Friday, February 21, 2003

Bear Pond Books in Montpelier, Vt. will purge records of buyers to protect privacy despite the Patriot Act. They will purge records on demand by the customer & have already deleted their readers' club lists.

"Peggy Bresee was in Bear Pond Books recently to buy 'War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning' and 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy' as birthday gifts for a son who lives in Utah. She had the store purge the purchase records.
'It really does make me feel so much better,' she said. 'They're protecting those of us who are readers. It matters."

Unfortunately Ms. Bresee didn't ask David Gram, Associated Press Writer to not print the info she regarded as private in a syndicated news story!

Remember when the press was on our side?
Very few pilots will be able to carry guns initially & I'd imagine very few will want to submit to the additional testing & assinine regulations in the long run.

" 'There are going to be fewer pilots who are willing to go through an extensive vetting process,' Bates said. 'Unsafe and unworkable' is how he characterized the TSA's requirement that pilots carry guns in locked cases inside a bag when going to and from the airport."

"Because of financial constraints, only 48 pilots will be chosen to begin training, possibly in a month, the agency said...Though Congress didn't give the TSA any money to train pilots or pay for guns, the agency assembled $500,000 from various accounts for a test program. The agency has asked for $20 million to run a broader program."

"We're focusing on their ability to be a good federal law enforcement officer in a crisis situation at 48,000 feet," said TSA spokesman Robert Johnson.

To view a previous rant or two that addresses the first quote look here.

I'll take the third quote next: The object of arming pilots is not to make them federal, state or local law enforcement. This political manuveur is to prevent the support of the government of arming civilians, nothing more. the object of arming pilots is to give them another option besides being killed by a terrorist or an American F-16 if something happens.

Now, the middle quote concerning cost: Gunsite if I remember correctly offered free training for any pilots. The screening proposed is often redundant & totally unnecessary, so that's another big reduction in an estimate. Finally, have any pilot who wishes to be armed supply his/her own pistol & holster. Spend $100 on a lunch to come up with some guidelines for the training ( shoud we place the target 5 feet or a more realistic 5.25 feet away for the final test?) & there ya have it. $100 to arm pilots so they are able to shoot at a human attempting to get through a 2.5 foot door that's 5 feet away. I'm just wondering how did they come up with $20 million for that?

But the government could have cheap, very effective security anytime it wanted to by simply not infringing upon the citizens (including, but not limited to pilots) right to be armed & defend themselves. To bad the peoples' safety isn't really an objective.

Don Bird hopes to argue his Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court. Mr. Bird filed a lawsuit naming Cal. Gov. Grey Davis & several legislators after the passage of gun laws which he claims violates his rights. He now is asking the Supreme court to eithe rrule on his case or require the 9th circuit rule on it.

"Bird, who does not have an attorney, hopes his case is heard by the U.S. Supreme Court later this year.
Bird has labored on the case for more than two years now. According to the former Marine, he did all his own legal work and writing. Bird also funded the suit entirely on his own at an estimated cost of $5,000 for filing, refiling and copy costs."

$5,000???? He's only 5 grand in the hole & he's knocking on the Supreme Courts door? Kinda makes ya wonder about the NRA claiming not to have the cash to pursue certain cases involving Second Amendment rights, doesn't it? Perhaps they need to have Mr. Bird teach them about budgets & finance.
Lawyers suing gunmakers seek testimony from opposing counsel.

"A legal-ethics rule provides that in some circumstances a lawyer can be required to withdraw as an advocate when he becomes a witness. Roy D. Simon Jr., a legal ethics professor at Hofstra University School of Law, said the rule was intended to keep separate the role of lawyer and witness. Professor Simon said efforts to force lawyers to testify were often made in cases marked by extreme bitterness among lawyers. 'Any motion to disqualify a lawyer is a hostile act,' he said."

The NAACP filed the lawsuit in 1999. Read an earlier blog about the NAACP's suit here.
This has been floating around the web in one form or another for some time, but I felt it worthy of repeating here. Courtesy of The Federal Observer.

a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.17.
(US Dept. of Health & Human Services)

a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000019.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand.
As a public health measure I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention.
Apparently I am not the only "gun nut" who disagrees with Dale Bowman, our Fuddite of the Week.

"In our opinion, Mr. Bowman, you have established yourself as the following:
A racist misogynist of retarded sexual and emotional maturity, who possesses an unnatural and irrational fear of certain weapons, who fantasizes that some guns somehow possess demonic and/or supernatural powers, who holds that certain White men are the only ones who should enjoy the 'privilege' of owning only certain, expensive, approved-by-you, rifles and shotguns, and who shrilly parrots the politically correct anti-disarmament message of a long and infamous line of genocidal mass-murderers.
And you believe that people who who object to your position are 'gun nuts'?"

