Freedom and security are a zero-sum game.  The more freedom you have, the less security the government can give you, and vice versa.  While, in general, I like the idea of the FBI evesdropping on suspected foreign agents in our territory in order to capture them and disrupt their plots, I think that the restrictions on their ability to do so have been weakened substantially by the Patriot Act -- and not necessarily wisely.  But even with those weakened restrictions, they can't seem to obey the rules (according to papers obtained by the EFF), and that is troubling.

This is why it is a bad idea to allow the FBI to require that networks be designed to facilitate easy evesdropping.  The easier it is for the FBI to evesdrop the harder it is to keep that evesdropping under proper legal control.

Alphecca is soliciting comments about the War on Drugs.  I'm a Libertarian (yes, big-L, though I do have some serious differences with the party's positions on some things).  Thus, it should not come as a surprise that I oppose the drug war.  I do so for several reasons.

First, there is no Constitutional authority for drug prohibition.  The federal government has no authority to regulate or ban the possession of any substance, though they can regulate commerce in that substance IF it crosses a state line or international border.  The government is exceeding it's Constitutional authority in this respect, and for decades that was driving the expansion of Federal powers in a way that caused dramatic harm to the rights of the people. 

If drug regulations were to operate on the State level, people could choose to live under regulations that they approve of -- and suffer the consequences of that choice.  The federal system would work as it was intended, allowing both choice and policy experimentation.

Second, I believe that drug use is a personal choice.  People have the right to do whatever they wish so long as their conduct does not harm others.  If a drug user can't keep a job, he's harming himself, not anyone else -- and not being able to keep a job might well motivate him to change!  The same argument applies to alcohol.  Social pressure has reduced the problem of alcohol abuse far, far more than regulation has.   Those who want to be successful will choose to drink or use drugs responsibly -- and "responsibly" may mean complete abstinence for many.  I drink rarely, and I choose not to use the sort of drugs that people mean when they talk about "using drugs".  I don't even like simple painkillers for a headache or cold medicine; I don't like the way that they interfere with my thought processes.

Third, some of the drugs we're talking about are just plants.  Why are we outlawing weeds?

Fourth, Jeff comments about lost productivity resulting from alcohol abuse.  While that's a good argument for appropriate social norms discouraging alcohol abuse, it's not an argument for government intervention.  It is not the government's job to make us more productive.

Fifth, Jeff also notes that crime is often associated with alcohol.  Granted, but correlation is not causation -- would these same people be committing crimes if they were not drunk?  Probably not in some cases, but there are millions of people who manage to drink and get drunk without breaking the law.  The causal chain is not direct, but instead involves reduced judgement and reasoning.  Drinking does not cause crime; it causes stupidity.  The problem is the crime itself, not that drinking led to the crime, and the way to address it is to punish the crime.  Someone who notices that when they get drunk, they end up in jail, should put two and two together and stop getting drunk.

It is not appropriate for the government to walk back up that chain of causality.  Deal with the crime.  Social organizations that are not wielding the threat of lethal force to bankroll their operations can handle the causes.

Sixth, and finally, drug prohibition is unenforceable.  Our experience with it so far has made that abundently clear.

All that said, I agree with Jeff that hard drugs can destroy lives.   But government is not there to help us make good choices; it's there to prevent us from harming one another, not from harming ourselves. 

I have not previously noted the passing of Rosa Parks.

Sometimes, just saying no is all it takes to change the world.

May she rest in peace, and may we all remember the lesson she taught us.

... on who the next nominee should be.  Both Janice Rogers Brown and Alex Kozinski are on the list, along with others.  Go vote... but only after you tell the President who you want.

The New York Times recently celebrated the 2000-death "milestone" (or is that "millstone"?) in Iraq.  The photo they used to present the story was of one Colonel Starr, who left a letter on his laptop intended to be found in the event of his death.  They quoted from his letter.  Unfortunately, they didn't quote all of it.  I present, below, a more complete citation (the bold text was not included by the NYTimes):

Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I?m writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I?m pushing my chances. I don?t regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it?s not to me. I?m here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.

