certain times, our property goes to the very essence of what law is all about. Mr. Halbrook is a Constitutional lawyer and an able firearms advocate.

Halbrook has chapters discussing Constitutional theory as it has developed at various times in classical Greece and Rome, English common law, colonial America and up through fairly recent times. It is encouraging to see that many of the classical world’s philosophers and political theorists come down squarely in favor of the principle that free citizens bear arms. Not to keep and bear arms is historically an earmark of a slave in almost every Western society.

Armed citizens are the institution that the Founding Fathers proclaimed to be the most practical line of defense against foreign invaders and domestic tyrants.

I first heard about the Deacons for the Defense when Condoleza Rice was telling Larry King about her father, a theologian, who gathered with other churchmen in their homes armed with shotguns in order to resist the night riders in Montgomery, Alabama. She reasoned that, if there had been gun registration, Sheriff Bull Connors would have made sure to disarm the Deacons so that the Ku Klux Klan could do its evil work. By the way, Forest Whitaker starred in the movie.

Now the NFL has become like a new breed of plantation owner, attempting to intimidate the players from exercising their Constitutional right to defend themselves against violence.

Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor was murdered when he confronted armed intruders with a machete. His home was located in a gated community in Miami.

The intruder(s) shot him.

Would the outcome have been different if Taylor had a gun instead of a machete?

The NFL has attempted to discourage players from arming themselves. This is a public relations campaign and has very little to do with the safety of the players.

“The leagues would rather the players put themselves at risk than have the players protect themselves with guns.”

Paul Tagliabue instituted an official league gun policy back in 1994 that discourages possession of legal weapons in the players’ own homes! “Any weapon, particularly a firearm, is dangerous,” the policy states, “especially so when it is in a vehicle or within reach of children and others not properly trained in its use.”

Former Chicago Bears tackle Tank Johnson was banned from the league for part of a season after he got in trouble with Chicago law enforcers for possessing a firearm illegally in his home. “It is not enough to simply avoid being found guilty of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a high standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, (and) promotes the values upon which the league is based….”

NBA Commissioner David Stern stated, “It’s a pretty, I think, widely accepted statistic that if you carry a gun, your chances of being shot by one increase dramatically. We think this is an alarming subject. Although you’ll read players saying how they feel safer with guns, in fact those guns actually make them less safe. . . .”

Washington, D.C., home to Sean Taylor’s Redskins, is currently facing a legal challenge to its virtual ban on handguns. For decades the city has had one of the toughest gun-control policies in the country. It has also consistently had one of the highest murder rates. According to Chris Sprow,the editor-in-chief of Chicago Sports Weekly:

Pro athletes are targets. They are young, wealthy, famous, and many opt not to abandon the communities where they grew up. They face a different threat and a different reality than halls traversed by the likes of Stern and Goodell. Last summer in Chicago, two high-profile NBA players were robbed at gunpoint in their own homes. Antoine Walker was confronted in his garage, bound with duct tape, and robbed of thousands of dollars in cash and jewelry, as well as his Mercedes. This was in his multi-million dollar Gold Coast home, located in a wealthy, downtown Chicago neighborhood. Weeks later, Eddy Curry was robbed in similar manner at his palatial estate in Burr Ridge, a suburb outside the city.

Police later determined both players had been targetted because of their status as professional athletes. Locally, the Chicago Bulls were forced to issue a statement, warning their own players to take new measures to insure their own security.

Why do the players need to be warned to prepare for violent attacks?

“Professional athletes, most of us came from the streets. We feel like we know the streets and can pretty much protect ourselves. But now we’re in a position where we’re being targeted, and the stakes are just too high.”

Atlanta forward Shelden Williams was recently carjacked at gunpoint.

Is it wise to put the safety of players at risk just to enhance the NFL image?

Since the aftermath of the Civil War, “gun control” has simply been a proxy argument for some as a method for keeping blacks unarmed. Arms roundups of freedmen were common in the South in the years following the liberation of slaves, and the result was more control for white landowners, and the lurking and pervasive Ku Klux Klan, who used their mobility to terrorize freed blacks. In many ways still today the gun is as much a measure of protection as it is a symbol of the ability to protect— to self govern, if need be.