NYC does it again: an Airman (U.S.A.F.) who justifiably killed an intruder will be charged for illegal possession of a weapon. Also look here.
Apparently people in NYC have been choosing to defy the law & protect their lives quite a bit.
The following is from the Bronx attorney who is prosecuting Mr. Dixon, a vet who shot an intruder in his daughters room:

"In a statement released through his spokesman yesterday, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes said: 'We're not disputing that Mr. Dixon had a right to shoot the person who broke into his house. But he had no right to have that gun."

Huh??? How can one shoot someone, which was his right according to D.A. Hynes, if he would have not had the gun which according to D.A. Hynes was not his right?
I don't think D.A. is an abbreviation for District Attorney in Mr. Hynes case.
Denver, Colorado. A lovely area nestled on the edge of the plains as they prepare to meet the Rocky Mountains. The view is picturesque, the location is convenient, & the air is getting putrid. Smog? Not so much. Sanitation problems? Not exactly. Sewer leakage? We're getting closer.

Denver is a place where by city ordinance people are forbidden to have, use, or carry firearms. Not just concealed firearms, but firearms period. Unless you're a cop that is.
Colorado is a state with fairly liberal firearms laws, except that cities, towns & counties may enact their own laws in addition to state law. So the legality of your firearm can change from county to county & from city to city.
Do you see a potential for problems with this approach? So do some Colorado lawmakers who have proposed a bill that would forbid cities & counties from making laws that prohibit the carrying, owning or sale of firearms. The law seems to be on its way to passing the senate. Passing the House shouldn't be an issue. Whether or not the Governor will veto it is debatable, as he has shown every indication of being an ambitious ass especially when it's a question of gaining power at the expense of the people.
But where does the sewage leaks come into all this? Denver Mayor Wellington Webb. The Denver Post & Julia C Martinez. Senators Joan Fitzgerald (D-Golden). Senator Ken Gordon (D-Denver).
I refer you to this amazing attempt at unbiased coverage of the above mentioned Senate bill. Note that they did include a comment from the bill's sponsor (Sen. Dyer) as well as Senator Bob Hagedorn (D-Aurora). The story also has comments from Cynthia Stone of Colorado ceasefire (a local chapter of a gun control group) & Sam Mamet of the Colorado Municipal League who were both against the bill. So that's 6 opposed & 2 for the bill. A bill which past a preliminary vote in the state Senate. & no comments from any pro-gun groups in the area, of which there are several. Any more doubts about media bias?

But sadly, the worst of it follows:

"We will do everything legally in our power to uphold our constitutional rights and to assure we can continue to protect citizens of our city," Webb said.

Webb said he will not stand for gang members or anyone else besides law enforcement having access to guns at public functions, church activities and sporting events in Denver.

"This bill would strip the power of cities to protect their own citizens," said Cynthia Stone, spokeswoman for Colorado Ceasefire, a political advocacy group opposed to legislation it believes would put more guns on the streets.

"It still allows, in my opinion, home-rule cities to regulate the sale, purchase or possession of guns," Hagedorn said. "They just can't ban them."

So, according to Sen. Hagedorn, cities may still require a permit that costs $2,000,000 per day to own or possess weapons that were previously banned. Ms. Stone believes that cities are able to protect its citizens now but if the citizens are able to protect themselves then cities will magically lose that ability.

Mayor Webb disgusts me beyond words. He claims a constitutional right to infringe upon the constitutional rights of people unfortunate enough to be in his sphere of influence. He reminds me of a hypothetical Nazi who would claim he has a God given right to kill Jews. Perhaps not as hypothetical as Nazi gun control laws did disarm many Jews who could have fought back instead of being herded into the cattle cars.

So if you plan to come to Denver for any reason, be aware that the Mayor would rather see you dead than have you defend yourself. He cares more about his own petty power trips than he does your rights.

If you live in Denver or in Colorado (or both!) ostracize these people: don't vote for them; don't socialize with them; don't do business with them, etc...

But by all means write them if you are so inclined

Julia C. Martinez

Wellington E. Webb
Mayor of Denver

Joan Fitz-Gerald
Minority Leader of the Senate
Colorado State Senator, District 16
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303-866-2318
Fax: 303-866-4543

Assistant Minority Leader of the Senate
Colorado State Senator, District 35
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303-866-4875

Thursday, February 20, 2003

Further on Publicola's earlier mention of the Illinois Democrats' issuance of a call for the ban of the .500 S & W Magnum revolver:

Innocent ignorance is forgivable. Deliberate and malicious stupidity is a different matter.

It was bound to happen, I suppose. Less than a week after the close of the annual S.H.OT. show, during which Smith & Wesson formally announced the introduction of its new .500 S & W Magnum revolver, we are informed that The Honorable Danny Davis (D-Ill) is outraged.

Notwithstanding that this firearm weighs over 4-1/2 pounds empty, has a barrel over 8” long, is practically impossible to shoot with any degree of accuracy from a one-handed grip, and that the only available ammunition to feed it at this juncture costs over $2.00 per round, Rep. Davis feels that this firearm would be just the ticket for gang-bangers to stuff in their waistbands for a night on the town. To that end, he’s calling for a ban on the manufacture and sale of the model, claiming that “You don't go out hunting deer with a revolver.” Huh?