I can't take credit for this story; Michelle Malkin and Patterico are both way, way ahead of me.  But I can't let this man's last words go unnoticed, either.

... or at least, so says the Gun Owners of America.  The concern they have is that Alberto Gonzales is still on the President's short list -- and he's not acceptable.  Why not? Well, for one thing, he thinks the Assault Weapons Ban was Constitutional -- and in fact supported it.

We need to contact the President with the names that we support.  Here's GOA's short list, and it looks remarkably like mine (but is not identical -- mine is shorter):

1. Janice Rogers Brown: the individual right to keep and bear arms is a "right expressly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."
   
2. Samuel Alito: Argued that Congress cannot regulate the private possession of machine guns.
3. Edith Jones: "unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow citizens."
   
4. Alex Kozinski: "All too many of the other great tragedies of history... were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations."
5. Sam Cummings: US v Emerson.
   

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.

My life continues to generate stress and upheaval.  While this blog isn't about my life, sometimes life interferes with blogging.  Please be patient.  If this site should disappear suddenly, don't panic; the gun blogger who shall no longer be named disappeared for similar reasons.  I'll make my way back towards regular posting as time and energy permit.

UPDATE: Thanks for the kind words of encouragement, folks.  I'm turning this entry back into a normal one.  I think I'm past the hump, and things should be OK from here out, but I'm not absolutely certain.  It's good to be back.  If you want to know what was up, email me; I won't post anything more about it publically.

Today's headline from The (Anti-)Gun Guy:

Activists convinced Paramount Pictures to take down posters of rapper 50 Cent's new movie that showed the rapper holding a gun.  They claimed it glorified gun violence (especially since the posters were displayed very near a day school), and so Paramount decided to pull the posters from many locations.  But while it's great that Paramount realized their message was   wrong, it's not really the pictures of the guns that we're after.

Y'know, it's almost sad.  They're reduced to crowing about the fact that they managed to convince one of their Hollywood allies to stop advertising guns.  They can't convince anyone else and they are having a hard time convincing themselves, apparantly, at least when there's money involved.

It's interesting for another reason as well. 

Yes, in this internal email to supporters, they are calling for guns to be removed from the home.  All homes.  They don't quite come out and say they want to ban them... but they definitely want them "removed".  Somehow.  By moral 'suasion or theft or police action, I suppose, so long as they are gone.

And let's not forget the other angle... The left, supposed champions of the First Amendment, mounting a pressure campaign against one of their own allies for exercising their right of free speech.

Don't they realize we're watching them melt down in slow motion... with popcorn?

Bush announced today that his controversial nominee for the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, requested that he withdraw her name from consideration.  The official reason was due to the potential for conflicts over her work as White House counsel; with little other basis to evaluate her work, even strongly conservative Senators were hinting that they would need to see those documents.  Unofficially, the vocal discontent of the Republican base was probably a factor. 

With Miers out of the way, and Democrats already speculating that her nomination was a Rove plot all along, the question of who Bush will nominate as her replacement surely looms large.  Will he take offense at what he might perceive as a betrayal by the right, and nominate a similar candidate?  Or will the right receive what they are demanding -- a judge with both stellar qualifications on Constitutional law and a record demonstrating an originalist judicial philosophy?

That's hard to say, but I am convinced we dodged a bullet with Miers.  Here's why I finally came down as opposing her:

1. No judicial record.  First and foremost, a Supreme Court justice is a judge.  The task of judging cases is different from the task of being an advocate for a client; the difference is not insurmountable but the results reached may well be different. 
   
2. Her only significant experience with Constitutional law consists of documents unquestionably protected by executive privilege.
3. The writing samples available to us are relatively unclear and muddled.  Clarity of thought is usually expressed in clarity of the written word.  Lack of clarity in the writing of a Supreme Court decision can cost billions of dollars in legal fees.
   
