Politics

Applying 1A to 2A

/ hsoi / 9 Comments

David Kopel, an adjunct professor of advanced Constitutional law, has published a paper examining how SCOTUS has used the First Amendment for guidance on Second Amendment questions.

You can read a summary/overview here.

The full paper can be found here. Here’s the abstract

As described in Part I of this article, the Supreme Court has strongly indicated that First Amendment tools should be employed to help resolve Second Amendment issues. Before District of Columbia v. Heller, several Supreme Court cases suggested that the First and Second Amendments should be interpreted in the same manner. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago applied this approach, using First Amendment analogies to resolve many Second Amendment questions.

Part II of this Article details how influential lower court decisions have followed (or misapplied) the Supreme Court’s teaching. Of course, precise First Amendment rules cannot necessarily be applied verbatim to the Second Amendment. Part III outlines some general First Amendment principles that are also valid for the Second Amendment. Finally, Part IV looks at how several First Amendment doctrines can be used in Second Amendment cases, showing that some, but not all, First Amendment doctrines can readily fit into Second Amendment jurisprudence.

I have not yet had a chance to read the full paper, but I did want to comment on a related matter I was thinking about prior to learning of this paper.

The notion of “if it saves just one life, then it’s worth it”.

I was reading this article and it trotted out the “just one life is worth it” trope. Yes, the article is from the NRA-ILA so it has an expected slant, but it got me thinking.

Is this really valid reasoning?

Can we apply this reasoning to other Constitutionally protected rights, such as those listed in the First Amendment? And would those so willing to apply this trope to 2A be willing to apply it to 1A?

Let’s consider cyberbullying. Consider the numerous children that have committed suicide or violently “acted out” as a result of cyberbullying. How can we prevent cyberbullying? Well, it does seem that banning computers or banning the Internet is never brought up as a solution, but if there was no access to computers or the Internet — if they were banned — then certainly “cyber” would cease to exist and so too would cyberbullying.

If it saves just one life, isn’t that worth it?

Isn’t curtailing free religion, free speech, free press, free association — because it could save just one life — worth it?

Well, isn’t it worth it?

Quote for today

/ hsoi

…if people were attuned to the causes of the overwhelming majority of gun deaths (guns and gangs, not mass shootings, with handguns, not rifles), the focus on gun control efforts would be very different. But ignorance redirects the focus to regulating law-abiding citizens with weapons seldom used in gun deaths.

– Josh Blackman, as a comment upon Ilya Somin’s article on Gun Control, Mass Shootings, and Political Ignorance.

(h/t Karl Rehn)

But I guess on this topic, ignorance is an acceptable excuse and solid foundation upon which to build policy and law.

Go figure.

There’s your problem right there

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

So my ankle problem?

Doctor puts me in one of those brace boot things.

I see on the form: $375. But they are quick to say “no, that’s not the price you pay… that’s just the price we put on there for the insurance. You just pay $58.”.

And right there folks, is the crux of the problem with our “health care system”.

 

Goodbye Sprouts

/ hsoi / 9 Comments

When we discovered Sprouts we were thrilled. So many great products, including hard to find health-type foods. Wife was thrilled, I enjoyed it. Heck, the first time I went to Sprouts I was giggling because of the great variety of foodstuffs they stocked and provided.

But alas, they will receive no more of my money. And for a family of 5 that wound up using Sprouts as our primary grocery store? That’s a fair chunk of money.

Why?

Seems Sprouts corporate decided to start posting “no guns” signs at their locations. I’m not sure how widespread this is across the nation, but certainly 30.06 signs are showing up at Texas locations (many reports are being made). I didn’t see any signs the last time I went to my local store, but it seems the rollout has been happening over the course of December 2013 so who knows. Sign or not at my particular store, it’s evident this is corporate policy.

I didn’t see any formal posting about this, but here’s something from their Facebook page:

Good afternoon Paul, Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts about our decision to prohibit firearms in our stores. Please understand that we recognize and respect our customers’ rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a right that prohibits the government (but not private retailers) from infringing on citizens’ right to bear arms. That right, however, must be balanced with our need as a retailer to provide a safe and comfortable environment for our customers and team members. That’s why, after careful and thoughtful analysis, we have decided to prohibit our customers and our team members from bringing firearms onto our store premises. While this decision may disappoint some of our valued customers, such as yourself, we stand by our decision and have received overwhelmingly positive feedback from our communities about it.