In February 1994, a black Democrat State Senator from Chicago, Rickey Hendon had his unregistered handgun stolen from his home. “I have a right to protect myself,” he told the Sun-Times. Blacks tend to live in higher crime areas; lack the resources for private security, alarm systems, and other measures; and aren’t particularly trusting of or willing to rely upon the police to protect them. When the City of Chicago began restricting handgun possession in 1983, some of the loudest objections came from black politicians, who said the ban discriminated against black Chicagoans who needed to be armed to protect themselves.

Wealthy athletes are targets for violent crime.

Mr. Sprow’s recommendation that teams focus on teaching young players how to own, maintain, and use guns responsibly makes a great deal of sense! (Chris Sprow is the editor-in-chief of Chicago Sports Weekly, and has contributed to a number of other publications, including the New York Times and ESPN the Magazine.)

John R. Lott Jr. in his incisive article entitled Athletes and Guns lists some of the reasons that fifty percent of NFL players justifiably arm themselves to fend off deadly assaults.

Their wealth and high profiles make them targets for violent criminals.

Early in the morning on Jan. 21, Corey Fuller, the 5-foot, 10-inch, 210-pound defensive back for the Baltimore Ravens, was confronted by two armed robbers outside his Tallahassee house. One robber chased Fuller into his house where his wife and children were sleeping, but Fuller was able to grab a gun and fire at the attackers, who then ran away.

In late October, T.J. Slaughter, a 6-foot, 233-pound linebacker, was arrested for allegedly pointing a gun at motorists who pulled up next to him on the highway. Slaughter denied that he had pointed the gun at the motorists and claimed that they had threatened him. According to Slaughter, he told the men to move away from his car. No charges were filed, but the Jacksonville Jaguars still cut Slaughter the next day. Jacksonville claimed Slaughter was performing poorly.

Greg Anthony, a 6-foot, 176-pound guard for 12 years in the NBA, carried a registered gun during part of his career. He said, “More and more people approach you, and you just never know what somebody is capable of doing …”

Mr. Lott goes on to state:

Recent media stories – from the New York Times to the Chicago Tribune – have run extremely negative stories on professional players owning guns. The Tribune described players owning guns as a “problem [that] persists.” Ironically, within days of the December New York Times piece, it was revealed that the New York Times lets its reporters carry guns in Iraq.

– Yancy Thigpen of the Tennessee Titans (height: 6-1, weight: 203 lbs.) has faced three armed robberies since joining the NFL eight years ago. The last one left him and his fiancée tied up inside his house with their 2-month old daughter locked in a closet. An earlier robbery involved a carjacking.

– Will Allen of the New York Giants (height: 5-10, weight: 195 lbs.) was assaulted, doused with gasoline and robbed by an assailant when he returned to his house one evening in 2001.

According to John Lott, such misguided advice simply makes players and their families more vulnerable and does not square with the U.S. Department of Justice’s findings. The Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey has shown that not being armed is statistically the strategy most likely to result in victimization.

Aggressiveness is always a better strategy than the passive approach that is often recommended in much of the officially sanctioned literature on how to deal with assaults.

One player, T.J. Slaughter said. “I believe legally owning a gun is the right thing to do. It offers me protection. I think one day it could save my life.”

See NFL Athletes; Guns & Second Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided the first major case involving the important Second Amendment issue of whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The landmark case originated in Washington, DC where, like Chicago and other cities, law abiding citizens were not allowed to defend themselves against lawless criminals! Since Heller v DC was decided, cities all over the land are changing their laws ro conform to the Second Amendment.

The Washington, DC case may be the most important gun rights case ever but more are sure to follow. Such issues are going to be percolating through the courts for years because the United Nations and domestic gun ban advocates are seeking a worldwide treaty banning small arms (firearms are already prohibited to private citizens in all but a few nations). Will the U.S. join the consensus of dictators all over the world by bending our Constitution to “international norms“?

Where are your loyalties- to the UN? To the secular one-world religion of humanism? Or are you looking toward traditional values of individual freedom, U.S. sovereignty and inalienable rights that are founded on Biblical principles. The Scripture speaks of covenant responsibilities that God requires of people that would be free (like the duty to defend life, liberty and property as set forth in the U.S. Constitution)- not “rights” bestowed by the State!