4. Leaked rumors that Miers may once have owned a gun and may once have had a concealed carry permit sound like a bone tossed to a stray dog.  There's no meat on it.  Owning a gun, even carrying a gun while a public figure and government official, does not translate into a favorable position on guns.  Just ask Feinstein.
5. The fact that she has not specialized her career in Constitutional law means that she has begun forming serious legal opinions about the Constitution only recently.  There would be a substantial risk that an inexperienced Constitutional lawyer on the court would grow up... like Souter.
6. No sense of what her positions are on Constitutional issues (assuming she has even formulated them).  Bush may trust her, but I don't trust Bush.
7. As a case in point, noting her evangelical religion is not a positive.  God does not decide cases.  The law decides cases. 
   
8. Miers may be a lot of things, but one of the top Constitutional lawyers and scholars in the nation is not one of them.

Most people involved in the firearms community were born into it. The vast majority of shooters have brothers, uncles and grandparents that own guns and are eager to pass their legacy on to the next generation. This means that it?s most likely that a shooter will already have a huge storehouse of facts, figures and gun lore inside his head.

It is very difficult for experienced shooters to understand the mindset of those who are just beginning to explore this hobby of ours. What is obvious or self evident to us is arcane and obscure to the beginner. This is a problem when introducing someone to the shooting sports.

Good advice for sure.  I'm going to use it as a springboard to talk about something else that I've known for a while, but haven't said much about here.  It's something that I first realized while reading Unintended Consequences, though Ross does not address it directly.  Quite simply, there is a culture that exists around firearms (and also hunting), and that culture is a repository of knowledge and skill that is finite.  Efforts at gun control are not solely aimed at controlling the inanimate objects we call firearms, they are aimed at controlling -- and eventually, destroying -- a culture.

And in a large part, it's working.  There are millions of gun owners but few of them are politically active regarding their gun rights.  Guns are generally not shown in public because they tend to panic people who aren't part of that culture.  People who move from the country to the city often leave their guns behind, drifting away from the recreational uses that they once enjoyed because it becomes too much time and trouble to shoot regularly.  Even while they lose on the political front, the anti-gun media continues to press the cultural battle.

We have to bring new people into the culture, and keep those who join interested.  If we do not do that, if we cannot do that, we will lose.

I'm a case in point.

I was not born a member of the gun culture.

In fact, I was born in a city which has a near-complete ban on firearms, in a gun-free home.  No one I knew owned firearms (or at least admitted to owning firearms) for the entirety of my childhood.  Though my family moved to a less restrictive city eventually, the no-guns rule remained in place.  It didn't bother me much, it just wasn't something I thought about much as a kid. 

Leaving the restrictive laws of my birthplace aside, it should be surprising that I was raised in a gun-free home, particularly after my family moved.  My father and grandfather both served in the military; my mother was born and raised on a farm in the country, and her family owned several firearms.  (I did not learn of this until after they had been sold with the estate.)  Even my last name is a direct reference to an activity normally performed with a firearm.

Yet throughout my childhood and teenage years, firearms were quietly but firmly prohibited.  My mother did not like them; my father did not like them enough to make it an issue.

I was drawn into the gun culture through politics.  I saw that firearms and firearms rights were being ceaselessly attacked, despite their obvious utility for self-defense and the explicit protection of the 2nd Amendment.  I decided to dedicate a large part of my time and energy to protecting those rights in particular, which is how I ended up running this blog.

It was not easy to get here.  In some ways, I'm still not "here".  I own firearms; I shoot them when I have time.  I've done a lot of research, mostly on the law, but also on firearms in general.  But there are a lot of things that I don't know as well as I would like, and others that I know nothing about at all.  For example, I've never been hunting; no one in my circle of friends hunts, and I don't even really know where to start looking.  I don't know if I'd like it, though I would like the chance to find out.  (I'm still working on that one).

I have no illusions regarding the willingness of the general public to put in the same amount of time and effort it has taken to bootstrap myself into a position of even occasionally patchy knowledge about the gun culture. 