From Rep. Davis’ own home state, we have this. Roughly a quarter of the way down the page, you’ll note that the State of Illinois has special regulations for Handgun-Only deer hunting. Those of us who are sport shooters, hunters, and fishermen are constantly reminded that ignorance of the law won’t get you off the hook. That’s generally true for us, of course. However, if you’re a Statist legislator who can’t be bothered to familiarize himself with the regulations on the books governing your own constituency, you’ll probably get a pass. Far easier to trot out the standard Liberal playbook regarding gun control issues, and naturally you must remember to invoke the argument that “It’s For The Children(TM)”.

Note to Rep. Davis: Stick with something you know. This clearly isn’t it.

Further note to The Honorable Mr. Davis’ constituency: Vote this blight on the political landscape out of office at your earliest opportunity (now, sadly, more than a year hence).


I just noticed something that should be pointed out concerning Mr. Bowmans' most recent article:

"Farmer's was one of hundreds of responses to Sunday's column, "Hunters need to separate themselves from gun nuts.''
Most were regurgitations of National Rifle Association propaganda. Exactly the stuff that puts hunters in the lunatic fringe, where we can be marginalized and ostracized. There's a reason more than 90 percent of hunters don't belong to the NRA: It doesn't represent our views."

Now if 90% of hunters don't feel the NRA represents their views ( which in this case should be interpreted as being a pro-gun rights view rather than the actual NRA view) then why did most of the hundreds of emails Mr. Bowman received seem to be a regugitation of their views? ( again, it would probably be more correct to say a pro-gun rights view rather than an NRA view.)

If most were criticisms of Mr. Bowmans' article & views, then why does Mr. Bowman feel that his view is representative of most hunters?
Ah, the incredible ability of the Fuddite to presume his view is not only correct despite logic, reason & facts, but a view held by the majority.

Fuddites. Just like their namesake, they never seem to learn. Our Fuddite of the Week, Dale Bowman has written another article: this time on letters he received because of his previous article in which we learned what the term "Fuddite" means.

"Farmer's was one of hundreds of responses to Sunday's column, "Hunters need to separate themselves from gun nuts.''
Most were regurgitations of National Rifle Association propaganda. Exactly the stuff that puts hunters in the lunatic fringe, where we can be marginalized and ostracized. There's a reason more than 90 percent of hunters don't belong to the NRA: It doesn't represent our views."

The NRA has many many faults. I have ranted about them here, here, here, here, here, & here. I will not argue that the NRA does not represent gun owners effectively. What I will argue is why: it's not that the NRA is too extreme, it's that their too willing to compromise. They sell gun woners out to further their own political gains which I suspect is one of the reasons why only a percentage of gun owners are NRA members.

The other reason most people aren't NRA members can be exemplified by Mr. Bowman's perspective: if they ain't talking about my gun, I dont' care!
It seems that Mr. Bowman didn't care much for history either, or perhaps he'd remember the words of Pastor Martin Niemoller:

"In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Ah, the things history will teach us if only we'll listen.

Fuddites in general & Mr. Bowman in particular feel that banning certain guns or putting restrictions on ownership of any &/or all guns is not a big deal because they never contemplate that restrictions or bans will affect them personally. They don't mind bans on AK-47's because they don't own one & see no purpose for them. If only they realized that an Ak-47 is mechanically no different than a Remington 7400, a popular hunting rifle.
They don't mind bans on handguns because they see no legitimate sporting purpose in handguns. If only they realized that people use handguns for hunting all over the world.
They don't mind requiring permits because they don't have a problem with getting one. If only they realized that permits can be denied, even to them.
They just don't care about what restrictions get put on guns or gun ownership because they think it will never interfere with their ability to hunt.
If only they realized that guns are not just for sport: millions of people every year in this country alone use firearms to stop or prevent criminal attacks. If only they realized that the main reason we own guns is because owning weapons that enable us to hunt for our own survival, & more importantly owning weapons to protect our lives ( from animals, criminals & oppresive governments) is a right. It is not subject to a majority vote, nor is it subject to what they believe they need to bag their trophy of choice. Owning weapons , even weapons they do not believe they or anyone else needs should not be subject to a vote.
If only they realized that the same mechanisms they approve of to ban certain kinds of guns or place certain restrictions on ownership can be used to take away their hunting guns. Once you establish a legal justification for banning one type of arms it is not that hard to justify banning other types. The only difference between an AK-47 & a Remington 7400 is magazine capacity & cosmetics. They both function in an identical manner. In fact the Remongton 7400 can be chambered in more powerful calibers than the AK-47, so it's reasonable to assume that the Remington 7400 would be more dangerous & therefore more desireable to ban than an AK-47. Their "wabbit guns" (shotguns) are the most devastating close range weapon available, so their ban wouldn't be far behind. & their deer rifles? You mean those sniper rifles capable of shooting a man at 300 yards or more? Guns that shoot twice the distance of the gun the D.C. Sniper used? Of course their on the list of guns to be banned. Handguns, like the one most Fuddites or their wives carry or have at the house? Yep, they're the target of a lot of gun bans.