Do you know that the concept of a written Constitution itself was a development that grew out of the practices of the early American religious colonies? The Pilgrim fathers (and mothers) were consciously entering into covenants (compacts, mutual promises or contracts, if you will) that imitated the Old and New Covenants (i.e., Old and New Testaments). The Old Testament abounds in examples of covenants between God and man and between people within the ancient social framework of Israel. The fact remains that a people that are covenant keepers will be strong and prosperous. But we need to be careful what kind of covenants and treaties we make as a people.

Additionally, a people that recognize their heritage in God and that are grateful for blessings every day (not just on Thanksgiving) will prosper and remain free.

Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

Proverbs 22:28 (King James Version)

Federal Way recently had an unfortunate incident where a law enforcement officer (LEO) shot at a man that was threatening the officer with a gun that looked like a real gun; shooting the subject would have been justified. But why did the officer shoot twice and miss?

Officers are trained not to shoot unless an opponent presents deadly force. An officer is trained to aim for center of body mass. The primary objective is to stop an opponent from inflicting death or grave bodily harm. If the LEO hesitates or misses, the risk is that the officer or bystanders will become victims. The fact that the Federal Way incident occurred at a strip mall raises the issue of bystanders being hit by the LEO’s shots. The officer missed his shots. This raises the issue of whether the officer would be alive had the subject been carrying a real gun.

LEOs justifiably hold Monday morning quarterbacks, including many lawyers, in disdain. Every time an LEO shoots at an assailant, no matter how justified, lawyers reconstruct every moment before, during and after the shooting. A few thoughts on training are in order, nevertheless.

LEO firearms training starts with the LEO’s desire to return alive to loved ones at the end of the shift! Although officers must meet basic proficiency standards, many of them have never fired a shot in self-defense. Many competent “civilians” can and do take the time to become trained and acquire gun handling skill that equals or exceeds the average LEO’s skill.

Consider the effect on motor skills as adrenaline starts pumping along with the heavy first trigger-pull that commonly causes LEOs to jerk the first shot with some semi-automatics under stress. Studies have proven that officers and civilians that participate in exercises simulating real-life scenarios have a much better chance of surviving a gun fight. Competitions that combine speed, movement, shooting from cover and multiple targets create the stress necessary to increase LEO and civilian survivability.

Studies show that mistaken shootings are more likely to happen in low light. Shooting an innocent subject as he presents his identification may be blamed on racism when lack of low-light training is to blame. How many departments have a house where officers can shoot at targets in a darkened environment? It is unlikely such opportunities are available unless the LEO pays for private training.

FWPD trains its LEOs beyond the minimal levels required by law enforcement; neverthless, a defensive handgun class like the one at the Firearms Academy of Seattle teaches civilians and LEOS how to survive without incurring legal liability and the experience will enhance your appreciation for LEOs protecting us on the street. Marty Hayes told me that it is not uncommon for LEOs to attend FAS as a unit at their own expense. Whether or not you are an LEO, you owe it to your family to remain alive. If you are a civilian with a CPL and/or carry a gun, you are responsible to know the laws, be safe and be proficient.

See AR-15 Training.

Seattle’s Misguided Gun Ban

Mayor Greg Nickels plans to defy state law with a gun ban that is worse than an empty gesture: It puts law-abiding citizens at greater risk.

By Knute Berger
November 17, 2008.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is planning to issue an order to ban legal handguns from city parks and buildings next month, despite the fact that such a move is “unequivocally” against state law. That’s only one of the reasons I voted to re-elect Republican state Attorney General Rob McKenna earlier this month. McKenna has already weighed in against Nickels’ proposal, and I hope he’ll be a zealous guardian in court of citizen gun rights in Washington.

Nickels’ move will no doubt be popular with many Seattleites — it’s the kind of symbolism that underscores our city’s more-liberal-than-thou reputation. I wish I could say it would be an empty gesture in a country where the right to bear arms has both popular, constitutional, and Supreme Court support, but I think such a ban is ill-advised.

There are several problems with it, aside from its legality. One is that the safety of Seattle’s citizens is far from assured — and no amount of law enforcement (including a police state) can ensure the safety of particular individuals. The other night, I attended a party for Seattle magazine’s annual list of the most powerful people in the city — as editor-at-large there, I serve on the committee that reviews the picks. It was held in the Pampas Room at Belltown’s El Goucho. The buzz of the party wasn’t so much about insider power but the lack of power Belltown itself is feeling when it comes to safety. This week, concerned Belltowners met with the city over safety issues, as described by KING-TV:

Belltown used to be known as a very hip and happening place to live, but now residents say they are afraid to leave their home – even in broad daylight. Store owners say they are losing business because of drug dealing outside.

