illspirit.com

With just a little more than two weeks to go before the oral arguments in DC v. Heller, it looks like the anti-gunners are getting frantic.

First up, and this could just be a coincidence, but the ATF has raided Cavalry Arms to “seize everything.” Nobody’s quite sure why the raid took place; with everything from allegations of money laundering (which has what to do with the ATF?) to a disgruntled employee being cited (see any of the linked words..). I, for one, can’t help but think it’s strictly political. For one, and again, it could be a coincidence, but it took place just one day from the fifteenth anniversary of the Waco Siege. The ATF referred to the Waco raid under the codename “Showtime” (hence the title of this post), presumably because they wanted to make a public spectacle from their display of force.

Like Waco, the ATF went out of their way to make this raid into a total media circus. Instead of quietly recording serial numbers and such as they tossed everything in boxes, they dragged all of Cav Arms’ inventory outside to show off in front of the TV cameras. Hell, they even brought their own circus tents:

To make it even more dramatic, agents spoon-fed the media scare words like “assault weapons” and such as if they were illegal. The agents also joined in with their media accomplices to feign surprise at how many firearms were recovered. What else did they expect to pull out of a firearms manufacturer?!

And on a more comical note, Sebastian and Bitter delve into the desperation of the so-called American Hunters and Shooters Association. AHSA, if you’ve never heard of them, are a proverbial who’s who of the gun ban movement hiding behind the Realtree camo of a hunters rights group. It seems to me that they’re terrified that SCOTUS will recognize an individual right in DC v. Heller (where they tried to split the proverbial baby by submitting an amicus claiming gun bans don’t violate the right to own them because DC isn’t a State or something), and are lashing out in an attempt to remain relevant.

Even though they really don’t have any members, and really don’t do much of anything, they’re sending out e-mails and blogging over at Daily Kos trying to sell themselves as the real pro-gun grassroots movement. Not to mention trying to paint the bizarre picture that the NRA is anti-gun. Never mind the fact that AHSA members have never met a gun ban they didn’t like. Or that they’re running around calling anyone who owns a gun for anything but hunting “extremists” and “whackos.” They want you to believe it is only them who support the Second Amendment because they might let you keep a single-shot “hunting” rifle. As if the Second Amendment says anything about hunting..

But, yea, expect all sorts of PSH from the anti-gun groups (and government agencies) over the next two weeks as they try to sway the Supreme Court and the court of public opinion away from an individual right. In fact, I wouldn’t be one bit surprised if the US Solicitor General brings up the Cav Arms raid as an example of all the spooky looking guns which might be “on the streets” otherwise. As ridiculous as that sounds, the argument in their brief was based on the idea that ruling the BoR means what it says would somehow cause the apocalypse.

I’ve heard Hillary say a lot of stupid things before, but this takes the cake. Now, I understand she’s a socialist and all, but to say health care is a Constitutional right is quite a stretch..

“We have to start asking ourselves, ‘Do we want to enshrine discrimination in our health care system, the one area where of our lives where we’re most vulnerable?’” Clinton told the crowd.

“The Constitution says you can’t discriminate against somebody because of what color they are or what religion they are,” she went on. “Why is it OK to discriminate against somebody who is born with a heart defect, or who is diagnosed with prostate cancer?”

Um, Senator Clinton, if you’re talking about the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, you might want to check out the Amendment just above it. You know, the one which bans slavery and involuntary servitude. Because if you’re implying that doctors and such should be forced to supply services without pay, involuntary servitude is precisely what you’re advocating here.

On the other hand, if she is implying there is a right to have the government provide said services, she is equally as wrong. Courts have consistently ruled that neither government or its agents have any obligation to provide any services or protection to an individual citizen. See here for a number of ugly cases involving police protection; which despite being one of government’s most universally accepted purposes, still isn’t an individual right.

I had a discussion with a Democratic friend once about the role of government, and he was quite shocked to learn the courts have repeatedly ruled there is no duty for government to provide services or protection to the individual. At first he dismissed the mountains of precedent (dating back to the guys who wrote the Constitution..) as the work of “activist judges,” then tried to play the preambulary General Welfare card.

The idea that this clause somehow bestows unto Congress the power to swaddle us in bubble wrap (at gunpoint), or that it creates a “right” to receive services from government is probably the most widespread misconceptions about Constitutional law.

For starters, the term is “general welfare,” not “individual welfare.” While the outcome can overlap at times, the legal concepts are miles apart. For instance, the CDC is an entity which protects the public health in general by tracking contagions, statistics and such, but isn’t expected to protect any individual from every disease. At a more local level, the theory of “general welfare” is a bit easier to grasp. When a city builds roads, it helps even those who do not drive by providing a channel through which goods can be brought into the area. Nor does a city or State need to build an expressway to each and every house/farm/etc.. for individual drivers to benefit.

To create an individual “right” to government services from either the general welfare clause or the Fourteenth Amendment would not only go against the very principles by which the Constitution was established, the results would be completely untenable. Think for a moment about all the services which government at all levels provide on a discretionary basis or with various requirements for eligibility. Now imagine what would happen if you had a “right” to demand that these services be provided directly to you, rather than the general public..