The Fuddites, among them Mr. Bowman are self concerned creatures. They lack the reasoning to see beyond their own present needs. They ridicule anyone who doesn't see things from their limited viewpoint as radicals, extremists, or "gun nuts". They mistakenly credit the NRA as being an extremist organization who represents gun manufacturers rather than people.
If I were a gun manufacturer or a Firearms retailer I would think twice about selling one round of ammunition to these Fuddites who went along with plans to limit peoples' rights as well as limit my business. That'd be a pleasant scene wouldn't it? "I'm sorry Mr. Bowman, since you are in favor of restricting my livelyhood as well as my rights, I'm afraid you'll have to find some way to make your own ammunition & firearms."

Sadly, Fuddites such as Mr. Bowman will not learn untill it's too late the treachery they are condoning.

If you live in Illinois, I would recomend boycotting any business, such as the "Outdoors with Mike Norris" radio show & the Chicago-Sun Times in which Mr. Bowman writes an "outdoors" column, as well as ostracizing him socially if he is an aquaintence, & finally inform the owner of any gunshops he frequents that you will not do business their as long as he does.
Is all of the above a bit drastic? Not when you consider what Mr. Bowman & other Fuddites are doing to our freedoms. Will it make a difference? Probably not in the grand scheme of things, but if any of the above makes a Fuddite re-think their position I'd be for it. Besides, social & economic exile is the only acceptable way to treat people who would endanger our freedoms in a non-violent manner.

2 Illinois Democrats are targeting the .500 S&W Magnum for a ban. They claim it's not suitable for hunting & will become a favorite weapon of gangs. They also liken the 5 shot revolver to an "assault weapon"

"But Davis said the .50 caliber revolver, which weighs 72.5 ounces and has an overall length 15-inch has no purpose in society except to cause injury and death to humans, dismissing the manufacturer's claim that it is intended for hunting wild game."

."Currie compared the 500 Magnum to "military-style assault weapons," although she had no information to base her claims on except for a "tip" received from a reporter."

Well what do you expect from a state where carrying a weapon outside your home is illegal, & having a weapon inside your home is illegal unless you have a governmental permission slip?

Apparently I am not the only one to differ with the above quoted, legislators. Here are some letters written by hunters who disagree with their representatives.

"...the most accurate information in his article was by Illinois State House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, when she made the remark ‘I’m not a weapons expert.’
No, indeed she is not, nor is Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill), who, ignoring the merits of the S&W 500, just came out and said, ‘I think guns are made to kill people. That’s my opinion.' "

"Tell the blowhard city slickers we can make our own 500s if we want to. They would all be surprised to know how self-reliant the folks are in the neighborhoods where trouble isn't.
What a bunch of weasels. When is weasel season anyway?”

As a side note, I am impressed by Micheal L. Betsch's unbiased treatment of the story. It is typical to only hear the view of those who wish to have more gun control. Having Larry Pratt of GOA comment on the matter was refreshing to see in a news story.
Want to help make a difference? I mean a real difference, not just support the NRA's efforts to keep their jobs? is asking for donations to help Citizens Of America with their preperations for the Silveira vs. Lockyer appeal. This is the case which occassioned the recent 9th circuit ruling that claims the second amendment confers only a collective right to own & possess arms, not an individual one. The appeal could very well make it to the Supreme Court. If you're interested in helping &/or wish to find out more, please look here.
Ilana Mercer in a WorldNetDaily column has an article about globalization & it's dangers.

"A global government, moreover, constitutes the ultimate monopoly, since it straddles all nations. Once subject to global enforcement, inhabitants of nation-states have no escape routes. They cannot contest U.N. policies by upping and leaving. Once the same laws and regulations blanket all nations alike, citizens will be trapped."

"That the U.N. is working diligently to homogenize laws the world over is, incidentally, a source of delight to national leaders. These leaders don't want to have to stay competitive in order to keep productive people and their capital in their jurisdictions. The real U.S. sovereignty violators then are successive American governments. By becoming signatories to global wealth-distributing agreements and assorted schemes that place Americans under U.N. jurisdiction, our own governments continue to betray us."

It's something you should read & consider.

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Remember when Congress voted that pilots should be armed? The TSA knew that they didn't mean every pilot. To view a previous rant on the same subject, look here.

As is so aptly pointed out, if a pilot is considered trustworthy enough to fly an aircraft, why wouldn't that automatically be seen as evidence that he can be trusted with a gun? After all, if a pilot really did want to kill everyone on board, he'd just have to lean.
My contention however, is not that every pilot be armed, but every passenger as well. We do not give up our rights, including the right to self defense & the right to arms, just because we take a trip in a plane.
A 14 year old girl is the latest casualty in the War on Drugs. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the killing of citizens by federal agents one of the things that the Constitution was supposed to have prevented?
The good informants in Florida are on the job. It is regretable that the owner of the property consented to the search on the reasoning that he didn't have anything illegal. Then again, it's regretable that the mere sight of weapons will make some people switch directly to "Stasi citizen informer" mode.