One Seattle magazine staffer described how she was recently mugged in Belltown — the kind of crime where the mugger immediate ran off to use her credit card to buy what she thinks was $13 bucks worth of booze at Safeway. Other partygoers talked about how they’re afraid to walk through Belltown anymore. “When you have high densities of living, alcohol establishments, and social services, we’re going to have some challenges,” Capt. Steven Brown of the Seattle Police Department’s West Precinct told KING 5.

That’s not just a Belltown concern but a citywide concern for a town that is densifying all over, where Manhattan-style urbanization (higher densities, high-rise development) isn’t just a growth phenomenon but official city policy, and in a town with budget troubles, too few cops, holes in the social service safety net and a troubled economy. It’s sad to say Belltown — once the prime example of how this “world-class city” stuff was supposed to work — is taking on the distinctly un-Seattle feel of a neighborhood of fortified towers and underground parking designed to protect affluent residents from the sans-culotte.

While the mayor’s ban won’t make Belltown safer, it could make city parks less safe for the urbanites who use them. I have previously written that I oppose handguns in national parks because I believe these are public sanctuaries to preserve nature. They are off the beaten path, and people have to travel long distances and pay relatively expensive entry, lodging, and camping fees to use them under the supervision and protection of park rangers. The biggest threat might be bears, but in wild country, it’s the bears that have the right to bear arms.

But I see city parks in an entirely different light. They are part of the urban fabric, part of everyday space, used by people of all types, all classes, all criminal backgrounds. They are the heart of our commons. Many have remote parts and places like playgrounds that are also potential stalking grounds. They are mostly open, uncontrolled, and unguarded. They are vital, lively and important public spaces that should be open to all. I do not see how they can be segregated in terms of gun laws. To ask citizens with the legal right to carry guns elsewhere to disarm themselves in circumstances where vigilance is often required and protection hard to come by is unfair, even dangerous.

I’ve been stalked. I know others who have been the victims of stalkers and involved in domestic violence situations that pose an ongoing threat. I have been through handgun training for gays and lesbians and have seen how the de-mystification of firearms has helped empower people whose very lifestyle puts them at risk. Simply knowing that they have the ability to protect themselves, holding the idea that gay bashers might have to think twice before assuming potential targets were defenseless, seemed to lighten a psychological load if nothing else.

I think the legal right to carry a weapon, whether you choose to or not, is part of putting a caution in the head of some predators that you — and the general citizenry — may not be as vulnerable as they would like. It’s important to know that guns aren’t just for the bad guys, and that protecting yourself with a firearm doesn’t automatically make you one.

It’s absolutely an individual choice whether to arm oneself. And the laws should be strict about criminal background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. But for many people, legal gun rights give them a chance to use the city more openly, safely, and with a sense of security that no law enforcement agency or piece of paper could ever provide.

Knute Berger is Mossback, Crosscut’s chief Northwest native. He also writes the monthly Gray Matters column for Seattle magazine and is a weekly Friday guest on Weekday on KUOW-FM (94.9). You can e-mail him at mossback@crosscut.com.

View this story online at:

XML:

© 2008 Crosscut LLC. All rights reserved.

See also Federal Way Weapons Law.

The following notes are the beginning of a series of observations penned by a man that attends autopsies- lots of autopsies. I cannot vouch for the author’s authenticity but the issues identified below seem worth considering. The prose may seem morbid but there are passages herein that constitute sheer poetry for serious gunners and the information may save your life:

One of the benefits of working in a morgue is that I get to see what works and what doesn’t. Ballistic gelatin is good as far as it goes, but there’s nothing like seeing what a bullet actually does once it strikes bone, flesh, and organs. Suffice it to say, it doesn’t always mimic ballistic gelatin.

The other is that I get to hear some great CCW stories. Here’s one of them: A recently-married couple living in one of the less desirable sections of Atlanta decided that for safety purposes they should get a handgun and learn how to shoot it. They bought a Glock 27 in .40, CCW permits, and made regular trips to an indoor range. One evening, having just come back from the range, they cleaned and loaded the Glock and had left it on the coffee table in the living room, intending to put it up later. Shortly thereafter they heard a knock at the door and, expecting company, opened it without looking through the peephole.