How exactly would the government find staff and funds to provide a 24 hour police detail to every man, woman, and child who asked? Or to provide an FDA inspector to act as a personal taste tester to every household in the United States? How fast would the budget explode if HUD and the USDA had to provide free housing and food stamps to everybody, regardless of income? Or using the road example from above, could some guy living in a secluded cabin demand a highway be built to his front door? Etcetera, Etcetera..

Going back to the original topic of health care service, an individual right to same would require the government provide a personal in-house doctor to anybody who requested one. And, no, this isn’t a straw man argument. This is pretty much why every court who has heard a protection/service liability claim has thrown them out. A right, by definition, is something which the government cannot deny access to. Even to deny it momentarily without due process, as with other rights, would cause what the courts refer to as “irreparable harm.”

Even if an overwhelming majority of people never chose to exercise these newly discovered individual “rights,” it would open the government up to an endless stream of civil rights lawsuits which would cripple the courts. Likewise, all medical malpractice suits would likely be transformed into civil rights suits. In the end, such lawsuits could ultimately bankrupt every level of government.

Putting aside all logistical arguments, the concept of a “right to services” has an even deeper fundamental flaw. For there to be any right to a governmental service, one must start with the absurd assumption that there is a right to government itself.

Think that one over really carefully, as it tends to be something most people have never thought of.

Assuming there was a “right” to government, what would you do if you woke up tomorrow and every politician in the country had mysteriously disappeared? Could you sue your neighbors for not providing a government for you? And where exactly would you sue them if there was no government courts? Or what if you woke up on, say, a deserted island? Would you sue yourself in an international court for violating your own “right” to be governed?

Anyhow, if Hillary and her socialist friends want a policy fight over “universal health care,” bring it on. They should just leave the ridiculous notion of it being a “right” alone. But somehow, I don’t think they thought their cunning plan all the way trough…

In retrospect, ordering my new XD-9 subcompact a few days before the SHOT Show was probably a stupid idea since everybody in the industry disappears to Vegas for a week. But it finally left back-order hell and arrived at the shop yesterday. After bringing it home and putting 100 rounds of WWB through it, I must say it was well worth the wait.

Right out of the box, the tiny little thing put ten rounds in a roughly four inch circle from the seven yard line. Normally, a group that big isn’t a good thing, but then this was the very first mag. Not knowing just how 6 o’clock the sights would be, I started way too low, worked my way up, then back down to the right before finally grazing the elusive X. Thus making the backwards 4 pattern pictured above; which probably couldn’t be repeated if I tried.

The groups tightened up a bit after getting used to the sight picture though, and it kinda surprised me how nice it shoots given the size. Probably should have saved one of the better targets, but the first time is always special, and that pattern was just so odd. Perhaps it was trying to tell me I should have got a .40 or something?

On top of shooting well, the fit and finish are also excellent. All the controls are nice and tight (and just begging to be broken in), and there’s no play whatsoever between the slide and the rails like you occasionally find on some other plastic space guns. So, yea, unless it turns out to be haunted and starts making Ouija board flavored groups again, I think this is my new favorite pistol.

Now I just need to find a holster, as the one that came with it really sucks..

It appears that the legislature over in Arizona is debating a law to get rid of the disarmed victim zone nonsense in their schools. And as you can imagine, there are people shrieking about the “carnage” it may cause and such. Just like there were dire predictions of “streets running red with blood” before each State went shall-issue. As one would expect, there are also people running around in various internet discussions chanting ye old ‘you’re more likely to be shot than defend yourself’ mantra, so I decided to play with some numbers..

To start with, I decided to go with one of the lowest estimates for defensive gun uses (DGUs) I could find, just to be fair or something. Via the law enforcement brief in DC v. Heller, we find that the DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data suggests there were 74,695 DGUs in 2005. It’s not often that a specific year cited, so this makes comparisons easier, even if it’s not totally scientific.

Next up, according to the CDC, there were 30,694 “firearm deaths” of all types in the year 2005. This includes suicides, homicides, legal intervention, self-defense and accidents. Without controlling for the circumstances, this still leaves us with ~44,001 more DGUs than deaths. So, yea, let’s continue on and try to make their argument for them..

In the same year, the CDC reports a total of 69,825 nonfatal gunshot injuries. Again including all variations of intent. This brings us to a total of 100,519 injuries and deaths resulting from gunshots. If you ignore the circumstances, this leaves us with ~25,824 more injuries plus deaths than DGUs.

But if you take police shootings and self-defense out of the “risk” pool, the numbers change a bit..

The CDC reported 1,034 nonfatal injuries (with a caution that it’s an unstable number because of sample size, but, again, this isn’t scientific) and 330 fatalities due to legal interventions via firearm. The FBI reported an additional 143 justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms. This leaves us with 99,003 injuries or deaths which are not a result of legal intervention or self-defense, or a difference of ~24,308.