Tuesday, February 18, 2003

A wealthy group of Democrats are attempting to start a Liberal radio network.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the left already had a voice in this country. It's called mainstream media.
Is H.R. 648 a good gun control law? .
Robert Greenslade has an article on the federalist vs. anti-federalist approach to the second amendment(i.e. the second amendment did not create a right as the right was pre-existing & the bill of rights constrained government as opposed to empowering the people.) It's worth a read.

Monday, February 17, 2003

The JPFO is working on a documentary that will explore gun control & the genocides committed by various governments in the 20th century. They need your help. Unlike Bowling for Columbine they are attempting to present a factual representation of what the cost of gun control ultimately is. & unlike Micheal Moore they do not have unlimited resources. Visit their page about the movie & watch the intro they have put together, then give what you can.
In D.C. citizens are not allowed to have weapons. Goverment officials seem to approve of the ban on weapons for the individual. This could be why. Of course the citizenry doesn't need weapons. They should just hire a body guard or two like every low level politician does. I mean if they can pay for it with government money - money they get from you, then you should be able to afford it too.
Today class we will discuss the term "Fuddite".
A Fuddite is not a member of an ancient people, or perhaps he is after all. A Fuddite is a person who feels no threat from gun control as long as the gun control is not aimed specifically at his "wabbit huntin" gun. As you can surmise the term is derived from that wascally character Elmer Fudd.
Fuddites represent a very real danger to themsleves & to us all. They do not oppose, & sometimes even condone gun control measures that leave their hunting guns alone. Their motto is "I don't need that to hunt ducks or rabbits" & they are almost zealous in their attempts to shun reality. Should any attempt be made to reason with them that when one gun is threatened all guns are threatened, they are quicker than an anit gunner to label you as a "gun nut". Likewise attempts at explaining to them the real reason behind the second amendment will be met with slanderous retorts about your ancestry. Fuddites find it painful to think that the second amendment right to bear arms does not in fact protect duck or wabbit hunting, but rather the peoples right to throw off a tyrannical government.

One day the Fuddites will arise & find that since the anti gun crowd has banned everything else, they will turn their attention on the Fuddites most prized possession: his hunting shotgun (or rifle). But by then the Fuddites will be the only one left having arms. & their calls for help will be unanswered as those bitter "gun nuts" recall to them how they helped ban this gun or that gun. Ironically if left to his own devices the Fuddite, who would sacrifice everything crucial to everyone else, would end up losing the thing most crucial to him: his hunting shotgun (or rifle). More ironic still, the "gun nuts" he so distains are the only thing keeping his hunting shotgun (or rifle) safe. His strategy of giving up the freedoms of others because he fails to realize he is giving up his own freedoms will one day prove more than even the "gun nuts" can handle. You see, while there are very ardent "gun nuts" which would fight to the death to preserve the Fuddites right to own arms, they are not very many, whereas the Fuddites are too numerous to count. It is these overwhelming numbers that will prove to be the downfall of "gun nut" & Fuddite alike, for the majority elects the people who make the laws. As Fuddites think the sole extent of liberty is hunting, they do not heed the warnings of the "gun nuts" who warn them of a legislators scheme to banish all guns. In fact some Fuddites support the banishment of all guns, save their hunting shotgun (or rifle). So the Fuddites vote for legislators who promise to extend wabbit season if they can ban all guns, knowing that they would never, ever, ever ban the Fuddites hunting shotgun (or rifle).
Now ask yourself this: are you a Fuddite? Is your neighbor a Fuddite? If you are not sure & need yet another example you may find it here.

The best strategy for dealing with a Fuddite is explaining the principles upon which this nation was founded. Referencing the Decleration of Independence, the Constitution, the writings of Jefferson, Adams, etc... Then attempt to enlighten him to the atrocities commited in the 20th century by governments against their own people. The JPFO is a helpful resource for this. Finally explain to him that the goal of every gun control group is to ban his hunting shotgun (or rifle). Explain that they accomplish this incrementally, first going after the assault rifles, then the handguns, then the junk ( read affordable) guns, untill finally they will come for his hunting shotgun (or rifle).
Should all of the above fail, simply refuse to do business with him. Refuse to socialize with him. Exclude him from your circle of friends. Through his own ignorance & selfishness he has become your worst enemy, & because of his lack or reason he will endanger every freedom that you hold dear: he will endanger the very lives of your family.
That is todays lesson about the Fuddite: may he soon be extinct.

The Fuddite who inspired this blog is Dale Bowman. He can be reached at He apparently has a radio show. "Bowman's Outdoor Line'' is heard on "Outdoors with Mike Norris'' (3-4 p.m. Thursdays, 1280-AM).
I would also recomend anyone in the Chicago area call the station & let them know you will not be a loyal listener with Fuddites on their roster.

