Opinion

I've posted (or at least thought about posting; I can't be bothered to actually find the post) about a welcome mat with the words "Come back with a warrant" on it.  As someone who values my own rights and privacy, that would be my natural and instinctive response to a police officer making inquiries about a search of my home -- because consenting to a search when you are under suspicion is never a good idea.

But Patterico, who actually works as a prosecutor in California in addition to blogging, thinks such a welcome mat would constitute probable cause for a warrant in and of itself.

That's why I'm a Libertarian, not a Republican.  Asserting one's constitutional rights should never be grounds for suspicion.  If the government didn't have probable cause for a search before being denied permission, the fact that it was denied doesn't give any additional evidentiary weight in favor of a warrant. 

To disregard this is to render Constitutional rights meaningless.  If any refusal can be considered evidence for a compulsory search, then there is no right to refuse a search.

American farmers were the standing militia of the day. There were no police or National Guard, and only the beginnings of an army. These were the minutemen - brave, tough men and women ready to fight at a moment's notice.

The historical context of this part of the Bill of Rights - the recurring nightmare of Redcoat soldiers - shows that every American family needed a musket standing against the wall, ready to load and ready to kill.

Not so today. The premise of the Second Amendment, the need for minutemen, no longer exists. In a free society we must rely on the police. We have more important rights to fight for than the right to bear arms.

... comes a certain refreshing honesty.  When the 2nd Amendment is considered fairly, even its opponents must recognize that it protects an absolute right for ordinary Americans to own firearms.  They deny this, and write whole treatises on the fiction of a "collective right", because their policies are wholly foreclosed by the 2nd Amendment.  No form of gun control is permissable under the correct reading... and they have so much invested in the policies of gun control that they are willing to invent elaborate and transparent fictions in order to allow for them.

Until very recently, the courts and the legislatures were willing to go along with this fiction.  That seems to be changing, and none to soon.

What the forces of gun control do not understand is that the rights we have today are ours because our ancestors fought and died for them -- fought and died with arms, in a revolution against the lawful authority of their time.  The Founders gave us the 2nd Amendment because they wanted to ensure we could protect the other rights they had bought with blood.  To say now that we should rely upon the police would be to tell the Founders that the Redcoats would keep them safe. 

So when someone asks us to give up the 2nd Amendment in favor of protecting other, "more important" rights, ask them how those other rights will be protected?  As Mao once said, political power flows from the barrel of a gun.  The disarmed cannot even protect their lives, much less their rights.

There's a fairly good article on Alito's nomination up at townhall.com.  It examines the logical consequences of the left's claims that Alito's judicial rulings are out of the mainstream.

Kim suggests that no-knock warrants are a bad thing, and that when the police screw up and raid the wrong house, the occupants of that house should not be penalized for shooting back regardless of anything else the police might do. 

1. I will grant, very reluctantly, the fact that occasionally the police will require extraordinary powers in order to catch serious criminals.
2. However, on the basis that extreme measures also require extreme caution, I will also stipulate that if a LEO (or more than one LEO) gets shot during a no-knock raid which has been made at the wrong address, that the homeowner MAY NOT BE CHARGED with any felony.

He's almost right.  I have two quibbles. 

First, the minor one -- why restrict it to felonies?  If an LEO gets shot, or the like, while executing a no-knock warrant on the wrong house, the occupants should get off scott-free for anything found in the search or anything they do to defend themselves.  The LEO is there illegally, and that's that. 

Second, the whole concept of no-knock warrants is repugnant to a free society.  There are very narrow cases which arguably require such a warrant; the obvious ones are hostage situations or terrorists with the remote control to a bomb in their hideout.   Outside of rare cases like those, nothing is gained by a no-knock warrant.  They should not even be issued.

Given that, I see no need to restrict the self-defense principle above to cases where there was a mistake on the warrant; as far as I am concerned it should be applied to ANY and ALL no-knock warrants.

If the police make the decision to go in without knocking, they are starting a fight, and no one should be blamed for the actions they take in self-defense.  Whatever the original reason for searching was on the warrant can be fought over in court, but any actions taken in response to the raid come with a get-out-of-jail-free card. 