What we don’t know, however, is how many of the remaining injuries are inflicted during the course of a clean shoot. Our friends in law enforcement cite a study by Dr. Gary Kleck finding that “76% of defensive uses do not involve firing the weapon.” Let’s go ahead and round the number of people who don’t shoot up to 80%, then assume only a third of the remaining 20%, or ~4,979, hit what they were aiming at. The 143 justifiable homicides mentioned above would mean that was less than a 3% mortality rating for defensive shots that hit. Seeing as defenders aren’t the ones trying to do the killing here, 4,979 should be a reasonable (albeit quite low) estimate.

Using these rough numbers, we are left with ~19,329 more suicides/accidents/murder/assaults/etc.. than legal intervention/self-defense. If only 26% of the low estimate of 74,695 DGU’s in 2005 prevented the would-be victim from being shot, then it effectively halved what the difference would have been had they not defended themselves. Likewise, if just 35% prevented shooting on either side (i.e., scared off an attacker), it reduced the difference between DGUs and all potential injuries by half. Therein lies the major flaw of using direct “body count” comparisons, as that completely ignores the number of injuries prevented.

Furthermore, if you were to remove suicides (17,002) and intentional self-harm (3,082) because that was the desired effect of the “victim,” and not some outside force beyond their control, you end up with ~755 more DGUs than accidental and criminal deaths/injuries. Seeing as Japan has a suicide rate twice that of the US while having virtually no legal firearms, it’s borderline insanity to think Americans couldn’t do so by other means.

Or if one were to plug in the DGU numbers from any other study, the benefits become readily apparent even if you include self-defense, legal intervention, and suicide as a negative effect. Pretty much every other study on the subject has produced significantly higher estimates than the NCVS, for reasons explained in the law enforcement amicus on page 15:

A criticism of the NCVS figure is that it is too low because the NCVS never directly asks about DGUs, but instead asks open-ended questions about how the victim responded. Because the NCVS first asks if the respondent has been a victim of a crime, the NCVS results exclude people who answer “no” because, thanks to successful armed self-defense, they do not consider themselves “victims.” Further, the NCVS only asks about some crimes, and not the full scope of crimes from which a DGU might ensue. See, e.g., GARY KLECK, TARGETING GUNS: FIREARMS AND THEIR
CONTROL 152-54 (1997).

Dr. Kleck’s study places the number of DGUs at 2,549,862 per year. The National Opinion Research Center feels the NCVS estimates are too low while Kleck’s numbers are to high, and “estimates the actual annual DGU figure to be somewhere in the
range of 256,500 to 1,210,000″ (page 17 in the brief). Another study by the DOJ agreed the NCVS numbers (then 108,000) were too low while Kleck’s were high, and estimated there were 1,500,000 DGUs per year.

If we give the NCVS data the benefit of the doubt, throw out all the larger numbers from a dozen other studies, and average the 2005 estimate with the next smallest number (256,500 from NORC), that still leaves us with ~165,597 DGUs. Which would be ~65,078 greater than the number of all firearm related injuries and deaths in 2005.

As you’ve probably heard by now, there’s been another shooting in a disarmed victims zone. And, like clockwork, the media is giving the loon the attention he desperately wanted by splashing his name all over the place. In an equally predictable manner, the nanny fascists have descended like vultures to push their pet agendas..

On one side, The Brady Bunch are shrieking about how an “assault weapon” ban, limiting magazine capacity to ten rounds, and requiring background checks at gun shows would have prevented this. Never mind the fact the shooter didn’t use anything which was ever covered by any type of “assault weapon” ban. Ignore the fact the shooter’s primary weapon was a shotgun which, at most, would have held maybe eight rounds. Most of all, be sure to look over the details like how Illinois already requires background checks at gun shows, and that the shooter didn’t buy guns at a gun show anyway. We can’t let little things like facts get in the way of a little PSH, now, can we?

On the other side, my old pal Jack Thompson is already searching out TV cameras so he can blame it all on video games. Despite there being no information whatsoever about whether the shooter even played a single video game, Thompson “knows” it! Not only does he apparently have the psychic power to know that (before the shooter’s name was even released), he claims to have predicted the exact scenario in his book. He could at least use this magical power to tell me the winning lottery numbers in advance..

Amidst all this hand-wringing and finger-pointing, the only thing people don’t seem to be blaming is the shooter himself. It’s almost as if these people think the shooter is another innocent victim here, personal responsibility be damned.

Today was the deadline for amicus briefs supporting Heller in the DC gun ban case. SCOTUSBlog has them all online right here for your viewing pleasure.

In between hanging up on non-stop robo-calls from Presidential candidates telling me to go vote for them tomorrow, I’ve been reading these all day. There’s so many great arguments in them, I’m not really sure where to start (or stop..) quoting. As such, everyone should just go read them all.

Considering the extensive legal and historical smackdown delivered by these, and the weight of 31 States, over half of Congress, and the Vice President on top, I’m beginning to feel confident that we’ll win this 7-2 or better. DC’s position just downright absurd in the face of all the evidence. If the Court somehow rules in DC’s favor, they might as well just throw the entire Constitution out of the window along side their credibility..