Sunday, February 16, 2003

It's more distrust of government than actual hate. I do get irritated with any institution that is supposed to protect the public but ends up harming the public, but it is more of a distrust & dislike of what the institution has become than actual hate.
Take concealed carry laws for instance:

Permits are just that: Permits. They are permissions slips that say you may do something & without them you may not do something. To some a permit is no big deal. To me & a few others, it is. For various ideological & philosophical & moral reasons, permits are the same as saying you cannot carry. The conditions you have to submit yourself to don't seem that bad on the surface, but there are some who view them as insulting.

A permit does not nor has it ever prevented a person from carrying. What the permit system does is make every time a person carries a weapon a potential for conflict with the law. Some officers who don't seem to fathom how serious rights are to people are the most direct threat that a person will face. It isn't that anyone wants conflict, & I doubt the officers would either, but some people carry when they feel the need.

Now the source of the problem is the state law that violates my rights. The blame can be directly laid on a lawmaker. Specifically laws governing the manner of carry were instituted during reconstruction as a way to keep black people from having guns. So in a way the lawmakers of the 1870's & 1880's are responsible for this, but then again so are all the lawmakers who went along with a system rooted in racism designed to impair an individuals rights. & again, so are all the people who enforced those laws with or without thinking, just as all the people who submitted themselves to those laws share an equal part of the blame.
But cops are in the toughest spot of all excepting that of the citizen. They have to decide whether or not to enforce a law: whether they are duty bound to enforce a law or whether their conscience prevents them from doing so. The legislator writes a law or simply votes on it, and then he's done. Cops have to implement it. The people have to live with it, or change it.
Say a cop catches someone with a pistol & no permit. Say they comply fully with the cop. Most cops would first confiscate the weapon & then try to get the person to offer some sort of explanation. If the person told the cop, in concise detail why the laws requiring a carry permit exceeded the authority of any state, then most cops would probably politely dismiss them as a person who’s a little off balance & take them to the station. The cop would confiscate their pistol & deprive them of freedom solely because they were carrying an object for which they did not have the right permission slip for. This is without any other mitigating circumstances. By force or threat of force the cop would have them comply with the states' will regardless of the rights that we all have. Instead of taking someone with violent intent off the streets, the cop would be taking away someone who just wants to live a peaceable life & be left alone by the government. Can you understand how some may view that as a greater injustice than carrying a piece of metal w/o permission?
But it is the cop who either risks his job for the sake of conscience or violates a persons' rights for the sake of following orders. Ubfortunately for us, I suspect the latter is more common than the former.

Arresting someone for the mere possession of a weapon is a textbook example of prior restraint.
Now we all have heard that no right is absolute, that one may not yell fire in a crowded theater, right? Well it's like this:
Yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no danger is not the exercise of a right, but the abuse of one. It can cause damage as a direct consequence. A person may break their leg running out of the building or someone may get trampled. But I don't think anyone would argue that talking about ones' religion to a friend in a public square would be an abuse of that right, even though in talks of religion there is the chance of a heated debate escalating into a fight, perhaps even a holy war. In both cases the speech itself is not dangerous; it's the actions that are caused by the speech which may cause harm.
Now prior restraint is the idea of restricting something not because it directly causes harm but because it has the potential to set in motion things which cause harm. It assumes that the worse outcome is guaranteed & seeks to prevent the action which causes the action which causes the harm.
If we were to apply prior restraint to the first amendments' free speech guarantee, then it would be permissible to gag a person the second he walked into a theater simply because he may yell fire if left unrestrained. Not because he showed any indications of wanting to yell fire, but simply because he has the ability.
Prior restraint is flawed in that it pre-punishes for an action that is only possible. No one blames you for breaking their leg or getting trampled because you are able to yell fire in that crowded theater of renown, but prior restraint punishes you for being able to yell fire.
So under the correct way of viewing free speech, a person is not gagged when he walks into a theater. He is not restrained in any way & it is forbidden to restrain him. He is free to say or not say what he pleases. It is his choice whether to restrain himself from yelling fire or to give in to that temptation. But even as he draws the very breath that he would use to yell fire, his speech is protected & cannot be lawfully restrained.
Once a person yells fire then they are to be appropriately punished, but not one second before fire comes out of his mouth. He is presumed to be innocent & capable of restraining himself when appropriate until he gives cause to be restrained, & that is in principle one of the cornerstones of the English jurisprudence on which our system of laws is based: Innocent until proven guilty.
Now concealed carry of a weapon is no different than the free speech example, except that most people would never question the ability of a state to use prior restraint concerning guns, whereas if it were attempted upon free speech, the people would not stand for it.
Requiring a permit before you may carry says to society that an individual is incapable of being trusted with certain things until the state gives its approval. It says the individual must have state approval & meet certain criteria because of the potential that an individual left unchecked would do great harm. It says because there's a chance you will abuse your right then you must be closely supervised & restricted in that right. It is no different than requiring gags on anyone who would walk into a crowded theater unless they passed a state test & received a permit to be ungagged. & again it is no different than punishing someone who refused to submit to a permit or wear a gag simply because he may see an actual fire & have to sound the alarm for his sake & the rest of the theater patrons. It is no different than saying that you must remained gagged & if you do see a fire then you must seek out someone with a permit to remain ungagged or seek out a state official to sound the alarm of fire.
The carrying of a weapon w/o a permit however is not like yelling fire in a crowded theater for no reason. It does harm to no one & causes no harm to ones' self. If a person used that concealed arm to rob a man, or shoot an innocent person, then that would be comparable to yelling fire, as they both cause direct harm. Carrying a weapon in & of itself to paraphrase Jefferson neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.
Having laws against the misuse of weapons are within a state or a community's powers. It should be illegal to pistol-whip someone, or to use a firearm as a form of threat or coercion, just as it should be illegal to discharge a firearm in a crowded street. But the mere carrying of a firearm, even concealed, is no more a danger to the public than carrying a pencil & paper. Both may be abused, but merely possessing them on your person does not cause the abuse. & the more people who are free to carry, truly free to carry, the less bold criminals will be. So carrying concealed should not require a permit, as it is a right. Just as much as carrying openly or merely possessing in your home.
To restrict who may carry based upon a permit system is a form of discrimination. But instead of the criteria being race, the criteria are that of morals, & ideology & philosophy. It discriminates against those who will not submit to the conditions in order to exercise a right, as well as those who are fooled into thinking that they must submit to those conditions in order to exercise a right.

