Second Amendment – Dean Cook

Transporting A Firearm By Airplane

“The threat of sudden destruction, of unpredictable retaliation for unnamed offenses, is a much more potent means of enslavement than explicit dictatorial laws. It demands more than mere obedience; it leaves men no policy save one: to please the authorities; to please—blindly, uncritically, without standards or principles; to please—in any issue, matter or circumstance, for fear of an unknowable, unprovable vengeance.” (“Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason”, Ayn Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/law,_objective_and_non-objective.html)

Introduction and Disclaimer

(This is a fictional story that I 100% made up, and it sooooo DID NOT happen. Any resemblance to any persons, living or dead, specifically, me, is purely coincidental.)

This summer, I took a vacation to Miami, Florida. I was going to drive there, but I got sick the night before I was to leave. I originally planned to depart Thursday morning, but I was in no condition to drive Thursday. I decided to purchase a plane ticket Friday to make up for the lost time.

I would have carried a gun in a car, as I was driving through “gun-friendly” Southern states that all recognize my Texas gun license or that do not require a permit at all. This is common when I travel by car. If I can legally travel with a gun, then it is very likely I will do so. The gun is part of the kit of safety items I like to have in a car. Other items in my car include: (1) small fire extinguisher, (2) road flares, (3) first aid kit, (4) gas can, (5) sleeping bag, (6) candle (in winter time), (7) matches.

Florida recently changed its gun laws to allow for concealed carry without a permit. In fact, the law changed while I was there, on July 1. (https://www.flgov.com/2023/04/03/governor-ron-desantis-signs-hb-543-constitutional-carry/) However, before July 1, I was legal to carry in Florida because the state recognizes my Texas gun license. (https://www.fdacs.gov/Consumer-Resources/Concealed-Weapon-License/Concealed-Weapon-License-Reciprocity)

I believe there is an element of arbitrariness in the rules and regulations regarding transporting a gun on an airplane. Proceed at your own risk, after doing your own research, or consulting with an attorney. (By way of disclaimer: Don’t take anything I say as legal advise, I’m just some dude on the Internet, yada, yada, yada…)

Researching It Ahead of Time

I’ve known for years that you can technically check a firearm as luggage on most airlines, but I was always hesitant to do that because I didn’t want to accidentally run afoul of some random and unknown law or regulation.

Not only do you have to be familiar with the gun laws of the state you are flying from, you also have to know the laws of the state you are flying to. For instance, I would never, under any circumstances, try to check a gun when flying to any of the states in the Northeastern United States or the West Coast. I believe that being in possession of a handgun without proper permitting and licensing in New York is a felony, and although I might be able to legally check it under Federal law, once I land in New York, I am subject to that state’s highly arbitrary, capricious, and draconian gun laws.

I had lived in the State of Florida for several years as a law student, and had actually possessed a Florida concealed carry permit at that time. I was reasonably familiar with the laws, and with my ability to look them up online and confirm what I could and could not do while carrying a gun in Florida.

For this reason, in this situation, the only laws that were a cause for concern for me were the Federal laws regarding the transport of firearms on an airplane. I did some online research, and looked at the Transportation Safety Administration rules. Surprisingly, the TSA has a web page regarding the transport of firearms, and it provides relatively clear guidance. (https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunition )

I also looked at my airline’s web site, which, in this case, was Southwest Airlines. (https://www.southwest.com/help/baggage/special-baggage-sports-equipment) Southwest provides pretty good guidance on what type of case to put the unloaded firearm in (a hard, locked container that is of sufficient strength to withstand normal handling), as well as how to package your ammo (securely packed in cardboard, wood, or metal boxes designed for carrying small amounts of ammo).

I would recommend flying on Southwest Airlines, or some other airline based in Texas or one of the Southern states, if you plan on transporting a gun by plane. I believe the people working there are more likely to be from Texas or a state with a “gun-culture”, so the employees you deal with will be less likely to be nervous around firearms.

The Gun I Transported To Florida

I decided to take my Smith and Wesson Airweight .38 revolver. (https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/model-442) It only holds five rounds, and is a relatively small caliber weapon, but it is easily concealable, and comfortable to carry. It also has a nice, heavy trigger pull, which I prefer. It’s a revolver, which I think makes it less “scary” to people. I also think that it is more likely to be a “legal” gun in more jurisdictions. I wouldn’t have to worry about some obscure state law regarding magazine capacity bans, for instance. But, the main reason I went with the revolver is because it’s a fairly inexpensive gun, so if it got lost or stolen, I wouldn’t be that upset about it.

How I Packed My Gun And Ammunition For Transport

I used a small aluminum gun case, about a foot wide by about eight inches tall, with a combination lock built into it. Inside the case was foam to cushion the gun. It was similar to, although not exactly the same as, this.

I was somewhat uncertain on how to pack the ammunition. The rules on the TSA web site were not entirely clear to me. I knew the gun had to be unloaded, but how to store the ammunition? The TSA web site said: “For civil enforcement purposes, TSA also considers a firearm to be loaded when both the firearm and ammunition are accessible to the passenger.” https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunition Did this mean that the ammunition needed to be in a separate container entirely from the firearm? Or, was the context TSA was talking about there for whether a firearm was loaded when you tried to go into the secure area of the airport? I thought this is what they meant, but I didn’t want to rely on something so vague. Fortunately, further down, on the same web page, TSA says: “Ammunition may be transported in the same hard-sided, locked case as a firearm if it has been packed as described above.” Southwest also said the same: “The ammunition may be placed in the same container as the firearm…” https://www.southwest.com/help/baggage/special-baggage-sports-equipment The TSA web site also referenced actual federal regulations on the matter: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-175#175.10

Additionally, the TSA web site said that: “Small arms ammunition (up to .75 caliber and shotgun shells of any gauge) must be packaged in a fiber (such as cardboard), wood, plastic, or metal box specifically designed to carry ammunition and declared to your airline.” https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunition I thought that the cardboard box that you buy ammunition in would qualify, although I was not 100% certain on that. This is what I chose to do. To be really certain, I think I’d get a dedicated plastic box meant for holding ammunition, if doing it again. Something like this.

Flying Out of Dallas Love Field

Love Field is the primarily airport that Southwest Airlines uses out of the Dallas area. Checking the gun here was fairly easy.

Southwest has electronic kiosks that allow you to print out the tags to put on your luggage yourself. I approached one of these, and got the stickers that go around the handle of the suitcase. I got one for my suitcase and one for the gun case.