A crazed male entered the apartment brandishing a handgun yelling, “Give it up, give it up!” The husband said that it was obvious the individual was high on drugs and there was absolutely no question in his mind that both he and his wife were going to die. Knowing this, he decided that his only option was to go down fighting.

The BG forced them both down a narrow hallway into the living room, screaming all the while. The husband was in the lead, followed by his wife, and then the BG, whose view of the living room was being blocked by the husband and wife.

The husband reached down, grabbed the Glock, pushed his wife aside, and fired one shot at the BG, striking him dead center in the middle of the chest. Although knocked to the floor, the BG still made a feeble attempt to retrieve his own gun. At this point, the husband let him hold another one to the chest. That ended that little problem.

Upon talking to the still-shaken husband, the police said he could remember little of what all the BG had said. As he recalled it, “All I can remember is that his first words were ‘Give it up!” and his last words just as he saw the Glock were “Oh, (fill in the blank)!”

I see an average of 8.2 autopsies per day/365 days per year, and I can tell you that when the chips are down, there’s nothing that beats a 12-gauge. As for handguns, the name of the game is not only shot placement but how a properly-placed bullet acts once it gets there. I’ve seen folks killed by a bb to the eye and others survive after being hit by several well-placed rounds with a 9mm.

As for me, I’ll take a slow-moving .45 to a gun fight any day. I absolutely despise a 9mm for defensive situations (yes, they will eventually kill but often not quickly enough to prevent the BG from doing you in first)and a .380 as well. These are probably the two calibers I see most often on the autopsy table.

But then, I’ve seen most everything. I’ve seen a guy killed by a .416 Rigby, as well as a suicide to the head with a .44 Mag that didn’t penetrate the skull on the other side.

The long and short of it is that you just don’t know how ANY bullet will react to tissue and bone until you open them up and take a look. I’ve seen hardball fragment and hollowpoints act just like hardball. That said, shoot what you’re comfortable with and place your shots well whatever caliber you use.

The .357 is gloriously effective. It’s just that semi-autos are much more common than they used to be, so we see far more 9mm and .380 rounds on the autopsy table than we do the .38 and .357.

Particularly among the gangbangers, the 9mm and .380 are the weapons of choice. The .357 is a wonderfully effective round for self-defense from what I’ve seen, but it’s rare that we get them in anymore.

Again, this is from experience that I’ve made my calls on what works and what doesn’t. I have no use for mouse guns like the .32, although it’s a lot better to have a mouse gun than nothing at all. Personally, I’ll never carry anything smaller than a .40 and prefer the .45. Day in and day out, results from the autopsy table show me that the .45 is the gun to have in a gun fight, provided you can shoot it well. If not, it’s better to have something you can shoot well, even if it’s a mouse gun, than something you can’t.

I spent most of my life in Knoxville, TN and absolutely loved it. But then, my job is working in the Medical Examiner’s Office, and, as you said, this is a target-rich environment. Having a job in an Atlanta morgue is job security at its best.

KRL, I’ll take slow and heavy to light and fast any day. What I want is a round that plows through bone and tissue and expends ALL of its energy in the body. That said, the 125-grain .357 is marvelously effective.

S/W-Lifer, You’re correct in what you’re thinking. Yes, the 9mm and .380 are the rounds I most often see on the autopsy table, but they’re also the rounds that usually require multiple hits to make the kill. The standing joke in the morgue is to guess the caliber by looking at the x-rays. If multiple rounds show up on the x-rays more often than not it’s a 9mm or .380 (or .32 or .25 or some mouse gun caliber). If only one round shows up, it could be an inordinately good hit with a .380 or 9mm, but more likely it’s a .40 or .45.

Yes, the .380 and 9mm will do the job, but usually multiple hits are required as opposed to single hits with a .40 or .45.

Instead of individual replies to each of these questions, let me see if I can narrow some observations down into one long one. Forgive me if some of these have been in other posts, but they bear repeating.