& as a practical matter, have you ever heard of a person who did not rob the liquor store he had been planning to rob because he couldn't get his permit renewed? Or a hit man who took a few months off because he forgot to apply for his permit?

A permit system places a burden solely on those who are not the source of violent crime. It not only involves short term burdens, but in the long run it conditions people to accept whatever limits a state may choose to set. The greatest short term danger of all is worth a brief mention, though I won't go into it in depth: firearm owner registration
Again, carrying concealed is no different than carrying openly. & both means of carry are no different than the freedom of speech. It is equally wrong to use prior restraint in one case or the other. The benefits, both theoretical & practical, are far outweighed by the detriments.
That's a glimpse into the prior restraint argument & how it applies to CCW, & why cops should stop arresting people whose only crime is carrying a weapon without a permit, & why D.A.'s should not press charges for "illegal possesion", & why judges should dismiss these kind of charges. Lest we forget, it is also why we should vote against anyone who would propose or support these kinds of laws.

This is more or less a response to a debate about Florida's Concealed Weapon Law, Florida's Constitution, Rights, & accountability. It's a slow news day so I thought I'd include it here.

As to the Florida constitution, you refer to the 1998 constitution revised in 1998. Let's walk a little down memory lane shall we?

Florida Constitution of 1838

Article 1

Section 1. That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 21. That the free white men of this State shall have the right to keep and to bear arms, for their common defense.

Section 27. That to guard against transgressions upon the rights of the people, we declare that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

Florida Constitution of 1861

Article 1

Section 1. That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 21. That the free white men of this state shall have the right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense.

Section 27. That to guard against transgressions upon the rights of the people, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

Florida Constitution of 1865

Article 1

Section 1. That all freemen when they form a government, have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 26. That, to guard against transgressions upon the rights of the people, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

Notice anything different? An omission perhaps? Here’s the explanation:

Article 16

Section 1. Whereas, slavery has been destroyed in this State by the Government of the United States; therefore, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall in future exist in this State, except as a punishment for crimes, whereof the party shall have been convicted by the courts of the State, and all the inhabitants of the State, without distinction of color, are free, and shall enjoy the rights of person and property without distinction of color.

Florida Constitution of 1868

Article 1

Section 1. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Section 22. The people shall have the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State.

Section 24. This enunciation of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

Its back, but section 27 of the previous constitutions had been omitted in favor of section 24 above.

Florida Constitution of 1885

Declaration of Rights

Section 1. All men are equal before the law, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing happiness and obtaining safety.

Section 20. The right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne.

Section 24. This enunciation of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

Article 16

Section 24. All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent to the fourth generation, inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited.

Amendment to the Florida Constitution 1962


We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, form a more perfect government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.

Florida Constitution of 1968

Declaration of Rights

Section 1. Political Power. All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.

Section 2. Basic Rights. All natural persons are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, po ssess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race or religi on.

Section 8. Right to Bear Arms. The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

Section 12

Section 10. Preservation of Existing Government. All provisions of Articles I through IV, VII and IX through XX of the Constitution of 1885, as amended, not embraced herein which are not inconsistent with this revision shall become statutes subject to modification or repeal as are other statutes.

Amendment to the Florida Constitution 1998


Section 2. Basic rights.

All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability handicap.

Here’s the link to the Florida Constitution Revision Commission where I found the above specific links.

Now the first 2 constitutions stated that the free white men of Florida have the right to bear arms. 2 things stick out: the most glaring is the idea that this right would only apply to free white males, thereby excluding free white females, non-free white males, & all black people, Indians, etc…
The other thing is the omission of any language qualifying the carrying of arms as something subject to legislation.
Further the preamble & section 27 states that rights are necessary for individuals as well as society & there are some things that are not to be subjected to the whims of the legislature. In other words, they are out of government’s control.