I had called up a friend who is a shooting instructor that day and asked him if he had flown with a gun checked in luggage before, and he said he had. I said I was planning on checking the gun case as a separate piece of luggage.

Southwest says that you can put the gun case inside your suitcase if you want, but I was nervous about that. The reason being is if the gun case was inside my suitcase, I might forget to declare it. If you do not declare it, I believe this is a criminal offense, although I could not find the specific statute that says this. At any rate, when TSA x-rays the luggage, they will see the gun, and you will not have a good time, regardless of whether you get arrested. (And, I’m sure you’ll get arrested.)

I told my friend about this concern, and he pointed out that having the gun case out on its own was going to make it obvious I was checking a firearm, which might make it more likely to get stolen by someone working at the airport, plus it would make the airport employees more nervous to see the gun case. I thought this was also a valid point, but I decided this was less of a danger than forgetting to declare the gun at the ticket counter.

So, anyway, I got the stickers for the gun case and my suitcase at the electronic kiosk, I then walked up to the line to the ticket counter. There was a Southwest employee standing at the end of the line, and he asked me what was in the gun case. (It was pretty obvious it was a gun case, because it was too small to be anything else.) I said “firearm” in as flat and calm a voice as I could. This was my only problem at Love Field. The Southwest employee said something like: “You were supposed to check that over there,” and he motioned with his hand to someplace non-descript. Then he added: “But, you can do it here, too”. This was a point of confusion for me. Southwest says: “You must declare the gun at the ticket counter…”(https://www.southwest.com/help/baggage/special-baggage-sports-equipment ) But, I wasn’t sure what “the ticket counter” was. Is that the electronic kiosks that issues your boarding pass and the stickers for the luggage? I hadn’t seen an option on the computer to declare the firearm. I assumed the “ticket counter” was where you checked your luggage. This Southwest employee seemed to think there was some other place, but he never specified. This is exactly the sort of problem you are likely to encounter when transporting a gun by plane. The employees and law enforcement at the airport don’t seem to know the law or the rules, and there is an element of arbitrariness in them because things like “ticket counter” are not well-defined. You risk arrest and prosecution because words are subject to conflicting interpretations.

I waited my turn in the luggage check-in line, and was initially helped by a younger woman. I held up the gun case and said: “This is a firearm I need to declare.” The younger woman called over an older woman who was presumably her supervisor. The older woman explained to her what she needed to do. The older woman handed me a small slip of paper about the size of an index card that said “Southwest Airlines Firearms Declaration Tag”, and had a spot for my name and address, as well as my airline flight number. On the back was a series of statements that said things like “The firearm chamber is free of ammunition”, with a place to sign at the bottom. I signed the card and handed it back to the older woman. She said: “Do you want to put the gun case inside your suit case?” I said: “I can if you want me to.” She said something like: “It’s better that way because a little case like yours is likely to walk off somewhere.” I unlocked my suit case, and the Southwest employee put the gun in there. She tossed the firearms declaration card on top of the gun case, which surprised me a bit, since it might become separated from the gun case during transit. I told the Southwest employee the lock on the suitcase was TSA-compliant, so they should be able to open it without any problem, then closed and locked my suitcase.

From there, I headed to the security checkpoint, and passed through that, which isn’t too difficult for me, because I have the TSA pre-check ID number.

Flying Out of Miami International Airport

I got so nervous about flying back from Miami International Airport, I considered either shipping the gun back to Texas, or selling it at a pawn shop.

Both of those options would have been difficult, however. My understanding is I cannot ship a gun unless it is done through a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer. I wasn’t even sure that an out of state person in Florida could sell a gun at a pawnshop.

I also thought about buying a screwdriver and taking the gun apart before putting it in the gun case, but I was concerned that might cause me to run afoul of some law. For all I knew, transporting gun parts might have a completely separate set of arbitrary and capricious regulations.

The ammunition was also a concern to me. How sure was I about that box I was transporting it in? Had I actually read on the TSA web site that you could put the ammo box in the same hard, locked case as the gun, or had I just imagined that? I thought about getting rid of the ammo, but how would I do that and not potentially run into legal trouble? Maybe there was some obscure law I didn’t know about for disposing of ammunition?

The reason I was nervous is that although Florida can be considered a Southern State up around the panhandle area, that becomes less and less true the further south you travel. By the time you reach Miami, you are in a Latin American cultural area. I suspected that my time checking a gun at Miami International Airport was going to be more difficult, and that if I made any inadvertent mistakes, it was far more likely that I’d get fully prosecuted by overzealous law enforcement.

I went down to the public computer room at the hotel I was staying at, and reviewed the Southwest Airlines rules and TSA rules on gun and ammunition transport again. I also printed them out so that I could carry them with me when I went to the airport.

After that, I decided I’d just move forward with transporting the gun and ammunition as I had when traveling from Texas. I decided that the mere possibility that some government bureaucrat would try to prosecute me on some non-objective and poorly defined law or regulation was not going stop me from living my life.

Miami International Airport was definitely more nerve-racking. I carried the gun case outside my suitcase as I had before, in order to ensure I would not forget to declare it at the ticket counter.

Something I did differently was to put an Apple AirTag inside the gun case. so that I could potentially track it on my phone, if I needed to. This actually worked, as I could see the AirTag on my phone when I was waiting for my luggage at Love Field, upon my return.

I approached a Southwest employee and asked if the luggage check place was the “ticket counter”. I made sure to use the exact phrase “ticket counter”, since Southwest says “You must declare the gun at the ticket counter…” ( https://www.southwest.com/help/baggage/special-baggage-sports-equipment ) The employee confirmed that. There would then be less of a question that I had gone to what a Southwest employee told me was the “ticket counter”. When it was my turn, I approached the Southwest employee behind the counter at the baggage check, held up the gun case, and said, “I’m checking a firearm.”