First, ballistic gelatin, being all that’s available for most bullet testing, is good as far as it goes but it’s often far different from what we see in the morgue. A far more realistic scenario would be to dress up ballistic gelatin with a heavy coat of denim to mimic blue jeans, embed some bones obtained from a butcher shop, and throw in a few objects of varying densities to mimic organs. Try it again, and I think you’ll see that this impressive wound cavity that’s so often seen in ballistic gelatin goes down the tubes. The human body isn’t just composed of one density as ballistic gelatin is, and the bullet does various things to various parts of the body as it passes through.

And that’s why I think observations from a morgue are so important. Day in and day out, I get to see what works and what doesn’t. More than that, I get to see what the same caliber does with various bullets weights and designs and how it reacts to different parts of the body. The best of all are when the gangbangers use the mix and match technique and shoot a variety of bullets in the same magazine and these bullets wind up in the same victim shot from the same gun. Hardball and hollowpoints in the same body from the same gun give a great comparison on the effectiveness of each.

To be continued. Please e-mail your comments to

XML:

See also Notes From the Morgue.

THE LIVING CONSTITUTION

This week I was amazed to read in the NEW YORK TIMES that some conservative legal scholars think that the recent Second Amendment case, DC V HELLER, is a case in which the conservative Supreme Court justices made a decision based on judicial activism. For those initiated into the arcane intricacies of Constitutional jurisprudence, this is tantamount to accusing the majority in HELLER of un-American activities- at least from the standpoint of the strict-constructionists (like Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts. The epitome of judicial activism is Roe v Wade in which the Court held that a woman’s right to privacy, although not identified as a constitutionall protected right in the text of the U.S. Constitution, nevertheless exists by virtue of a “penumbra” that emanates from the text.

Thus, in modern times the theory has arisen that the “living Constitution” changes and mutates in organic, almost Darwinian progression along with changes in American society and evolving international norms. Strict-constructionists (like the conservatives in the HELLER majority) maintain that we are going down the road to dictatorship from the unelected judicial and academic elite when we depart from the original meaning of the text as understood by the men that drafted the document.

The NEW YORK TIMES article quotes Judge Richard A. Posner’s August, 2008 article in THE NEW REPUBLIC in which he wrote that the HELLER court’s failure to allow the political process to work out varying approaches to gun control that were suited to local conditions “was the mistake that the Supreme Court made when it nationalized abortion rights in Roe v. Wade.” Such criticism cannot be dismissed- Posner is preeminent among modern legal thinkers!

Then we have another well-recognized judge, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, stating, “The ROE and HELLER courts are guilty of the same sin.” So was the HELLER majority running roughshod over the states and making new law by judicial fiat?

The article in the NEW YORK TIMES fails to note one very important aspect of the HELLER, decision; i.e., the decision pointedly does not guarantee a right to keep and bear arms in a situation where state government action poses the threat to gun owners. The Court took the HELLER appeal in order to decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right while exercising judicial restraint by deciding a case that only impacts Washington, DC, at this time.

The U.S. Constitution originally restricted the federal government’s powers; in relatively modern times, the Court has applied its decisions to the several states. The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted after the Civil War to protect newly freed black citizens, is the rationale by which some Constitutional protections are incorporated so as to protect citizens from our own state legislatures and other state officials- including the above mentioned right of privacy that a woman can assert against her husband, the life of a child (right up to and beyond birth) and any claims that families and society can make regarding parental rights and related concerns.

At the time of the debate over passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Southern Democrats argued that if the new citizens’ rights were protected then blacks would own guns. The Northern Republicans answered them by telling they were damned right! It is worth noting also that none of the legal scholars quoted by the NEW YORK TIMES claimed that the Second Amendment is a “corporate” right that does not apply to individuals.

The NEW YORK TIMES article explains that some prominent liberal law professors, including Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, have concluded, sometimes reluctantly, that the amendment in fact protects an individual right. The Supreme Court appointments made by the new president may decide if and how and when the Second Amendment protects many of the rights that you and I cherish. So now that you have voted, did you vote with a careful view as to how the Constitution should be read?

WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT MATTERS

Last summer, the Supreme Court of the United States (hereinafter SCOTUS) ruled that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Why does the decision in DC V HELLER matter to city-dwellers like you and I that live or work in Federal Way and have almost no place in our lives for hunting, target shooting or toting a pistol as we go about our busy routines?