You may be thinking that this leaves no incentive for criminals to surrender rather than shooting back.  I disagree.  The incentive is simple.  If they shoot back, the police will quite likely kill them on the spot.  If they do not shoot back, they will quite likely live to face trial.  That's a big incentive.

Seems like simple common sense to me.  If you break into someone's house with your gun out, deliberately denying them the opportunity to consider their actions rationally and evaluate who you are and what you want, they are going to perceive a life-threatening emergency and shoot at you.  Being a criminal doesn't change that, especially these days, when tiny little innocuous things are often felonies.

It seems, according to Dave Kopel of the Volokh Conspiracy, that the Kuwaiti royal family does not sit easily upon their throne; they are insisting that the resistance (that is, the pro-Kuwaiti resistance who fought against Saddam Hussein after he invaded) give up their arms -- and they are enforcing this with house-to-house searches and stiff penalties. 

This suggests an interesting question to me:

Suppose a foreign nation... let's say Canada... decides to invade the United States.  They send in their army, armed with a variety of deadly weapons; everything from machine guns to tanks.  Suppose, in the typical Red Dawn scenario, our own military is busy somewhere else and it is left to the militia to repel the invasion.  Suppose further that the militia successfully routs the Canadian army before our own military can become a serious factor, and order is restored.

What happens to the captured Canadian firearms?  They are not legal in the United States -- being unregistered NFA weapons (machine guns).  While it wouldn't be too difficult to round up all the tanks, it would be completely impossible to collect all the machine guns, grenades, and so forth.  Inevitably, some of those weapons would end up in civilian hands.

How would the United States government respond to this situation?

Just an interesting thought experiment.

UPDATE: Thanks for the link, Alphecca.  I'd like to take a moment to clarify the conumdrum, in order to hopefully avoid further commenter confusion.  The problem I presented is this: the defeated Canadian army leaves behind thousands of captured military weapons (machine guns, primarily) in civilian hands.  Under current law, it is legal to own a registered machine gun with the appropriate permission slips, but it is impossible to register new machine guns.  The widespread scope of the invasion ensures that the government cannot simply recover all the weapons through a limited, aggressive policy against a few individuals. 

If the weapons are to be recovered, it would be house-to-house searches.  If they are left out there, suddenly there are thousands of people who probably do not even realize they are in possession of an "illegal" machine gun through no fault of their own.  Should they be charged?  What if they aren't discovered for decades?

It seems the Texican Tattler is off on a rant about so-called price gouging by the oil companies.  He thinks that oil companies make "huge" profits because they are price gouging, and that that is automatically a bad thing.  Unfortunately, he's falling into the all-too-common trap laid by the media about economics in general.  There's a good take on the question at Pubcrawler, but it's really a simple issue.

In a free market, prices are dictated by the supply of a particular product compared with the demand for that product.  The demand for gasoline is high -- everyone needs it to get to work, heat their homes, produce electricity, ship their products to the market, and so on.  Some of that demand can be adjusted in the short term (consumers can choose to cut down on non-essential driving, put up with the heat, etc); some can be adjusted in the long term (buying more fuel-efficient cars).  The supply is also variable, sometimes significantly.

We should not be surprised to see rapid price spikes when there are supply problems.  The individual gas stations need to make enough money on their current inventory (ie, the gasoline in their underground tanks) to be able to replace it when they run out; that means they need to be ahead of the price curve, selling today's oil at tomorrow's prices.  If they don't do this, they will go out of business.  This doesn't mean they are making huge profits.

The recent spike in prices at the pump in the US can be laid partially at the feet of Katrina, which impacted much of our refining capacity, combined with the fact that we were already running pretty much at the limit of our refining capacity to begin with.  That combination means that we had to make up the shortfall somewhere -- by finding refined gasoline elsewhere and shipping it to the markets.  Doing that costs more than the usual procedure (otherwise, the usual procedure would not be the usual procedure).  So, when the cost of delivering a gallon of gasoline to the local gas station goes up, the supplier has to raise prices; the alternative is to go out of business.