The lady at the counter didn’t seemed fazed by it. She gave me a firearms declaration card, which was the same as the one at Love Field. I filled it out, and signed the back again. She took some tape, and taped the card to the outside of the gun case, which made a lot more sense to me. I then asked her if she wanted to put the gun case inside my suitcase. She answered in the affirmative. After that, I though I’d be done. At Love Field, they had taken my suitcase with the gun case in it and just tossed it on the baggage carousel. But, a guy approached me, and the woman said I should go with him and take the suitcase with me. I said okay, and followed the guy, who was a TSA employee. We walked to a door, where another TSA employee came out. I handed the suitcase to the other TSA guy, who said “wait here.” I thought he was talking to the first TSA guy, so I said: “Do you need anything else from me?” He said: “I said you need to wait here.” So, I stood there. The first guy who had escorted me went inside the room with the other TSA guy, but then came back out and stood next to me. It definitely felt like I was being investigated or detained by law enforcement. My TSA escort had a fairly heavy Latin American accent of some sort, which made him difficult to understand. I thought he asked me something about whether I had been to Boston or New York. I told him: “No, I flew here from Texas. I was on vacation here, only in Miami.” I suspected he was trying to get me to say that I had been in Boston or New York because of their draconian gun laws, or because the Feds are on the lookout for gun smugglers to those states. About ten minutes later, the TSA agent inside the room came back out, gave me the thumbs up, and said: “You’re good to go.” I said thanks, and the other TSA agent walked me over to the TSA checkpoint for entering the secured area of the airport. I fully expected to get called on the PA system at some point, while I waiting for my flight. I wasn’t really comfortable until I was in the air, on my way back to Texas.

I wonder what the TSA guy inside the room was doing? I’m guessing he opened my suitcase, and examined the gun case. He didn’t have the combination, so he couldn’t have opened the gun case unless he somehow guessed the combination or could somehow pick the lock. I suspect he tossed my suitcase, checking for any loose rounds that I hadn’t properly packed. I am not sure what would have happened if he had found one, since I don’t know what the penalty would be for that. For all I know, it’s a felony to have loose ammunition in your suitcase. Again, it’s the arbitrariness and the plethora of laws that make this whole process unnerving.

Notes To Self, If I Transport a Gun By Plane Again

I am not sure that I’d do this again. I think the risk of arbitrary prosecution under arbitrary and capricious governmental regulations is probably not worth it. (And, of course, this is all just a fictional story I made up, that definitely did not happen.) I didn’t really think there was a need to carry the gun most of the time while in Miami. I certainly didn’t think I needed it inside the hotel I was staying at. But, if I were going to do this in the future, I have created the following “guidelines” for myself:

Fly on an airline based in a gun-friendly state.

Check a gun you don’t mind getting stolen or lost.

Check a revolver because it’s less “scary” to people.

Take a picture of the gun’s serial number on your phone so that you can easily report it as lost or stolen.

Turn on your phone’s video-recorder at the airport, and at least get audio of the whole check-in process. (But, make sure you are not running afoul of any wiretap or other recording statutes doing this.)

Put an Apple AirTag in The Gun Case

Dress business casual, or better, and have a clean-cut appearance.

Check and double-check that the gun is actually unloaded and in the locked gun case before you leave for the airport.

Don’t bring any carryon items on the airplane, so that there is no chance you inadvertently have a gun or ammunition when you go through the TSA security checkpoints.

Make sure there are no loose ammunition rounds in your suitcase or on your person before you go to the airport. Count out how many rounds you take with you, and make sure they are properly stored before going to the airport.

Buy an ammunition container instead of using the container the rounds come in at the store.

Be polite and courteous to the people at the airport, but be firm regarding your legal right to do what you are doing. Do not volunteer any information you are not legally required to give. Assume that law enforcement, TSA personnel, and airline staff are not your friends, and assume they will not cut you a break if you screw up.

Deal with airline personnel as much as possible, and make them your initial point of contact, rather than TSA or law enforcement officers. You are a customer to airline personnel, whereas TSA and law enforcement sees everyone as a potential criminal. For instance, if you are looking for the Southwest ticket counter to declare the firearm, approach a Southwest employee and ask them, not a TSA official or a cop.

Print out the rules from the airline web site and the TSA web site on transporting firearms and ammunition, highlight the relevant language, and carry it with you. If airline personnel or TSA question any of your decisions regarding how to package the firearm or ammunition, show them the rules you followed.

“Beto” likes guns just fine…when HE decides who to use them on

At the recent Democratic Debates, Robert “Beto” O’Rourke attempted to demonstrate his “no compromise” attitude on guns by saying: “Hell Yes, We’re Going To Take Your AR-15”

https://reason.com/2019/09/12/beto-orourke-hell-yes-were-going-to-take-your-ar-15/

What it demonstrated was his willingness to have the state initiate physical force.

He does not mean: “Hell yes, if you are a force-initiator, we’re going to take away your AR-15”

This could easily be done with a law that says: “It shall be unlawful to possess an AR-15 with the intent to commit a felony.”

But, this wouldn’t accomplish what O’Rourke wants, since most owners of AR-15’s would continue to legally hold them. The government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had the weapon for the purpose of committing a felony, which most AR-15 owners would never do.

What O’Rourke wants is to remove this type of weapon from general circulation in the civilian world as a “prophylactic measure”. In other words, he thinks that by doing this, the number of murders in America will decrease. Never mind that the number of murders committee with so-called “assault weapons” is much smaller than the number of murders committed with handguns. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

So, what O’Rourke is actually saying is: “Hell yes, we are going to use the power of state force to deprive you of your property, even if you keep it for self-defense.”

In other words, he is saying: “The state can use physical force to deprive you of your values, and if you attempt to resist, the police will come to your house and attempt to arrest you. If you resist, you will be shot by the State.”

“Beto” wants to use the guns of government to kill anyone who wants to live.

The Riddle of Gun Control; the Even Bigger Riddle of Open Borders

Friends who are left of center have asked me about my position on gun control in light of the shooting in New Zealand. (I’ve titled this blog entry based on a podcast by Sam Harris called: “The Riddle of the Gun”)

As I’ve said before, I think no one, including the State, should initiate physical force against other people. The purpose of the state is to stop force-initiators by using sufficient physical force to stop that initiation, or to stop subsequent initiations by the same person(s). A person who commits murder should be locked up (or executed, depending on your view on capital punishment). A person who robs, rapes, or commits assault is a force initiator, and the state should use retaliatory force to stop them. Without getting bogged down in minutia here, a person who starts planning to murder, and takes objective steps to carry out the plan is also a force initiator. So, a person who buys bomb-making material, and says that he plans to blow up someone has already initiated physical force, and the State, if it has probable cause that was the bomber’s intent, can arrest and prosecute him for that. If the State shows that was the bombers intent beyond a reasonable doubt, he should go to prison for a time.