In 1865 the omission of the arms clause can be explained by a desire to keep weapons out of the hands of newly freed slaves. But the sections declaring that some rights were off limit from the legislature were kept intact.

Now in 1868 we have a return to the clause about arms, minus the free white male clause. & the preamble is similar, stating that inherent rights are retained by the individuals. But the clause stating that certain things were off limits to the government was replaced by a clause that simply said rights not enumerated are just as valid as the enumerated ones.
That brings us to 1885, where the language about the manner in which arms are carried may be regulated appears.The1885 constitution also contains a constitutional prohibition on interracial marriage.
They amended the preamble in 1962. It differs a bit from the previous one, but the main reason for inclusion is to show that the 1885 constitution was still in place, as well as show what the purpose of a constitution is.

The 1968 version restates some things we have seen in earlier versions such as: that because a right is not listed specifically does not mean it does not exist; life liberty & property, among others & the defense of those are inherent & inalienable. It also states that certain provisions of the previous constitution would revert to a status of law & be continued or repealed at the legislature’s whim. This would include the prohibition upon interracial marriage, which at that point should have been a state law rather than a constitutional provision.
I could not find any amendments repealing the prohibition on interracial marriage prior to 1968 so I assume it was still in the constitution & in 68 reverted to being a law. I’m sure it was repealed at some point between 1968 & now, but I’m too lazy to search through pages of statute law looking for the exact date. Then again, there’s the possibility that it has been overlooked & is still valid law in Florida.
It also includes the language concerning the manner of carry to be up to the state.

& in 98 again it reaffirms that certain rights are inalienable, such as enjoyment & defense of life, liberty & property.

Why do I point all this out you may ask? To show you that a constitution can be just as flawed as a law, & that some laws as well as some parts of the constitution should not be obeyed or enforced even if they were established legally.
At a point in Florida’s history, the right of self defense & the tools necessary for it were viewed as available to white men only. But during that period they had no qualms about how those arms were carried. It was only when black people achieved freedom & were subject to the same rights as white men that they added a qualifier. The language itself states that it’s an infringement to regulate the method of carry, but one they’ll allow.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.”

“…shall not be infringed, except…”

It says that it will infringe upon a right but in a limited way. It doesn’t say that legislating how arms may be carried is not an infringement, but rather an infringement they will allow.

Up until very recently the Florida constitution viewed interracial marriage as a criminal offense. Now most of us realize that denying marriage to people on the basis of skin color is not a very defensible practice, yet until at least he 1960’s it was unconstitutional to marry outside your race. Despite the other parts of the constitution that mentions inalienable rights & the equality of all under the law, this prohibition was upheld.

The point of all this is that rights are inherent. They don’t happen upon us by the grace of a government or a constitution. They just are. Constitutions as well as laws as supposed to acknowledge & protect those rights. But as you see sometimes they are in direct opposition to them.

My claim that requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon is unconstitutional is partially correct, & partially incorrect. If you go strictly by the language concerning arms, then constitutionally Florida may prohibit carrying concealed or carrying openly. But if you look at the constitution as a whole, & at the basic reasons for having a constitution then they cannot infringe upon your right to carry a weapon for defense in any way.

Further if you look at the probable reasoning behind the Florida constitutions allowing an infringement of your right to carry, then that should make it even more suspect. I don’t think it a coincidence that when white males were the only ones allowed to own & carry arms there were no restrictions permissible by the state, but when black people had the same claim to rights the white men did, first they omitted bearing arms as a right altogether then they put a qualifier on it.

Now in 1865 do you think that bearing arms was less of a right because it wasn’t mentioned in the constitution of Florida? Do you think prior to 1865 it was an infringement for the government to deny arms to black people? Then do you not think that it’s possible for the practice of legislating how arms can be carried to be a violation of your rights?

The constitution of any state or nation is not the final word on rights. Neither is any court or any group of people. All a government or court can do is protect rights or harm them. They cannot make them go away, nor legislate them into nonexistence. Rights will exist as long as there are people who recognize them, exercise them, & fight for them. Inclusion or exclusion from a government document, even a constitution does not alter rights, only their treatment.
So I submit to you that carrying a weapon concealed is a right, just as carrying a weapon openly is a right, just as owning a weapon in your own home is a right. Anyone who diminishes that right, or attempts to deny it to the individuals who possess it, is guilty of perhaps the gravest sin man can commit against man. From the drafters of a constitution to the legislators to the governor to the justices to the attorneys to the cop on the beat, any who violate another’s rights have no defense that should excuse them.
It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Can ignorance of persons’ rights be any different? Are rights to be held up to a lesser standard than the law whose purpose it is to protect rights?

These are some of the reasons why I am against concealed carry permits. They are also some of the reasons that I do not approve of those who support & enforce them. If I am in error feel free to correct me.