We also should not be surprised to see large oil companies making big profits.  Consider; there are about 300 million people in America alone, and each adult probably spends at least $100 on gasoline for their car per month -- sometimes less, sometimes more.  That's completely ignoring business use and non-vehicle use, and it adds up to $360 billion per year for the US alone.  That's a huge industry.  Large absolute profits are meaningless; you have to compare that industry with other industries to see how the profit margins match up before you can even start to complain. 

Let's not forget that gasoline taxes often make up a huge portion of the price of gasoline.  That money is going to your local government, not your local oil company.

Here's a quote from the Tattler's post:

We are being led to believe that a 24 cent per gallon increase in 24 hours was a good thing. That somehow magically that prevented the country from running out of gas. Say what? Did the extra 24 cents per gallon prevent anyone from doing anything other than pay more at the pump?

Sure.  It prevented gas stations and their suppliers from going out of business.  There are sources of gasoline that they can get to the marketplace so long as people are willing to buy; but those sources cost more than the usual sources, so those additional costs have to be covered.  The oil companies could have chosen to keep prices at the same level, and simply not supplied oil to the market at all while the price was higher than some arbitrary point.  Would that have helped the situation at all?

This is not a Republican or Democrat thing. This is a consumer thing. As comsumers we need to get mad enough to care about what is going on. We need to start to hit back a little. We need to let the big oil companies we won't put up with this anymore. No one is saying don't make a profit. No one wants to say how much you can make. But not at the cost of gouging it's customers. That's why we have anti-price gouging laws. Try raising the price of plywood by 1000% during a hurricane and see what happens. Why is this being allowed with gas?

Because this is a free market.  Sellers set their prices and buyers choose to buy -- or not.  It's not something we want the government involved in "allowing".  As for raising the price of plywood during a hurricane -- no problem!  There's a limited supply of plywood.  Suppose you raise the cost by a factor of 10; that means you can then pay your suppliers that same additional factor to get more plywood.  If the roads are shut down or blocked by debris, it's going to cost more to deliver that plywood.  Maybe even ten times more, especially if you intend to pay someone to drive into a hurricane.

But really, there's a simple truth here.  If gasoline prices are too high for your taste, and you don't like the idea of oil companies making profits... you don't have to buy gas.  Really.  It's a voluntary transaction.  That you are willing to exchange two or three dollars for a gallon of fuel is a sign that the price is reasonable under the circumstances.  If you think it's unreasonable... don't pay it.  That's the sign of a healthy market at work.

UPDATE: Featured in the Carnival of Liberty.

"Hmmm...so, Dad, what you're saying is, the inline muzzle-loading boom is an example of how government regulations distorted markets, produced unintended consequences, and codified an inferior, un-competitive technology that would have vanished long ago without the regulations that sustain it?"

Ain't that just the thing about government?

Now looms a wolfish assault in sheep's clothing: the Online Freedom of Speech Act, which House Republican leaders are suddenly planning to put to a vote on Wednesday so politicians can abuse the Internet as an unregulated outlet for multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns. The bill, put on a fast track in the hope that nobody notices outside the political-industrial complex, would exempt the Internet from the hard-won three-year-old reform law that stopped federal officials from tapping corporations, unions and fat cats for unregulated donations in the quid pro quo marketplace.

The New York Times isn't defending anything other than their dwindling profits.  Hat tip to the good folks at Hit and Run.

Nicki asks, "What part of shall not be infringed is unclear?"

I'll answer that one.  It's a really simple flaw that undermines the whole Bill of Rights.  While it's disappointing that it would be necessary, experience has shown that there is no other way to maintain the required deference to the rule of law.  So what is this mystery clause, this hidden secret to a Constitutional government, this startling missing element to the 2nd Amendment of our venerated Constitution?

Penalties for violation.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler promptly came up with a half-cocked scheme to have the provinces empower Canadians to sue U.S. gun manufacturers whose legal products are used illegally in Canada.