I’m consistent. I think people should be free to immigrate to this country. Stopping them from crossing the border, absent some objective knowledge that they intend to initiate physical force once they are here, would be an initiation of physical force. (If the state sees a known terrorist crossing the border, that is different, just like the bomber I already discussed. The mere crossing of the border, combined with the terrorists’ past actions, constitutes an initiation of physical force, and he can rightly be arrested. I won’t get bogged down in the minutia of that, either, here.)

I am okay with the statistical fact that immigration of Muslims leads to more Islamic terrorism in a country, because: (1) I think there are more narrowly-tailored social and law-enforcement options that don’t violate the rights of people who just want to live in America and have peaceful, productive lives; and, (2), it is just the price we pay for a free society. It’s the same as having a free press, which leads to copy-cat killings, or having a 4th Amendment right to be free from arbitrary search and seizure causes some criminals to go uncaptured. These facts don’t mean we should eliminate the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the right to own and carry guns for self-defense shouldn’t be abrogated on the mere fact that, statistically, someone will commit a crime with a gun.

But, most of my left-of-center friends are not that consistent. They are fine with allowing large numbers of Muslims to come into the country, even though, statistically, a certain number of those Muslims are certain to commit acts of violence in the name of their religion, once they get here. (Don’t talk to me about how there are more domestic terrorists in America than Islamic terrorists. That is dropping context. We could still stop *some* terrorism by completely closing our borders to Muslim immigration, even if the domestic variety continued at the same rate or level as before.)

When it comes to guns, my left-of-center friends say: “If we save even one life, it’s worth it.” When it comes to Muslim immigration, they say: “Don’t be racist.” This is because it’s easier than trying to reconcile the contradiction between their belief in free immigration and their opposition to the right to self-defense.

Gun Control: A State-Sponsored Initiation of Physical Force

On July 14, 2016 a terrorist drove a cargo truck into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France, killing eighty-six people and injuring 458 others. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/14/84-killed-in-nice-by-lorry-during-bastille-day-celebrations—ho/

Mass-murders using a multi-ton vehicle are simply viewed as tragedies for the victims, and acts of viciousness by the perpetrators. Politicians and activists on the left do not attempt to change our attitudes towards trucks and automobiles. There are no calls for criminal background checks before owning a car, no calls for psychological screening before you can get your new Toyota, and anyone seriously suggesting that cargo trucks should be banned would be laughed at.

On the other hand, any time there is a mass-murder involving a firearm in “gun friendly” United States, and not in countries with massive firearms restrictions, like France or Belgium, it becomes time to trot out the “gun control” arguments. The latest mass-shooting in Florida has brought forth the left’s usual call for an “assault weapons” ban. As with any blanket governmental prohibition on the ownership of any device or substance, the problem with “gun control” is this: The only way to enforce it is to turn government into a force-initiator. Although, in our already very un-free society, it means turning our government into an even greater force-initiator.

I’ll start with a discussion of the difference between murder and self-defense. This is primarily a moral and philosophical discussion of the distinction, not a legal one. Laws are made by men, and can be changed or reformed to better reflect moral and philosophical truth, so keep that in mind as I go over this. I am speaking more as a political philosopher than as a lawyer.

First, the use of a weapon to commit murder is bad, while the use of a weapon to defend yourself from murder is good, if you value your life. I doubt there are many who will dispute the notion that you can rightly defend yourself, so I won’t discuss it any further. Most of us seem to understand it on a “gut level”, but what exactly is the difference between murder and killing someone in self-defense?

It’s not the mere use of force that distinguishes murder from self-defense. A murderer uses force, but so does the person who acts in self-defense. The difference lies in the fact that a murderer is the first to act, while a person acting in self-defense reacts to an articulable act of force by another. Another critical distinction between murder and self-defense is: the person who acts in self-defense is not attempting to gain another person’s values nor to deprive another person of their values. The robber starts the use of force against others to gain their property or money -to gain what they have produced through their thought and labor. The person who acts in self-defense is reacting to preserve his values. When someone tries to murder him, the man who acts in self-defense is attempting to preserve what can be considered an important value, and, I think, his ultimate value -the value that all his other values are aimed at achieving and maintaining. The murderer or the robber initiates physical force, while the person who acts in self-defense, or defense of others, uses force in reaction or retaliation to the initiation of physical force.

Next, what are “gun control laws”? They are “preventative law”. They attempt to prohibit a certain action that is innocuous in and of itself -the ownership of a gun. “Preventative law” prohibits actions that, standing alone, are not an initiation of physical force. The mere ownership of a gun doesn’t kill or injure anyone. This blanket prohibition is imposed in order to prevent some evil that can potentially be committed with the gun -murder, robbery, or rape. If everyone who owned a gun were to somehow magically loose the free will to choose to use a gun to commit crimes like murder, then there would be very little talk of “gun control laws”. This is because such laws would be unnecessary.

The problem with “preventative laws” is that they: (1) Legally prohibit actions that are good if you value your life -the ownership of a gun for purposes of self-defense; and (2) They turn government agents into force-initiators. Now police are ordered to go out and initiate physical force against those who have not used force to deprive others of their life or property. In fact, the police are ordered to deprive people of their right to self-defense by arresting anyone who possesses a gun for the purposes of self-defense.

In the last twenty or thirty years, most of the “gun control” debate has centered around so-called “assault weapons”, although this name is a misnomer. What is being described as an “assault weapon”, like an AR-15, is a semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine that can hold anywhere from five to 50 rounds. The term “assault weapon” is a cunning choice of wording used by left wing politicians. It implies that semi-automatic long guns with detachable magazines can only be used to commit initiations of physical force, i.e., an “assault”. But, as I will discuss below, these guns can sometimes be the best option for self-defense, and defense of others. (For brevity, I’m going to call a “semi-automatic-long-gun-with-a-detachable-magazine ban” a “semi-auto ban”.)

The calls for a “semi-auto ban” center around the fact that this type of gun tends to be the mass-shooter’s weapon of choice. I question that if these types of guns were to magically disappear, it would prevent any mass-shootings or even significantly reduce casualty rates in such events. Simple pump-action shotguns, holding fewer than six rounds, have been used in mass shootings in recent years. (https://www.scribd.com/document/233531169/Navy-Yard#from_embed) At any rate, the use of a these guns in high-profile, but statistically rare, mass shootings accounts for a lot of the political push for a semi-auto ban. (http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/mass-shootings/)

People on the political left also tend to call for a semi-auto ban because it seems, at first blush, to be more difficult to justify the ownership of such a weapon. A lot of people might see that you need a handgun for self-defense, but they will ask: “Why does anyone ‘need’ an ‘assault weapon’?”