The bottom line: we need better outreach.  Don't just hand a new recruit a gun and let him try it for a day at the range... welcome him or her into the culture.  Share your out-of-the-way shooting spots and your hunting grounds.  Invite people to participate once they show an interest.  There are a lot of people out there who don't even know what they are missing.

Y'know, the Prime Minister of Canadian has every right to raise the issue with a US official, just like he can raise any other issue he wants.  But if it's not too much trouble, I'd like to request at least one news camera be positioned to record his departure from an unusual angle: the rear.

I want to see Condi's bootmarks on his ass.

SaysUncle reports that the President signed the bill (via the NRA).  I'll keep my eyes peeled for updates to the cases that would be affected by this. 

He also asks "What next?"  Good question.  In the past I've argued that repealing the Hughes Amendment would be a good step forward.  I'm going to back off of that a little -- I think it might make a better test case for our shiny new Justice and his friends, depending on who the second one turns out to be.  Sporting purposes test is a good target, but mostly symbolic.   

I figure national concealed carry is the next legislative target.  To short-circuit federalism concerns, treat it just like a driver's license -- if you can carry in your home state you can carry anywhere, with criminal penalties for police harassment.  Hell, piggyback it on the state-issued IDs -- amend the RealID act to add a "carry endorsement" to the standard.  Lemonade from lemons...

... who calls his blog GunShowOnTheNet.  But his latest entry reveals that he is in dire need of some education.  Witness:

It is evident that the Federal Government has not only the Right but the duty to perform 'Background' checks on prospective purchasers of Firearms. It is quite apparent that our Founders desired that Firearms be in "safe and sane" hands. That the Federal Government assures that a citizen is indeed capable of possessing a firearm is a matter of Ensuring Domestic Tranquility.

No such thing is "evident".  First, the federal government does not have rights; it has powers, granted to it by the Constitution.  Second, "ensuring domestic tranquility", despite the appearance of those words within that document, is not a grant of power.  It's a statement of purpose, similar to "promote the general welfare", to which those specifically granted powers should be applied.  (Unless you want to contend that drugging the water supply with valium is Constitutionally-permissible).

The present prohibition on felons possessing firearms is doubly offensive to the Constitution; it is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, and it lacks any Constitutionally-enumerated power from which its authority is derived.  While removing or overturning it is both unlikely and probably unwise, only the naive proponents of gun control imagine (usually only for brief moments of supreme concentration, accompanied by a supportive chorus) that it actually prevents criminals from getting their hands on a gun if they want one.

A Constitutional government would lock its criminals up without their guns, preferably for long enough to ensure that they would trod the straight and narrow in the future, and restore them their arms upon release.  Those criminals who repeatedly committed violent crimes would find Darwin close upon their heels before long. 

While it may be politically expedient to publically voice support for background checks, it is neither effective in reducing crime nor is it sound in principle.  Even if prohibitting felons from firearms possession is considered a wise and successful policy, background checks on ordinary citizens represent a prior restraint upon a protected right.  We must always remember that it represents a compromise, not a victory.

The Volokh Conspiracy examines the interaction between the 2nd and 14th Amendments.  (If your Constitutional crib sheet isn't handy, the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, and the 14th Amendment provides for Federal protection of the "privileges and immunities" of citizens of the United States, along with equal protection of the law). 

People who claim that the 2nd Amendment does not bar states from enacting gun control are forgetting about the 14th.

Looks like I won't be seeing the next Bond movie.  The other Bonds weren't stupid enough to make their opinion known publically before the release, at least not while I was paying attention.  What does he think people did with swords, knives, axes, arrows, spears, catapolts, ballistae, rocks and even simple clubs before handguns were invented, hmm?

I spoke with Mason late yesterday and she told me how CBS News will deal with this issue in the future. Mason said that if Wallace ?suggests a story that we feel is a potential conflict, we?ll look at it and if we see a conflict, we?ll turn it down.? I take that to mean we won?t be seeing Mr. Wallace doing any more stories involving Second Amendment issues.

I hope he's right.  But I don't trust CBS.