The fact that the Washington State Constitution already guarantees Washingtonians protection if we choose to possess firearms also raises the issue of what was, if any, the HELLER decision’s impact on residents of our local communities. Any law-abiding U.S. citizen of sound mind (twenty-one or older) can obtain a Concealed Pistol License in Washington State. You can even keep and wear a weapon in your own home or business without obtaining a CPL. So why does DC V HELLER matter in the Evergreen State?

To answer the question we need to a nutshell course on Second Amendment jurisprudence. When the federal government first got involved with regulating guns pursuant to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). In the 1939 case of UNITED STATES V MILLER, SCOTUS took up the issue of whether the NFA’s prohibition against sawed-off shotguns violated the Second Amendment. The MILLER court decided the issue by analyzing whether sawed-off shotguns are militarily useful. Ever since that time gun control advocates, law professors and even a minority of Supreme Court justices in the HELLER dissent have been able to point to United States Circuit Court precedents in which the decisions cited the MILLER case and rejected claims that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Thus, prior to recent times, a majority of legal scholars and even our own Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have taken the position that the “people” that have the right to keep and bear arms are the states; i.e., the U.S. Constitution only protects a state’s right to maintain a militia.

Pro-gun folks advocate that MILLER only dealt with the issues in a very oblique fashion for a number of reasons, including the fact that the only representatives that appeared to argue the issues in MILLER were the government lawyers! Because the defense did not appear, there was arguably no way for the judges to hear both sides of the issues. It is worth noting that, despite the assertion in the MILLER opinion declaring that sawed-off shotguns have no military usefulness, short barreled shot-guns were very much in use as trench guns in WW I.

It can be argued that the HELLER case is actually the first case in which SCOTUS has dealt directly with the issue of who has standing to assert the right to keep and bear arms. The HELLER decision almost guarantees that many more Supreme Court decisions will follow. Because Washington, DC is not a state there are bound to be cases that decide whether the states are obligated to abide by the Second Amendment and what restrictions are reasonable for the states and the federal government to enact. Keep in mind that many rules dealing with firearms are administrative and are buried deep within arcane intricacies of local, state and federal bureaucracies.

Those of you that resent rampant militarism, the Founding Fathers are on your side! The legislative history of the Bill of Rights reveals that the Founders were conflicted about the wisdom of permitting standing armies that could be used against the people to usurp American’s civil rights. The Federalists compromised with the anti-Federalists by leaving the size of the military up to the President and Congress. By keeping the people armed, Americans would be prepared if the government neglected the national defense and, at the same time, the people would have recourse in the event that the new federal government ran roughshod over our liberties. You have to say one thing for those old boys- they were radical!

Dick Heller, an armed security guard for a government agency, was prohibited under Washington, DC’s draconian gun laws from possessing a gun in his home, even though the United States Government entrusted him to guard life and the U.S. Government’s property. Because he challenged and overturned the DC gun ban, cities like Morton Grove, Illinois are already revising their gun laws to permit at least some private possession of guns within their city limits.

History has demonstrated that the federal government, states and local governments can and will enact laws that deprive individuals and states of the ability to take control of our own destinies. The Interstate Commerce Clause has been invoked to justify economic regulation and federal incursions into almost every area of our lives. Presidents can enter into all kinds of treaties and there are many legal scholars prepared to argue that treaties may be valid even without going through the cumbersome process entailed by the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution. My Constitutional law professor taught me that treaties supersede the Constitution!

Consider also that in the very near future, you will be hearing a great deal about a proposed UN Treaty that is being touted as a “common sense” agenda to limit trafficking in small arms- a solution to international terrorism and other criminal activities. The only problem is that everywhere we look in the world, the thugs in high places are busy building up arsenals, while the honest folks are mostly disarmed- except in the United States of America. The fact that treaties may preempt state laws may raise some real Constitutional issues, especially since the UN wants to preempt guns in the hands of you and yours. If you think I am being reactionary look at all the countries that already have become signatories to the UN Treaty on Small Arms. There is, however, a state preemption law that prohibits local and county governments from enacting any restrictions on our gun rights:

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

RCW 9.41.290

But there is considerable pressure from Mayors, city councils and others for the legislature to do away with RCW 9.41.290. Many cities in Washington (like Federal Way) are already banning weapons in parks and other public places in full knowledge that such bans violate state law. If our Washington State legislators cave-in to pressure from cities like Seattle, you could have a situation where every time you cross a municipal boundary, or enter into a public place, you will be forced to stop and look up that jurisdiction’s municipal code or administrative regulations in order to avoid the possibility of being arrested and charged as a criminal. Thus, your CPL would become almost useless.