A concrete example of the utility of semi-automatic long guns for self-defense was demonstrated in the Los Angeles Riots of 1992. (https://www.britannica.com/event/Los-Angeles-Riots-of-1992) The LA Times reported that Koran store owners used “…shotguns and automatic weapons…” to defend their stores from looters. http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-02/news/mn-1281_1_police-car (Likely the journalist reporting in the old LA Times article didn’t know the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic, and these guns were likely semi-automatics, the precise type of gun that people push to ban after almost every mass-shooting.)

During the LA riots, Korean shop owners were targeted, and their small businesses were often destroyed. They were an immigrant minority group singled out because of the color of their skin by members of other racial minority groups engaged in mayhem and destruction. But, more fundamentally, rioters went after them because they were successful property owners. The Korean small businessmen were everything the rioters weren’t: hard working, ambitious, and devoted to making something of their lives. The store owners were the “producers”, as Ayn Rand would say, and the rioters were, literally, “the looters”. Rather than have their life’s work destroyed, many of these shop owners armed themselves when the police and the government abandoned them. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCYT9Hew9ZU)

Now, at this point an advocate of a semi-auto ban will say that riots like the one in LA are statistically rare. That is probably true, but, then again, so are shootings that involve the use of a semi-automatic long gun. Far more people are killed with handguns than long-guns of any type. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls (For instance, in 2012 6,371 people were murdered by handguns, versus 232 people killed by rifles, whether semi-automatic or not.)

Now, lets turn to the consequences of a law prohibiting the ownership of semi-automatic long guns. The first thing to note is that the passage of a law is not like waving a magic wand that makes the outlawed thing go away. The drug laws have been on the books for over a hundred years now, but cocaine, heroin, meth, and marijuana are still readily available. Most people could acquire any drug they want in about 24 hours if they have enough money to pay for it. Furthermore, a semi-auto ban isn’t simply a law that says people can’t use guns to deprive others of their lives because we already have that: It’s called a murder statute. As already discussed, a semi-auto ban is what is known as “preventative law”. It involves the government threatening to use force against those who have not initiated physical force, and never would, because they possess the weapons for self-defense.

A semi-auto ban means that people who possess such weapons for morally legitimate reasons like self-defense will be threated with jail time if they continue to possess them. Like all laws, when the police come to arrest violators, if they resist, the state is authorized to use anything up to and including deadly force to subdue them. In other words, the state will use its guns to kill those who want to have the capacity to defend their lives. The initiation of physical force by the state will be required to enforce a semi-auto ban. Government agents become authorized, and ordered, to commit the moral-equivalent of murder to enforce preventative laws such as this.

Is what I’m saying here just “hypothetical”? Are there any concrete examples of how “preventative” gun laws lead to the killing of those who have not initiated physical force? I think the incident at Ruby Ridge is an example of this. Ruby Ridge is an illustration of the fact that gun-prohibitions have life and death consequences. (The facts I outline here are all found in a britanica.com article called “Ruby Ridge Incident” https://www.britannica.com/event/Ruby-Ridge-incident)

Randy Weaver was a white separatist who moved to Idaho in the 1980’s. While attending an Aryan Nations meeting in the late 1980’s he was approached by what turned out to be an ATF informant, who convinced Weaver to saw off two shotguns. A shotgun with a barrel below a certain length is illegal under Federal law. The ATF then threatened Weaver with arrest for possessing a short-barreled shotgun. They told him he could either face prosecution, or he too could become an informant for the ATF. Weaver refused to become an informant, so the ATF pursued the prosecution on the Federal weapons charge. Weaver was arrested, and after his trial was set, he was released.

Originally, Weaver’s trial was set for February 19, 1991, but the trial was then moved to February 20th. Weaver’s probation officer sent him a letter incorrectly stating that the new trial date was March 20. (Similar to the latest mass-shooting in Florida, Federal Government Officials demonstrated their incompetence. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5401101/FBI-knew-Nikolas-Cruz-stockpiling-weapons.html)

When Weaver failed to appear on February 20, the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. Weaver was then indicted by a Federal grand jury for failing to appear at his trial. The US Marshal’s service was then tasked with arresting Weaver. On August 21, 1992, six heavily-armed Marshals entered Weaver’s property. The Weaver family dog discovered the Marshals in hiding, and one of the Marshals shot the dog. Weaver’s 14-year-old son, Sammy had been walking the dog, and he then got into a gunfight with the Marshals. The Marshals shot Sammy Weaver in the back, killing him. One of Weaver’s friends, Kevin Harris, who had also been with Sammy, then shot and killed US Marshal William Degan.

At that point, the FBI was brought in to assist the Marshals, and there was a standoff centering around Randy Weaver’s house. On August 22, 1992, an FBI sniper shot Weaver in the arm, and accidentally shot his wife, Viki Weaver, in the face, killing her while she held the Weaver’s infant daughter behind the front door of the cabin.

Weaver and Harris eventually surrendered. Weaver was charged with numerous crimes, including murder, conspiracy, and assault. Kevin Harris, who had shot US Marshal, Degan, was acquitted of murder. Weaver was found not guilty on all charges, except the original failure to appear for the original firearms charge.

To sum up: Viki Weaver, Sammy Weaver, and a US Marshal were killed because, back in the 1930’s, Congress arbitrarily decided that a shotgun was okay, but having a sawed-off shotgun was so bad that the Federal Government should be free to initiate physical force against anyone who was found to be in possession of one.

I doubt that the law against possessing a sawed off shotgun has ever saved a single life -although I obviously don’t know that for certain. What I do know is that Viki Weaver and her son Sammy are dead because the government saw fit to initiate physical force to prohibit the mere possession of device whose only difference from a legal device is a shorter barrel. Randy Weaver hadn’t initiated physical force against anyone, and whatever one thinks of some of his odious political views, I don’t think that justifies what I consider to be the moral-equivalent of the murder of his wife and son by agents of the state.

The death of Viki and Sammy Weaver is the price we pay when we direct government agents to initiate physical force in an attempt to ban the mere possession of a device. The death of innocent people who cannot defend themselves from criminals because guns are banned is another price we pay. Mass murders are horrible. But, then again, all initiations of physical force are horrible, especially when they are committed by armed agents of the state against a disarmed population.