Hugh Hewitt writes (regarding the Miers nomination):

I did not call for the GOP to steadfastly defend the president and his nominee against obviously meritous charges of perjury, etc. I argued that the Democratic Party's example of absurd and wrong headed loyalty of a scandal-plagued Clinton contrasted sharply with many among the GOP's immediate turn on Bush/Miers even before the hearings, when Bush deserves political support from the very people he has aided, at a minimum until the hearings begin. The GOP and allied pundits cold move a long way towards party loyalty and the sort of political maturity that enduring majority coalitions need without ever coming close to the line the Democrats crossed with Clinton, and that move would serve the party and their goals in the long run.

He's got a point -- there's a difference between loyalty to a President on the matter of perjury charges and similar crimes, and a Supreme Court nomination.  But Hugh is arguing here that those the President has aided owe him loyalty in return.  Fine, to a degree.  Those the President has aided with his Presidency do perhaps owe him something.  But what has President Bush done for me?

He's passed tax cuts... that will expire in a few years.  But he's also spending like a drunken sailor, including massive new drug benefits.

He's kept America "safe" from terrorism... while undermining vital civil liberties.  And he won't even close off the southern border, something that is vitally important to preventing terrorists from smuggling in weapons of mass destruction.  

He's appointed a justice to the Supreme Court... whose opinion on vital questions is still a mystery.  No credit there.

He's supported the Firearms Liability Protection Act... while also supporting the Assault Weapons Ban.  He has failed even to propose meaningful reforms to bring our nation's gun laws back to sanity.

He's failed even to propose meaningful social security or tax reforms.  Never mind pass them -- he hasn't even proposed them, aside from broad speculative outlines of possible future proposals that fade into mist once Democratic opposition crystalizes. 

In short -- we, the People, put a single party in control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress.  And what has he changed about our government?  Not much.  He's changed how we interact with other nations, to be sure, and mostly in positive ways.  But domestically, he's done nothing for gun owners, nothing for libertarians, nothing for small-government conservatives.

So when Hugh says that "we" owe Bush... well, maybe someone does.  But I don't owe the man a damned thing.

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

A while back I reported on an interesting case: David Bach, an experienced military officer and alleged "badass", was suing New York to obtain a concealed-carry permit valid in that state.  Bach lives in Virginia, but regularly travels to visit family in New York, and would like to be able to protect himself on those journeys by carrying his personal firearm.  New York, of course, would rather he did not. 

Although Bach lost his case, there's a law review article out suggesting that he should have won.  It should come as no surprise that I agree.  He should have won.  Even leaving aside the combination of the 2nd + 14th amendments that should protect the right to bear arms universally, if a marriage license in Virginia is valid in New York under the Privileges and Immunities and full-faith-and-credit clause, so should a concealed-carry license be.

It's an interesting exploration of a little-visited section of the Constitution, and worth the read if you're interested in that sort of thing.

The Big Lizard has come up with a way to maybe get some useful answers out of Miers about her judicial philosophy: ask her for her opinion on specific older cases that might help reveal her thinking.  So what are the good ones to ask about?

There's one that stands head and shoulders above all others, in my opinion: US v Miller.  Give me a thoughtful, considered opinion about that case, and it will reveal two important facts about her... whether or not she thinks that the Constitution means what it says, and how willing she may be to overturn the governmental apple cart.

According to the Geek, who is reporting an email from the Second Amendment Foundation, FEMA has reversed its policy on firearms in temporary housing for hurricane victims.  He notes that this has been a good week for gun rights.  I think this smells like progress.

Since NZ Bear asked, I answer:

I oppose the Miers nomination.

Because "trust me" just isn't good enough. 

... so that they can evesdrop easier.  Ye gods.  There is absolutely no reason for anyone to be forced to design their network, their software, or anything else to make it easier for the police to violate the Fourth Amendment.  That onus falls upon the police.  Some networks are even deliberately designed to be difficult or impossible to intercept, and their users generally consider this a feature.  Is all public speech on the topic of cryptography now verboten unless it includes an FBI backdoor?