We hope that you will continue to be a part of the Sprouts family notwithstanding our decision on this issue. We value your patronage and hope to see you again soon.

Sincerely,

Stephanie
Sprouts Farmers Market
Customer Relations Specialist

They are correct, that 2A is about restricting the federal government, not about private retailers. In fact, they do have every right to do this, and we have every right to take our business elsewhere.

I’m just saddened — and confused — by their decision.

They want a safe and comfortable environment. I would appreciate to know their logic and reasoning behind this, but they are getting bombarded with feedback about this decision, and given how they are active in responding to every non-gun-related post on their Facebook page but make no comments on the gun-related posts, they are obviously making no further comment on the issue.

It’s strange.

The 30.06 sign only prohibits law-abiding CHL holders. The thing is, if you look at facts and data, CHL holders are not the people you should be afraid of. In fact, CHL holders are statistically more law-abiding than the non-CHL-holding citizenry! If you want a safe environment, CHL holders are precisely the sort of people you want to have around. They aren’t going to commit violence. They aren’t going to steal.

There are no signs or ways to keep violent, gun-wielding felons out of your store. In fact, today they can still shop in Sprouts. But today, CHL holders — who cannot be felons, by definition — cannot shop at Sprouts.

How is that creating a safe environment?

I know we all want to feel safe, and these days people seem to put greater emphasis on feeling than actually being. But which actually makes you safer? Illusions or reality?

I would like to believe there is sound reasoning behind why Sprouts made their decision. In fact, they might gain support and expand their customer base if they were willing to share their specific reasoning. Furthermore, it’d be great if Sprouts was willing to enter into dialogue that helped guide them towards policies that actually lead to a truly safer and more comfortable environment. One that strove to provide real safety, and didn’t alienate law-abiding customers. I mean, it seems that thousands upon thousands of other businesses in Texas can do this, so I’m sure if Sprouts wanted to, they could as well.

Sprouts donated $100,00 to the victims of the Aurora shooting victims. That’s fantastic! I applaud their generosity and compassion. I just hope they aren’t extrapolating the acts of a madman to the 750,000+ Texas CHL holders that, again, are demonstrably law-abiding, sound citizens. I mean, we’re not supposed to extrapolate the actions of a lone terrorist to all Muslims, so I hope they aren’t committing the same sort of extrapolation.

I’d love to give Sprouts my business again because I appreciate their business model and the products they provide. But it seems for now this is their decision. I will take my money elsewhere, and encourage others to do the same. We will support those that understand the value of healthy living, and that do not treat the law-abiding with dangerous misunderstanding.

Real solutions, please

/ hsoi

Charles C. W. Cooke makes an important observation:

You will notice that in not a single one of the cases [high-profile mass shootings] listed above did a perpetrator buy his weapon through an “unregulated private sale,” through “the Internet,” or in “the parking lot at a gun show.” Not one. Instead, in each and every case, one of two things happened: Either (a) the killer followed the law to the letter, or (b) he broke it spectacularly. That Sandy Hook involved little children made it that much harder to bear. But it did not change the salient fact: that massacrs eand [sic] private sales have pretty much nothing to do with one another.

So are they really wanting to “save innocent lives”? Or do they have other goals, and the death of children is merely a vehicle for them to play on the emotions of the public?

If they are sincere in their efforts to “save innocent lives” then I suggest taking a step back and reexamining priorities and solutions, and being willing and open to new solutions. You know the saying about how the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Well, suggesting these same “solutions” to “gun violence” over and over, when they are demonstrated to not work, well… that’s just insane. So if you are sincere in a desire to end violence, then I suggest you start looking at other solutions instead of the ones that don’t work.

Else, we can only think you are stubborn, ignorant, or nefarious.

 

 

200,000

/ hsoi

We all love infographics, right? Here’s one someone pointed me to. Pay attention to the stat at the bottom of the graphic.

200,000 women use a gun to prevent sexual abuse each year.