I’ve heard death penalty opponents say something like: “How can the state say that killing is immoral by killing people?” They are noting an apparent contradiction, although it isn’t a genuine contradiction, since the death penalty is actually the state saying murder is immoral -and it is killing the murderer to demonstrate that. “Murder” and “killing” are different things. “Murder” is killing by the initiation of physical force. It is starting the use of force to deprive another of their most important value, which is their own life. However, this slogan by death-penalty critics can be repurposed when it comes to gun control into a true statement: How can we say that the initiation of physical force is immoral by initiating physical force against those who own a gun to protect their lives? Because that’s what “gun control” is.

Why Act on Principle?

I recently said to a friend that any form of “gun control” is an initiation of physical force, and that allowing even a little initiation of physical force abrogates the entire principle of individual rights to life, liberty and property. When I thought about this some, I realized that the question might actually have been this: “Why act on principle at all? Why can’t you occasionally violate a principle without throwing it out altogether?” This is a good question, even if my friend wasn’t actually asking it, so I will endeavor to give an explanation to something he may or may not have actually been asking.

First, what is meant when we speak of a “principle”? I will start with an example and then move from there to a definition. Let’s consider the principle of respecting the property rights of others. I’ll reduce this to the following maxim: “Do not take the property of others without their consent.”

But, why shouldn’t I just occasionally steel when I can get away with it? For instance, when I go to the grocery store, I could take a few items and walk out without paying. If I stuck to stealing food, I might get away with this indefinitely. So why don’t I?

If I’m going to start stealing from the grocery store, I need to develop a methodology to maximize my chances of success. Lets take a look at my “game plan” for stealing from the grocery store:

When I go into the store, I have to check for security cameras.

I have to wait until employees aren’t watching. Once I’ve stolen the items, I’ve got to casually head outside, still checking to see if employees, store customers, or the manager have noticed me stealing from the store. These people are now all potential enemies to me –a threat to my existence- so I cannot trust any of them. I would constantly have to be “looking over my back”, checking to see if anyone noticed me stealing.

I have to develop a plan prior to going in, as this will reduce my chances of getting caught. So I will spend some time working it out. This is time I could have spent doing other things.

I probably want to go in beforehand, and scope out the store, but this could look suspicious -going in, looking around and then returning soon thereafter. So, maybe not?

What will be my “take” from stealing from the grocery store? I can only steal small items, so probably my “gain” will be less than $50.

There are also the penalties involved, if I’m caught. If I steal less than $50, then I am only looking at a fine in Texas, but the fine is up to $500, plus the store can sue me for treble damages and attorney’s fees. If I steal more than $50 of merchandise, I’m looking at anywhere from six months to a year in jail, plus big fines, plus the store suing me.

I think it’s legitimate to consider the government-imposed penalties like this in my analysis since I am not an anarchist -I actually think one of the major ways the government protects rights is by imposing sufficient “pain” or “cost” on the person committing the crime that they won’t want to do it. Criminal laws have a “deterrent effect”. (This isn’t the only reason for criminal penalties, however, they also serve as a “restraint”. For instance, locking up a murderer prevents him from committing more murders.)

Additionally, many jobs will be unavailable to me if I’ve been convicted of a crime involving “moral turpitude” like theft. Many employers won’t hire you with a criminal record for theft or fraud.

After any particular episode of theft from the grocery store, I might get $50 to $100 in merchandise, if I don’t get caught. I also stand to loose up to a year of my time in jail, plus all of the fines and civil penalties. That seems like a very “bad bet” to me. All of these “costs” associated with such a life of crime will also add up to feelings of anxiety about getting caught. Anxiety is not a pleasant emotion to feel on a chronic or long-term basis. (I also suppose I could eliminate the anxiety by refusing to think or consuming a lot of alcohol, but that means I’m really likely to get caught if I don’t think about how to get away with it.)

You should also consider the long-term risks of a policy of theft. You might get away with theft once or twice, but the more you do it, the more likely you are to get caught. It hardly seems worth all that pain for $50 of “free” stuff from the grocery store.

I’ve shown that stealing isn’t actually “free”, in terms of your effort and thought. There is actually a “cost” associated with every time you steal. There is the cost of all the mental energy and labor you expend executing your thefts successfully. There is the cost associated with the risk you’ll get caught. Furthermore, the greater the value of the things you are stealing, the greater the risk, because you will face more severe criminal and social penalties. More people will be watching, the more the valuable items, so the more effort you must expend. For instance, it’s a lot harder to steal from a jewelry store than a grocery store because everything is under glass. That means additional labor, time, and energy goes into a jewelry heist.

It seems easier to me to just work a legitimate job, and earn the money I need to buy things at the grocery store. Then, when I walk into the grocery store, I can just get the stuff I want, pay for it, and then walk out.

Additionally, as we saw, if you start stealing from the grocery store, you will wind up “juggling” in your mind, so many variables in trying to pull off a grocery store theft that it will overload your mind’s capacity to deal with all of them at once. This actually points to an important purpose that a “principle” serves. A “principle” is a sort of concept. A concept is a mental summation of relevant observed facts into a generalized “mental tag” -a word and/or a definition. (Although a “principle” is more of a “proposition” –a series of words.) It allows your limited mind to deal with many aspects of reality simultaneously, which would otherwise overwhelm it. You can deal with three or four concrete items as individuals in your mind at one time, but any more than that, and you cannot hold it all successfully. Your mind disintegrates into mental chaos without concepts, and when it comes to concepts of action, which is all I think a “principle” is, your behavior will become equally chaotic.

Given all of this discussion, I will define a “principle” as: “A consistent standard of action you use in the face of a particular set of factual circumstances.”

For instance, “Don’t take the property of others without their consent,” is a standard of action that I use whenever I face a particular set of facts. When I see a man-made thing that doesn’t occur in nature, and I didn’t produce it with my own effort, I do not physically appropriate it for my own purposes without the owner’s consent.

Can there be “exceptions” to this principle? For instance, if you break into a cabin when you are stranded in a snow blizzard in the mountains, have you taken the property of the owner without his consent? I believe this isn’t actually an “exception” to the principle, because “factual circumstances” are different from the grocery store example. You can articulate facts that make the situation different from going into the grocery store and taking groceries without the owner’s consent. The primary factual circumstance that is different is that you are willing to compensate the owner of the cabin at a later date for any loss, so it isn’t likely to be without his consent. (This also gets into the issue of what “consent” is, and whether the owner’s consent has to have a rational basis, but I leave that for another discussion.) Another “factual circumstance” that is different is that it is a “life and death emergency”, which means it is an extremely low-probability event that isn’t likely to occur very often –it is “life boat ethics”. (Remember, that part of the reason you don’t steal from the grocery store is you have to hide it, and the more times you do it, the more likely you are to get caught one of those times.)