It's quite a doctrine, that. The U.S. Congress, as it happens, has just passed a law shielding gun makers and dealers from liability in many negligence lawsuits; it's a bad law in some ways, but so would be any Canadian law saying the maker of a legal product is responsible for the way it's used. Please do not roll up this newspaper and beat anyone to death, no matter how infuriating you find the editorials: we wouldn't much like to be sued, and that surely wouldn't be far down the road. (As for citizens suing the government in Ottawa for bad decisions, on the gun registry, say, where do we sign up?)

That's a good analogy.  They also have about half the right idea about violent crime.

Police and prosecutors there have just stepped up their anti-gun and anti-gang efforts and will add resources by borrowing additional prosecutors. That makes sense: Toronto's gun violence is mainly gang violence. Mercifully, this problem of shooting sprees has not reached Montreal to the same degree as in Toronto, in part no doubt because police here have had some success against gang culture.

Unfortunately, they still think that restricting access to guns is a part of the solution.  But at least they are talking about restricting gang members' access to guns, rather than the general public.

In the comments of an earlier post, David of gunshowonthenet says:

See your point. Did you read the rest of the post? It touches on much of the argument you make. However, I still stand by what I wrote. It is not serving the best interest of the citizenry as a whole to allow arms into the hands of those who are neither 'sane nor safe'. And it certainly doesn't help the cause of Gun Owners, as a whole, to advocate 'anyone and everyone' having the ability to keep and bear arms. Am also of the opinion that a person, not a citizen of the United States, should not be allowed possession of arms. That the right is reserved for citizens only.

By suggestion, you indicate it would be perfectly acceptable for Charles Manson, should he be released, to keep and bear arms? There is a matter of responsibility involved. The whole case being made by the Gun-Grabbers is reinforced by irresponsible uses of firearms. They jump on each instance and pronounce "I told you so!" With freedom comes responsibility! A fact not touched on much these days.

Should Charles Manson be released, he'll NEED arms -- because there will be a hell of a lot of people who want him dead, and the police for sure won't be protecting him.  The problem I have with your scenario isn't arming Charles Manson once released, it's releasing him at all.

I don't disagree that it would be politically expedient to pass laws against "bad people" having guns.  The problem is that the government defines the "bad people".  If it's valid to prevent "bad people" from owning the tools of self-defense while they are free in society, what will you do when the government defines "bad people" to be... oh... anyone who ever got a speeding ticket?

Putting the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution was intended to take the issue off the table as close to permanently as the Founders were willing to go.  And until you are willing to submit to a background check before buying a computer or connecting to the Internet, calling for background checks before buying a gun is a position of weakness that indicates a lack of moral clarity.

Politically, it will probably be impossible to get rid of the felon-in-possession prohibition, and difficult to get rid of the mandatory background check.  But background checks are Constitutionally invalid, and the felon-in-possession laws are questionable.  It shouldn't matter how expedient they are.

Personally, I'm thankful for Gun Owners of America.  But I get what Larry Pratt has to say about the Richmond gun-show scandal.

The way to counter Saddam Hussein's strategies is by declaring irrevocably that the only acceptable end to hostilities is unconditional surrender.

America would do well not to embark on future wars whose political success depends on the assumption that the enemy won't fight.

Most of us are familiar with the on-going propaganda attack promoting the idea that, because of those unfortunate words in the Second Amendment, "A well regulated militia," the amendment was intended to protect the right of the states to maintain National Guard type troops as we know them today, and not the rights of we individual citizens to "keep and bear arms." It appears the classic tactic of repeating a big lie over and over until ?everyone knows it? is being used. Others have written many pages of academic, historical studies to prove that the Second Amendment was intended to define an individual right. Those studies, most of them based on numerous quotes from the founders themselves, I will not repeat here. You can look them up in many places.

As Washington demands that the Geneva Convention be respected, it should set an example with its own handling of battlefield captives.

The Pentagon delayed strikes on Iraqi TV because it hoped to use the network after the war. That target should have been one of the first.

This got a little delayed, such that by the time you read it here, Iraqi TV has already been taken down by US forces. It's also worth noting that this piece comments about the US military not expecting guerrilla tactics and how resistance has been stiffer than expected; as far as I can tell, these assertions are false. The military never claimed to expect a cakewalk, and they have consistently stated that they are not at all surprised that Saddam's troops would employ guerrila tactics.