The U.S. Constitution does not mandate state preemption laws but the DC v Heller case makes it far more difficult for the executive branch of the federal government, Congress or a federal judge interpreting an international treaty to undermine the protection that Washingtonians enjoy under various state laws.

For example, if state preemption of local firearms laws is overturned, then it may be a matter of time before all semi-automatic rifles are defined as “illegal assault rifles”, the fact that they are “militarily useful” under the MILLER case notwithstanding. The next thing you know, certain calibers are banned and then “high capacity” magazine clips. Such a process is already gradually happening in California and other states. It remains to be seen how the U.S. Supreme court will deal with firearms related issues in the future. Future Supreme Court appointments will impact the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence in ways that are difficult to predict at this time.

Hopefully, by now you are seeing all the layers of legal protection that we enjoy as potentially well-armed U.S. citizens. In a very real sense, the Second Amendment helps to protect our First Amendment rights. But guns have no inherent ability to guarantee that we will remain a free people.

In conclusion, you should take a final look at a not-so-apparent but self-evident truth. The right to protect our loved ones does not come from a constitution or other legal document. Protecting our families and communities from violence is not really even a right! It is a duty that is placed on us by God. Even if you, like most people, do not choose to obtain a CPL and go about armed, the predators in our midst are still very aware of the fact that many of us are going about our business with enough training and firepower to stop a criminal assault. Thus, that soccer-mom or senior citizen that might be carrying a concealed pistol often represents as much of a deterrent to violent crime as a six foot, two-hundred pound police officer. Why? Because predators never know where and when the armed citizen may respond with deadly force!

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD.

Proverbs 21:31 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

The ultimate force is love. Everything we do has to be motivated by love. That is why we constructed this site. To express love for our community, our servicemen and law enforcement; to encourage sensible solutions to the threats that seem to be gathering.

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. Proverbs 29:2

We can blow the trumpet until we are blue in the face but if it is not motivated by love, we have accomplished nothing.

So why does our site advocate self-defense?

10 USC 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are–
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia,which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or …

The above referenced federal law recognizes an organized and an unorganized militia. The United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution clearly recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms. It also states that there is no right to maintain a militia. The prohibition against militias is in reference to a standing (or organized militia) as opposed to the “unorganized” or militia at large (as it used to be known).

The media often equates the concept of a militia with vigilante actions. Militias have been associated with racism and unlawful activities in times past. The concept of the militia-at-large is a legal concept that has its roots in the interest of the people in assisting our government in times of need. There is no place in society for people to take matters into their own hands when it comes to meting out justice. The only situation in which a citizen would be justified in using deadly force is in defense of self or others. All the Founding Fathers and every generation of Americans recognized this concept up through the present time.

Ironically, many generations of large scale military bureaucracies and the collectivist mentality fostered by big government programs have resulted in the idea that the people should surrender all control over the means of self-defense, including personal protection.

The Book of Jude makes reference to “…men that speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals- these are the very things that destroy them.”

With all the freedom in the U.S. to question our leaders and aggressively express dissent, we should not forget to respect our government. People that rail against government seem to be the kind of people that are referenced in the Biblical passage quoted above. On the other hand, it takes a very shallow-minded individual to think that the world will be safer if we all just trust our government to keep us safe. While the sheep dogs are burying a bone or two, the wolves may be scarfing up the sheep!

Dictators and arrogant bureaucrats are usually intent on depriving citizens of the means for meaningful alternatives to governmental monopolization of force

When it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth: and when the wicked perish, there is shouting.

Proverbs 11:10 (KJV)

We want to be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks us to give the reason for the hope that we have. But to do so with gentleness and respect….

We are blessed to live in a free nation that has the strongest military in the world. We should not take either of these premises for granted because the very attributes that make a free nation free and successful can undermine that nation. History is replete with many successful civilizations that faltered and lie buried in the dust. You and I are the militia just by virtue of being prepared, vigilant and jealously guarding our liberties. We welcome President-elect Obama and look forward to a new time in U.S. government, a prosperous time in which our liberties will thrive.

Freedom: A democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

-Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

See also Surveillance Detection.