TheAgitator.com
“It’s Time People Took Liberty Seriously”
Monday, June 9th, 2008Great interview with Alan Gura at reason.tv.
Alan is the lead attorney in D.C. v. Heller, the landmark Second Amendment case the Supreme Court is due to rule on any day now. I might add that Gura is also a regular Agitator reader, and a solid libertarian.
I like Alan’s answer when Nick asked what a negative ruling would mean. Alan said it’d be a “teaching moment” that we’re rapidly losing our rights. That’s a much more suble way of saying ‘Inflection Point” or “Turning Point”….
Never been a big gun rights advocate, but now I see it as “if you let them take away one right, they will take away all rights” (give inch, take mile) I know some people feel like without weapons you can’t fight the government, but that’s a bit naive imo. I think there are enough examples out there that show State Agents willing to abuse their fellow citizens. Granted it would be difficult to muster a (peaceful) popular uprising, but then how difficult would it be to create the same uprising using the threat of force?
Edin, all you have to do is look at the history of any country, including this one. When a government disarms the people, they are easily suppressed. Give an inch, take a mile is exactly right. You have to be firm in your resolve to say NO YOU WILL NOT CROSS THIS LINE. Just as with a child, the limits are always being tested, and if you don’t follow through then your word means nothing and those testing you know it.
My position on gun rights has evolved over the last few years. Like Edin, I was skeptical about the right to bear arms and tended to side with the “collective right” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Recently, I have begun argue that allowing gun ownership and setting up sensible concealed carry laws can be considered a very advanced form of community policing. Allowing qualified citizens (ie. sane, non-felons that are willing to take part in a safety course that combines lecture and range time) to carry firearms begins to whittle away at the notion that the state has a monopoly on the use of force. It also scares the hell out of criminals. YOU are the first line of defense, and law enforcement is the second. This should be an obvious point, but the concept has become murky in the post 9-11/Drug War era that we live in.
Edin mentions the idea of protecting yourself against government abuses. I agree that it is naive these days to suggest that having the right to bear arms will enable you to defeat a tyrannical regime. But, this should not be the primary reason for supporting personal firearms ownership. We should do it to empower citizens, not to encourage violent insurrection. Generally speaking, if you want to counter aggressive or abusive government entities, you should use the power of media (ie. mainstream, blogs, you tube, etc.) push for transparency (ie. civillian oversight, removing obstacles to obtaining FOIA documents, etc.) and demand your right to be heard (attend public meetings, sit on advisory boards, etc.). An active and informed electorate, armed with today’s technology and decentralized media options, can be a formidable opponent of statism.
Dave the only problem with a qualified right, is that it can become a removed right. If you only allow people that have taken training, you can make the training impossible to pass. If you allow a sanity test of some sort, the testers can say that wanting to own a lethal weapon is proof in insanity, it has happened in the past. If you mandate range time, they can put the time requirement to a level that would be unobtainable to normal working people. What if they did the same thing to blogging? You know only people that have gone to J-school can have blogs, you can only post/reply to blogs after you pass a sanity test, and you can only post after you have all of our required training. But we will require that you have 45 hours of training/writing time per week before you can post, or you have 45 hours of writing time (keyboard range time) to keep up your blogging license.
You allow them to regulate it, they will take it away. Keep in mind that the DC mayor still states that there is not a ‘gun ban’ in DC, but as Heller shows there is a defacto one. They will ban what they want, and with out guns to keep them in check, we won’t be able to keep them in check. Keep in mind that if voting ever really changed anything, it too would be outlawed.
You keep saying “allowing,” but the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant anything at all. It acknowledges inalienable human rights the government must respect. It is a list of restrictions on our government, not a list of allowances for citizens.
That is the only reason that particular inalienable human right is spelled out in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment does not acknowledge a “sporting purpose” nor is it a crime fighting tool. None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are. They are all restrictions on our government. The second amendment is the muscle behind it.
Besides, how could the Federal, State, and Local governments stand up to us if even a small fraction of citizens who are armed, say 10 million, decided to put them back in their place?
Dave another current example would be automatic firearms. Most people think that they are illegal, can’t get one and never will be able to, because the laws wont allow you to. This is untrue. You have to pay a tax of about $2,000.00 in order to buy an automatic weapon and then the price of the weapon. This was in-acted to stop crime from the mob during prohibition. Wonderful how that worked isn’t? Dosn’t seem to stop the criminals at all.
That was the excuse, but I don’t believe there was a single murder with an automatic firearm after prohibition, before the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Even then, it was a tax, not a prohibition, because they were very common. Also, semi-auto firearms kill equally well, as do bolt-action firarms, as do knives, as do gasoline, as do….. Controlling inanimate objects isn’t about the objects, it’s about controlling people.
Lee and Dave, I agree. Thanks for helping to flesh out the issue.
CitizenN, the idea of the people storming the castle and throwing off their oppressors is a romantic fantasy (one in which I indulge myself at times). It just isn’t that realistic.
If it took “X” amount of people to get the government to mend its ways, you’ll reach that number faster without the threat of violence (meaning you do not advocate the violent overthrow of the gov. to the participants). An armed revolt that does not have popular support is doomed. If it had popular support the threat of violence would be unnecessary.
We have an imperfect system of government but it’s foundation is strong. What would we be left with after a violent overthrow? If history is to be our guide, the leaders of the revolt would probably not give up the power they fought for even if it meant becoming the very thing they fought against.
