RKBA

Knife rights update

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

As previously noted here and here, there were issues with the way US Customs and Border Patrol was reclassifying certain knives. It would have risked instantly criminalizing millions of law-abiding US citizens as well as removing many useful tools from everyday use.

I received an email update from the KnifeRights.org folk:

Customs Officially Backs Off

In a letter to Representative Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Customs and Border Protection has officially backed off their proposed revocations and rulemaking in recognition of the Amendment that was passed by the Senate which would add a new exception to the Switchblade Act covering assisted and one-hand opening knives, at least until the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill is acted upon in Conference Committee.

You can read the letter here <http://www.kniferights.org/Customs_response_07212009.pdf> , but the key paragraph reads “The amendment would effectively obviate the need for CBP’s proposed revocations and render the current issue moot. Additionally, due to the numerous comments received in response to the proposed revocation, it is unlikely that CBP will take any further action prior to passage of the Appropriations Act.

This is about as close to a victory as we can come at this time. It may not be over until the fat lady sings, and we actually get the Amendment through Conference Committee, but for all practical purposes, we shouldn’t have to worry about Customs reaching into your pockets for your pocket knives anytime soon. Do take note that Customs has included some ambiguous wording in their letter, leaving their options open, no surprise. But, make no mistake, they have gotten the message; don’t mess with our pocket knives!

This is a welcome bit of progress, and it shows how a vigilant citizenry is the only check against government running amuck across our lives. There’s still work to be done, but so far so good.

Just exactly how much is too much?

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Linoge wonders about the same thing I’ve always wondered: just how much is too much?

Whenever someone says “too many” or “too much” or even “too little”, that always brings an implication of “just the right amount.”

So what is that right amount? Someone will say that “oh that’s too much/little” and then I’ll reply asking them “OK, then what’s the right amount?” and no one can ever answer that…. unless it’s a knee jerk “one is too many” sort of reaction, like Linoge mentions.

Give his post a read.

Sen. Murray supports states rights (when it’s convenient)

/ hsoi

Joe Huffman has a nice little back and forth between himself and his US Senator Murray.

Joe’s original email was regarding support for the Thune Amendment. Says Sen. Murray:

Legislation to regulate the use of firearms is and should remain primarily a state issue.

Joe’s response:

Since you are of the opinion that legislation to regulate the use of firearms is, and should remain, primarily a state issue I presume I can count on your support of efforts to remove firearm regulations at the Federal level. I would like to suggest you introduce legislation to undo the continuing infringement of our rights inflicted by the following Federal firearms laws:

• National Firearms Act of 1934
• Gun Control Act of 1968
• The Hughes Amendment
• The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Once those are infringements have been successfully resolved I will be glad to provide you with a list of other Federal firearms laws that need to be eliminated as well.

Go read the whole thing.

Well done, Joe. I’m doubting you’ll get a response, or if you do that it will be anything more than boilerplate “thank you drive through”. Still, one can have a little hope that a worthwhile response may come from the Senator.

National Reciprocity – A step forward

/ hsoi / 9 Comments

Looks like amendment 1618 to S.1390, the national reciprocity effort of Sen. John Thune, passed the US Senate with a 58-39 majority. Obviously that’s bipartisan.

Good news.

Updated…. oh wait, I misread that. No, it didn’t pass. It needed 60 votes to pass, but the vote still demonstrated a majority. Hopefully this will enter into NRA grades for the upcoming elections. Shows you who is on what side of the fence for sure.

CNN article.

While it didn’t happen, I still think it’s a step forward. It still shows where the US Senators stand on such issues. It still shows that a majority can be had.

So what do you do?

/ hsoi

Caleb recounts how he just went to a concert and had to disarm himself. I’ve run into this same situation.

This is why we cannot be one-trick ponies, relying upon guns alone. To carry other weaponry such as a knife, collapsable baton, pepper spray (women will likely be able to get away with this more than men can) — a layered approach. But of course, even those may not be permissible given the venue. Thus all you are left with are your wits and your hands.

This is why it’s good to know how to use your empty hands.

But this is why it’s even better to know how to use your brain, keep your wits about you, be aware, and follow that first rule of self-defense: ABC — Always Be Cool. That seems to hold even moreso in a context like a concert, where cool is so much what it’s about.

Sotomayor and the NRA

/ hsoi

It took a while, but the NRA has officially come out against Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination for SCOTUS.

Certainly the NRA brings up Sotomayor’s anti-2A record:

Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

But I think a bigger judicial issue is involved, and one that should concern all US citizens, including those that may be pro gun-control:

The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment.  History and congressional debate are clear on this point.

Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation.

This is a larger issue (14A), and one generally hostile towards protecting and preserving the freedoms this country was founded upon.

In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual’s right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense.  In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States.  Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.

If she’s going to make such mistakes and disregard the ruling of the highest court — the one she’s now attempting to gain a seat upon — what sort of respect does she have for that court? And what sort of behavior is it to be so disregarding? Can the American Citizens trust such behavior?

What will make this rather interesting is apparently the NRA will count the Sotomayor vote towards NRA grade/score. We’ll see what happens.

Gun control works

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

… just a question of who does it work for.

Over at Howard Nemerov’s website, a little back and forth in one article’s comments lead to Howard writing a full follow-up article asking if civilian gun ownership causes bloodshed.

His conclusion? Gun control works:

Don’t like Jews or Catholics? Hitler disarmed them and then murdered millions in concentration camps, along with Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.

Hate Christians? After Uganda banned guns, 300,000 were rounded up and murdered.

Don’t like “smart” people? After banning guns, Cambodia rounded up and murdered over one million of them.

Hate people who disagree with you? After the Soviet Union established gun control, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.

Of course, if it works or not all depends whose side you’re wanting it to work for.

Howard continues:

By comparison, the Second Amendment has actually saved millions of lives. It also protects your right to religious freedom, your pursuit of happiness, and your opportunity for upward mobility. It raises the cost for thugs who want you rounded up and murdered.

It also shows that anybody who is against the civil right of self-defense is a person who hates your life, liberty, and happiness.

Why would you want to be disarmed before such a person?

Indeed, why would you?

For all those that love the protections 1A gives to the God-given rights enumerated therein, remember that it’s 2A that helps to preserve those rights. The facts of history bears this out.

It’s not about guns, it’s about liberty

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Howard Nemerov examines if the Second Amendment to the US Constitution actually works.

But he goes further than that:

According to some, every crime victim must successfully use a gun to fight off an intruder, and every criminal must be unable to use a gun in furtherance of their enterprise, or else the Second Amendment is a failure and should be removed from the Bill of Rights.

Curiously, these complainers never apply the same criterion against other rights. Since their comments seem to consistently evoke counter-points from other readers, it would seem their exercise of free speech isn’t getting them anywhere, so are they going to lobby for repeal of the First Amendment?

OH! They already have!

McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.

Fairness Doctrine.

Old Media coverage of the civil right of self-defense.

Their actions identify them as anti-Liberty. It’s not about guns.

Tools don’t matter. Actions with them do.

/ hsoi

Oleg Volk discusses the ethics of weapon use. (h/t to Robb Allen)

For those that may not want to click on this figuring it’s just some pro-gun justification rah-rah article, give it a read. Oleg has a rather well-thought out line of reasoning.