On the other hand, both of these factors clearly suprised TV commentators and journalists, so the error is forgivable.

The Islamic-influenced government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan has transformed Turkey, the formerly staunch U.S. ally, into Saddam's best friend.

What is it about international conflict and instability that sparks euphemisms and catchy phrases? Take the Patriot Act, for instance. It sounds nice enough, but itýs not. Because of antiterrorist legislation, political organizations are now subject to wiretapping and other forms of increased surveillance. The FBI has the power to investigate citizens for ýintelligence purposesý without probable cause. Local law enforcement agents have a higher degree of latitude to conduct secret searches of highly personal records under the umbrella of ýdomestic terrorism.ý Noncitizens, who are apparently not endowed with the same unalienable rights (and are clearly foreigners), can be jailed for months without having been convicted of a crime. This is patriotism?

If the United States is at war against terrorism to preserve freedom, a new coalition of conservatives and liberals is asking, why is it doing so by wholesale abrogation of civil liberties? They cite the Halloween-week passage of the antiterrorism bill ý a new law that carries the almost preposterously gimmicky title: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act). Critics both left and right are saying it not only strips Americans of fundamental rights but does little or nothing to secure the nation from terrorist attacks.

This much is all too obviously true: We have no real idea what our government is doing right now, at this moment, as you read this. And we find this enormously reassuring.

We know far less than we think we know and far less than we want to believe and that is apparently exactly the way we like it, because otherwise it's just so frustrating and depressing and gives us just the worst sort of collective cultural eczema.

We have, for example, precious little idea what bombs are being dropped, and where, and with what ulterior motives; it's the most secretive and media-unfriendly "war" in recent history, and no one really minds, because it just makes things so much easier.

Whoa, you say. Starting a war is illegal under both the UN Charter and the US Constitution? No problem. We just call it self defense! Yeah, that's it! We're just defending ourselves. Don't need to bother with them pesky congresscritters, either.

Thus has evolved George Bush's newfound doctrine of self defense by pre-emptive strikes upon Iraq. War, it used to be called. But, America does not initiate war, by definition, so it must be something else, of course.

• Build a wing onto your house without worrying about code bureaucrats.
• Grow industrial hemp on your land without being busted as a drug baron.
• Build a pond, fill one in. And donýt tremble before the EPA.
• Keep what you earn. Carry a gun without begging permission.
• Start a business without a government license.
• Decide for yourself whether to wear a seat belt.
• Keep your privacy.
• Breathe free in a state that would never steal your property, brainwash your children, or impose tyranny in exchange for federal bribery (bribery paid with your own money!).

Would you like to do such such simple, ordinary, reasonable American things? Today, if you try youýre often an outlaw, a common criminal, a threat to the established order. But for most of the countryýs history, this was simply the way Americans expected to live. You could do what you wanted, as long as you didnýt use force or fraud to impose your will on others.

I've thought of this pretty often myself. It's a compelling idea.

Maryland Republican gubernatorial candidate Robert L. Ehrlich is willing to judge gun-control laws on their merits ý do they actually work? ý and if not, get rid of them.

Back in 1990, a few months before the bombs started dropping on Baghdad, an Army pal slipped me a Pentagon study based on World War II experiences estimating that U.S. forces would suffer 50,000 casualties during the projected six-month campaign. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf's staff later predicted a still-staggering 20,000 dead or wounded. Because Stormin' Norman's forces brilliantly zapped Saddam Hussein's mob in a record-breaking 100-hour ground war, actual U.S. casualties were a mere fraction of these two estimates ý 147 Killed In Action and 457 Wounded In Action. At least at first look.

But within weeks after our warriors took off their boots and hung up their rifles, dozens, then hundreds, of Gulf War vets became casualties. And as the years tick by, this figure has already grown to tens of thousands.

This is an interesting argument against an invasion of Iraq -- or at least, an argument for caution and consideration. It's unlikely that any invasion would be as easy as the first one.