So I’ll do what I can to protect your 2nd amendment rights because there are a few more in that first 10 that I personally enjoy. Hope you return the favor! :)
Edintally – I’m not advocating storming the castle (yet), just defending the Bill in Rights as a whole for what it is intended to be, a restraint on our government.
Trust me, I value the others amendments as much if not more than the 2nd. I hate that we’re being spied on en masse, abducted at will, imprisoned without trial, given “free speech zones” when the whole of the country should be. Etc, etc, etc.
I’m with you about all our rights being important. It’s that all governments start their infringements with disarmament. It’s the canary in the coal mine and an important inalienable right to defend.
Just an FYI to everyone, the 1934 NFA was not passed to reduce any sort of crime, it was pasted to raise revenue for the government by taxing, aka the stamp tax, a few types/styles of weapons. The tax was $200 on a Full-auto weapon, Short-Barreled Rifles (SBRs), Short-Barreled Shotguns (SBSs), Silencers, and Destructive Devices (DDs). But it only charged $5 for an Any Other Weapons (AOWs) the catchall of other stuff such as smoothbore pistols, pen guns and cane guns. Also keep in mind that at that time $200 was around 5 months pay, and it was considered punitive and restrictive and was all but thrown out under US v. Miller, and the Western District of Arkansas ruled that the NFA was unconstitutional in both its restriction, penalties and amount charged. Even though it was overturned at the US Supreme Court; the Supreme Court ruled that the NFA provision (criminalizing possession of certain firearms) was not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The Cases v. United States puts more holes in the NFA. Thats why the NFA is not a criminal law, it is part of the IRS Code, and the violations are for tax evasion, not for criminal conduct.
Also the stamp tax is still only $200, not $2000 as was stated above, but all NFA legal firearms very expensive manly due to the 1986 law, that basically outlawed any new manufacture for the civilian market, with out actually banning them, by just not approving any new papers under that damn Hughes Amendment, that was passed under legally questionable circumstances, and has often been considered to be not valid. But the 86 GCA and its evil Hughes Amendment has not yet been brought under judicial review so we have to live with it.
And dont even get me started about that damn GHB presidential order that banned semi-auto imports or the ammo ban he allowed ATF to do.
And for suspected tax violations the ATF spends an obscene amount of money to set up, attack and kill americans. There is no way this should be tolerated, it is disgraceful in a ‘free’ country.
CitizenNothing is right, the Bill of Rights REITERATES inalienable natural rights, it does not give them to you. You have to change your thinking about who is your master. If you believe ink on papers AKA laws are your master, then you are doomed to always being a slave. If you believe that you have rights simply by existing and no one can take them away, then you are moving in the right direction.
Look at history and read things in the context of the time period in which they were written. The 2nd Amendment means only 1 thing, which is the individual right to bear arms. It says that and can’t be read in another way no matter how you squint or twist your head. Then look at history and why it was written the way it was, and it’s VERY clear that it’s meant to give the individuals (who were the militia). Oppression by a tyrannical government can only be stopped by violence. No amount of writing letters will change squat, as the elite will never change because you ask. You have to be real about the threats you face if you’re going to effectively deal with them.
You can always cower in fear, or you can be willing to die, even by yourself, when push comes to shove. It’s your choice where that line is at. In no way do my statements advocate immediate violence. I just speak from history and logic, and violence is the only solution when a government becomes so tyrannical AND the people are so fed up with being oppressed.
Lee: I appreciate your comments about natural rights and I agree that they exist. My take on gun rights is less radical than your own, but not because I believe anyone is my master, because I don’t. I reject the concept of rulers (whether they are kings, government employees or my employer) and I am no one’s slave (I may be a “wage slave,” but that’s another issue for another time). I am also not cowering in fear. If I was, I would not contribute to this site using my real name, send letters to the editor, sign petitions or ally myself with organizations viewed as “radical” by those in power. Edin was right to express reservations about violent revolt. You never know what kind of dystopia you may create.
So Lee, I am not an anarchist, as I don’t reject the need for certain government services or representative democracy (I would prefer a more participatory democracy, though). One of the few necessary roles I advocate for organized government involves public safety. The constitution states that government should “promote the general welfare.” And, as Mr. Gura pointed out in the Reason interview, the constitution doesn’t gurantee absolute rights (ie. classic example: yelling fire in a crowded theater not covered under 1st Amendment). I believe it is consistent w/ promotion of the general welfare for government to be involved in the gun issue to ensure that certifiably insane people or criminals can’t have access to firearms. It is true that “guns don’t kill people,” but they do make it a hell of a lot easier for people with little or no training to kill large numbers of people in a short period of time. I agree with other commenters that a “qualified right” can be abused by bureaucrats. That’s why it is up to us, through agitation and contacting our representatives, to determine how far this restriction can go.
the power to tax is the power to destroy; the power to regulate is the power to deny. it’s happening with the 1st amendment, too. we have a list of unforgivable words that can – in just the right circumstances – that can get you fired. or prosecuted.
as is happening to mark steyn up north, even as we speak.
of course it never starts out with full-blown banning/seizures/confiscations. heck no! we’re just going to put a very few very sensible *restrictions* on your guns/speech/parenting rights. just a few little teeny-tiny things you can no longer do, ok? how can anyone be against such sensible ideas?