But you told me guns were bad….

Got out of bed this morning? You’re one of the lucky ones.

/ hsoi

Apparently 600 people in America die every year getting out of bed.

Imagine that. You wake up in the morning, and fall out of bed… and that’s it.

600 people in America each year. I wonder what worldwide numbers are; I’m sure higher.

If we assume that’s a steady number, that means in the past 20 years 12,000 people have died just getting out of bed.

Damn. Makes you want to stay in bed all day, huh? 12,000 people dying just getting out of bed.

You know what? Only 543 people have been killed in mass shootings over the past 20 years. That’s about 27 per year.

543 vs 12,000

27 vs 600

22 times more people die getting out of bed, than from mass shootings.

Yes, we can agree that’s still too many senseless deaths.

There’s also a matter of perspective.

If your efforts to ban guns is because you want to save innocent lives from senseless deaths, then why aren’t you putting 22x more effort into banning beds? or making beds safer to reduce the body count to zero? Where’s your fight for legislation to ban beds entirely, making everyone sleep on the floor? or to mandate bed heights, that beds can only be so high off the floor?

If truly your primary concern is preserving life, first pick off the low-hanging fruit that will make a difference in preserving lives. Heck, what are your first aid and field medicine skills like? Do you know CPR? What are you actually doing that will make a more significant and meaningful impact towards saving lives?

I’m not saying you should stop your efforts to ban guns. If truly you believe that’s a right and just fight, go for it. What I am saying is if your primary concern is preserving life, then first focus your finite energy and efforts on those things that will have a greater and more significant impact on preserving lives.

 

We are not the people you should be afraid of

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

The Texas Department of Public Safety keeps track of conviction rates for Texas Concealed Handgun License holders. You can see all the published reports so far, and here’s the 2011 list (latest as of this writing).

While it’s evident CHL holders are not immune from doing bad things, the data does support the notion that CHL holders are an extremely law-abiding bunch – far and above the citizenry as a whole.

Here’s some number crunching:

The number of CHL holders that commit murder or manslaughter is remarkably low. From the DPS reports for 1996 through 2011, the number of murder and manslaughter convictions for CHL holders totaled 30 over the 16 years.

DPS also reports on the number of active CHL holders for each year. Those numbers were totaled to obtain the number of CHL holder-years. The total number of CHL holder-years for the 1996-2011 is 4,295,434.

The two numbers give us the ratio of CHL holder convictions for murder and manslaughter per 100,000 CHL holders per year. That number is .70/100,000.

Yes, the decimal point is in the correct place.

The rate of murder and manslaughter for the general population of Texas averaged for the years 1996-2011 is 6.0/100,000.

If such is the case, why do you think we’re the people you need to stop? Why are you afraid of us? We’re demonstrably more law-abiding and statistically less likely to commit a crime. Aren’t we the very sort of people you desire?

 

Rights

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

If you’re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you’ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR’s misguided list — none of the rights listed above require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being. Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else. Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens. Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone. A true human right is one that you possess, even if you’re the only person on the entire planet — and it is unconditional.

I saw the above on Marc MacYoung’s Facebook page. Here’s where it came from.

There may not be enough time for someone else to respond

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Greg Ellifritz writes about the recent Sparks, Nevada school shooting.

4) Time.  The entire attack, from the time the first child was shot until the shooter killed himself, lasted less than three minutes.  Think about that for a second.  You don’t have much time to act.  Don’t expect the police to be able to arrive in time to save you.  You won’t be able to get to your vehicle glove compartment to get the gun you don’t carry “because it’s too heavy.”  You are on your own and will be forced to use whatever gear you have on your person to stop this kind of attack.

Just let the reality of that sink in.

And for those who think there are other strategies you can take:

3) Talking is a poor strategy. The heroic teacher in this case attempted to talk the student down after the student shot his first victim. His heroic attempt was rewarded with a bullet in the chest. Historically, begging, pleading, and talking to the killer has not resulted in positive outcomes. In general, talking should only be considered as a last resort when no other options are available.

So as you go through life, as you make decisions for yourself — and for others — should you make them based upon contending with your dreamy ideal of how the world should be or how you think it is? or contending with the realities of how the world really is?