By thinking of enough concrete scenarios like the grocery store theft example, I eventually decided that stealing just isn’t worth it. It’s better to adopt a general standard of action in my mind: “Don’t take the property of others without their consent.” I leave it to the reader to think through other examples of general standards of action such as “Don’t kill those who haven’t initiated physical force against you,” (i.e., don’t murder), “Don’t misrepresent facts to gain things from others,” (i.e., be honest), “Judge others according to a rational standard, and treat them accordingly,” (i.e., be just), etc.

How does my definition of “principle” compare to the “socially-accepted definition”? If you perform a “define: principle” search on google.com, you get some of the following definitions (as of 11-10-2016):

“…fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.”

“…a rule or belief governing one’s personal behavior…”

“…morally correct behavior and attitudes…”

“…a general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field…”

“…a natural law forming the basis for the construction or working of a machine…”

These definitions are all essentially, compatible with mine, I believe. For instance, regarding the principle “Don’t take the property of others without their consent,” it is a “fundamental truth” that human beings must produce the material values necessary for their survival, because most of what we need to survive or flourish does not exist in nature. It is also a “fundamental truth” that human beings must use their reasoning minds to produce those material values, and that if you want to live with others they must respect your desire to live and you must respect theirs. (It’s also a “fundamental truth” that human beings are not omniscient, so they need an impartial system of laws and an institution with the socially-recognized exclusive right to the retaliatory use of physical force to protect rights.)

“Don’t take the property of others without their consent,” is also “…morally correct behavior…” If one wants to live, and if one’s life is the standard of the good, then, in order to live peacefully with others, you must recognize the property rights of others.

“Don’t take the property of others without their consent,” is also a “natural law” in the sense that it recognizes that the human mind functions by persuasion, not coercion. It is a “natural law” in the same sense that the law of universal gravitation is a “natural law”. If you want to build a rocket, you must take the law of inertia into account, because “nature to be commanded must be obeyed”. Similarly, if you want to have a functioning society, it must respect property rights.

Tying all of this back in, why would any form of “gun control” be an abrogation of the principle of individual rights? What is meant by “gun control”? Does it merely mean: “Prohibiting the possession of a weapon with an intent to commit a crime”? The intent to use a weapon to violate others rights is the start of an initiation of physical force, and, if it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it can and should be prosecuted by the government. Taking any physical steps towards the eventual goal of force being used to destroy the values of others is an initiation of physical force, and therefore a violation of the principle of individual rights. Anyone who has ever seen a John Wayne movie recognizes that you don’t have to wait for someone to actually shoot you in the gut before you can defend yourself. When the bad guy “goes for his gun”, John Wayne shoots him, and that is self-defense, not an initiation of physical force.

An example of an rights-respecting gun law is something like the statute found in the state of Vermont:

“A person who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man,…shall be imprisoned….” (See http://ago.vermont.gov/divisions/criminal-division/gun-laws.php, emphasis added, last accessed on 11-12-2016.)

This is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate law regarding the possession of a firearm. It only prohibits carrying a weapon if the person can be shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have the “intent” or “avowed purpose” of injuring a fellow man. (Presumably, “injuring a fellow man” here means injuries of one’s fellow men other than for purpose of self-defense.)

This, by the way, is why the government could investigate someone who built a weapon of mass destruction in their backyard. Such a device would not be necessary for self-defense. If you walked around with a nuclear bomb strapped to your back for self-defense, even a “low-yield” device, you’d blow yourself up as well as the mugger -and half the city. Your possession of such a device would create the suspicion that you planned to use it for violating the rights of others. There is no likely or probable need for such a device if you are an individual. Now, you might ultimately be able to show that you had an innocent reason for possessing a WMD, but you’d have to go before a court, and the government’s “prima facie case” of an illegal intent is probably satisfied just by showing that you have no business interest in building such a device. For instance, you aren’t engaged in the business of building nuclear bombs for the US military or some sort of mining or industrial concern. After the government makes its “prima facie showing”, the burden can rightly be shifted to you at court to show some reason that doesn’t involve violating the rights of others. (Additionally, you could face civil liability if you create a “nuisance” that invades or imminently threatens the property of others, which a nuclear bomb probably qualifies as.)

But this isn’t what the left means when they speak of “gun control”. What is generally meant by “gun control”, as that expression is used by most members of the Democratic party and the political left, is the following: The government will initiate, or start, the use of physical force against someone for mere possession of a device, in this case, a devise that uses a controlled explosion to release a metal projectile through a tube by means of an explosive material, such as cordite. The government will initiate physical force against such persons even though they have no intent to use the device to violate individual rights. The initiation of physical force by government takes the form of actual or threatened use of force, and, it will continue to escalate the use of physical force until you comply with its commands, or die -whichever comes first.

Here is how government works: If you break a law, you’ll be arrested (force). If you resist arrest, more cops will come to restrain you (more force). If you use a weapon to resist, the cops will use weapons to stop you (deadly force). Ultimately, all laws follow this pattern: “Do not do X, or you will ultimately be killed.” If the government says: “Do not murder, or you will be killed,” then this is fine because murder violates the rights of others. If the government prohibits things like guns and marijuana, then it says: “Do not own a gun or you will be killed,” or “Do not smoke a joint or you will be killed.” At that point you are being threatened with a violent death despite the fact that you are not violating the rights of others. (Like I said, possessing a gun with intent to commit a crime is different, just as smoking a joint and deliberately blowing the smoke in someone’s face is different.)

So what’s wrong with a little governmental initiation of physical force? You face the same sorts of problems that you face with the example of stealing from the grocery store, but this time it’s on a society-wide level. For instance, if the government says you cannot own a gun to defend yourself from a criminal, when there is no time to call the police to protect you, then the government is implicitly saying: “We’re willing to risk your life in order to satisfy a bunch of soccer moms who have an irrational aversion to guns.” How will this be distinguished from other people’s irrational desires that would involve violating your right to life?

Since no one wants to say: “Government officials can arbitrarily murder some people whenever they feel like it,” the legislature and courts will need to come up with some sort of principled distinction between the prohibition on the ownership of a gun for emergency self-defense and any other number of actions you might take to maintain your life. This is why our legal code has become so “Byzantine” with all sorts of “loopholes”, exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions. Our legal code is mostly unhinged from any principles distinguishing what should be prohibited and what shouldn’t be because we no longer follow the principle of individual rights.

Additionally, once the principle of individual rights is discarded, the legislature will be constantly bombarded by individuals, and groups of individuals, all trying to appropriate the property of others. It becomes a system of constant “pressure group warfare”, a “cold civil war”, if you will, with a particular political faction gaining power and stealing from some to give to others. They will hold onto power, handing out political favors to their cronies, until some other faction takes over the levers of government and imposes their will on others for a bit.

As I said, a “principle” is a sort of concept, which is a mental summation of relevant observed facts into a generalized “mental tag” -a word and/or a definition. It allows your limited mind to deal with many aspects of reality simultaneously, which would otherwise overwhelm it. You can deal with three or four concrete items as individuals in your mind at one time, but any more than that, and you cannot hold it all successfully. Your mind disintegrates into a mental chaos without concepts, and when it comes to concepts of action, which is all I think a “principle” is, your behavior will become equally chaotic. When society-wide principles like individual rights to life, liberty, and property are disregarded, that society will become chaotic. Eventually the “cold civil war”, of political factions fighting in the legislature, will disintegrate into an actual, shooting, civil war, and people will form gangs fighting one another for the scraps of what is left of civilization, or a “strong man” will take over and the country becomes a dictatorship, with his gang appropriating the property of all. Either way, life will become nasty, brutish, and short without the principle of individual rights to guide us.

The “Assault Weapon” Ban

“…no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines…” http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-judge-bring-back-federal-assault-weapons-ban-18040037#.UNc95onjk1c
1) The “assault weapons” ban basically banned certain cosmetic features on some semi-automatic firearms (guns that fire one bullet for every pull of the trigger), that had nothing to do with the function of the weapon.
2) The only major change in the functionality of semi-automatic weapons that the assault weapons ban affected was the limitation of the magazine to 10 rounds. Does anyone really think that limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds will stop someone from going on a shooting spree?
3) The only way such a magazine capacity limitation might affect a shooting spree is to require the shooter to carry multiple guns or multiple magazines. Is Diane Feinstein seriously saying that her “solution” is for civilians at the scene of a shooting spree to tackle a gunman while he is reloading his 10-round magazine? If civilians are going to be asked by Diane Feinstein to take personal responsibility for their own self-defense (a worthy goal), then why does she want to make it more difficult for civilians to own guns?
4) High capacity magazines do have a civilian use: In the Los Angeles riots in the early 1990’s, civilian business owners used AK-47’s and other semi-automatic firearms to defend themselves and their property from large numbers of rioters who wanted to harm them and destroy their life’s work. These civilian business owners were abandoned by the police and the local authorities, and they took personal responsibility for their own lives and the security of their community.

Why I prefer a free society

A free society leaves the individual free to create the values necessary for his life. It respects private property rights, and thereby ensures that one can earn and keep the material means necessary for living. It respects freedom of speech in order to ensure that one can disseminate and gain the knowledge necessary for producing the values, both spiritual and material, necessary for living. History demonstrates that people who live under dictatorship and totalitarianism are less prosperous. Freedom includes the right to protect oneself from criminals, foreign and domestic, who would deprive us of our life or liberty. Freedom therefore entails the right to own the means of protecting oneself from criminals when the police are unavailable. That freedom typically takes the form of gun ownership. Can people misuse their freedom? Yes. Would restrictions on the freedom to own small arms stop some criminals? Possibly, although the statistics seem to suggest such restrictions just disarm the law-abiding. Press censorship might also prevent “copycat crimes”, and arbitrary searches and seizures by police might uncover some criminal activity. But, crime is always a small component of any free society, and the probabilities of becoming the victim of a felony are minimal. The certain result of restrictions on freedom is to prevent good people from being able to take the actions necessary for living –whether that action takes the form of starting a new business, writing a novel, or defending oneself from a murderer. Restrictions on freedom mean restrictions on life itself.

DC Gun Freedom Amendment

According to this article, the Senate has added an amendment to a law to give the people of DC representation in Congress. (Whether the main bill is a good idea, or Constitutional, is another issue that I am uncertain on.) This amendment would make Washington DC one of the easiest places in the nation to own a gun. About the only local DC law that would not be repealed by it is the law prohibiting the carrying of arms outside of one’s home.

The reason I mention this article is because the DC gun freedom amendment got a lot of support from Senate Democrats, as well as Republicans. (“It passed 62 to 36, winning one more vote than the D.C. vote bill…”) Some of my “conservative” and Republican friends have expressed concern that with the Democrats in power, there would be a plethora of new restrictions on the right to keep and carry arms. I was concerned about this too, when I voted straight Democratic ticket, but there were other freedoms that I had to think of in this election, such as religious liberty and a woman’s right to an abortion, so I had to take a chance on Obama. So far my gamble is paying off. Ruth Bader Ginsburg managed to hold on until Obama was elected, which means that when she retires, she will be replaced by a like-minded Justice, maintaining the ideological balance on the court. Furthermore, not only have there been no new restrictions on gun freedom, but there is a debate in Congress on whether to give the people of DC more gun freedom.

Texas “Open Carry” Petition

Anybody who has ever spent much time immersed in the gun culture will quickly discover that there are certain debate topics that come up again and again. One of these is the “open carry versus concealed carry” debate. (Do a Google search for online forums if you are interested in learning the pros and cons of “open carry”.) Since “open carry” isn’t generally a legal option in Texas, I don’t have an opinion one way or the other on it. But, that may change if the creators of this online petition have anything to say about it. I intend to sign it for the simple reason that it increases liberty -which I am always in favor of. Also, here is the Dallas Morning News article where I learned about this.

Going Postal: No Gun Required

Two stories in the news interest me today. First, a man here in the US went on an, er, “beating-spree”, bludgeoning at least eight people to death in Illinois. (Chicago Illinois is well-known for its strict gun control laws.) Meanwhile, in Israel, a man went on an, er, “bulldozing spree”, and killed 3 people with a bulldozer before someone in civilian clothing jumped aboard and shot him in the head. A lot of Israelis exercise their right to keep and bear arms, so it would be no surprise if a civilian had a gun with him. This is why restrictions on gun ownership are a waste of time, and can actually cause more damage when people decide to “go Postal”.