Motus Mentis

12 Comments

1. the one eyed man says

   This egregious ruling — although no more awful than lots of other misguided opinions of this Court — has the practical result that if New Jersey allows its citizens to own Uzis, surface-to-air missiles, and Sherman tanks, then the state of New York cannot prevent thusly armed citizens to come through the Holland Tunnel, over the Brooklyn Bridge, down Atlantic Avenue, and ultimately to the halcyon enfolds of Park Slope.

   While Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and others loudly proclaim that they are only interested in the original text of the Constitution, they somehow failed to read the Second Amendment. Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in order to provide for a well-regulated militia. That’s it. How do I know? To quote Sam Ervin: because I speak English. It’s my mother tongue.

   Posted June 28, 2010 at 7:44 pm | Permalink
2. Malcolm says

   No, they read it well enough:

   “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

   The point? It’s clear enough. The point is that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

   That the Framers explicitly cited just one of the many good reasons they had for enumerating this right, a right that they rightly saw as a fundamental bulwark against tyranny, in no way diminishes the clear instruction given by the text, namely that — I’ll say it again, because it has a nice ring to it — the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

   Anyway, this ruling was not about interpreting the Second Amendment, but about whether it is as binding on local governments as it is on the federal government.

   I hate to gloat, Pete, but this time you guys lose. Free men and women will be at liberty again to defend their lives and property.

   Posted June 28, 2010 at 9:59 pm | Permalink
3. the one eyed man says

   Senator Lautenberg recently introduced a bill which would prohibit people on the terrorist watch list from owning weapons. If anything in the world is a no-brainer, this would be it. The bill died because the NRA and its water carriers in Congress blocked it, as they value the gun rights of terrorists above public safety.

   The Supreme Court ruling will make it difficult or impossible to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, felons, minors, the insane, and all sorts of people who should never own a gun. It will make it much more difficult for police and detectives to solve crimes by preventing laws requiring that guns be registered. It opens the door for the legalization of all sorts of weaponry and ordnance with nothing to do with hunting or self defense.

   If this is something you want to gloat about, so be it. We already live in a world where semi-automatic weapons are widely owned and anyone who can cross state lines can buy a gun. It is impossible to quantify how many murders occur as a result of already enfeebled gun control laws, or how many more murders will be committed as a direct result of this ruling. The only certainty is that many more people will die as a result of this decision.

   As for the wording of the Second Amendment: had it been the intent of the framers to provide an absolute freedom to own guns, they would have worded it similarly to the First Amendment, with no qualifying clauses. But they didn’t. The Second Amendment zealots can’t explain away this pesky business about a well regulated militia, as it circumscribes the absolute right they wish gun owners to have. Well, it appears that they got their wish anyway, with the help of the most powerful lobbying group in Washington (tied with the Israeli lobby) and an activist Supreme Court. They are morally responsible for the bloodshed and mayhem which will be the ineluctable result of their efforts.

   Posted June 29, 2010 at 6:45 am | Permalink
4. Malcolm says

   Yeah, yeah…

   As for the intent of the Framers, the right to bear arms has always been considered, along with all everything else in the Bill of Rights, to be an individual right, deriving from the basic right to self-defense. I’ll remind you that Jefferson said:

   No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.

   Patrick Henry said:

   The great object is that every man be armed.

   Thomas Paine said:

   Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property

   If you can muster a persuasive fact-based argument to show that violent crime rises where gun laws are less restrictive (or vice-versa), bring it on. But if you actually look at the facts — rather than resorting to groundless liberal anxieties, emotional hand-wringing, and silly hypotheticals about Jerseyites driving tanks through the Holland Tunnel — the facts indicate that exactly the opposite is true.

   The only certainty is that many more people will die as a result of this decision.

   “Certainty”? Hogwash, I say. Prove it.

   Meanwhile I am happy that law-abiding citizens are less likely to be murdered in their homes by violent felons, who will have their weapons whether we disarm the citizenry or not.

   Posted June 29, 2010 at 9:59 am | Permalink
5. Liz says

   One Eye, how do you get to your conclusions in the 2nd paragraph of your last post? Please explain how this decision will allow easier access of guns to felons? There are laws that prohibit this, namely 18 U.S.C. § 922.
   I am interested in the reasons you think this case will lead to the drastic implications you foretell in your comment. Most states already have their own guarantees to bear arms. If you read this (very long) opinion, it is more an opinion of theory and debate on how to get to the conclusion, rather than the actual conclusion. More for the legal minds to chew over how the court got to the holding that was already obvious due to incorporation and precedents.

   Posted June 29, 2010 at 10:09 am | Permalink
6. the one eyed man says

   1) “If you can muster a persuasive fact-based argument to show that violent crime rises where gun laws are less restrictive (or vice-versa), bring it on.” Easy. The homicide rate in the US is 5.4 per 100,000 individuals. The homicide rate in the major European countries (UK, Germany, Netherlands, France, Norway) ranges from 0.9 to 1.6, with an average of 1.1. Europe, which has very restrictive gun ownership laws, has one fifth the homicide rate that we do.

   2) How will the Court decision lead to these implications? Because when you deny states and local governments the ability to regulate the ownership of firearms, by definition you eliminate the ability to control who owns a gun, as well as what sort of weapons can be owned.

   3) The business about gun ownership being a bulwark against tyranny is nonsense. We do not have a tyrannical government, and if we did, the ownership of guns would do nothing to stop it. I’m not sure what the gun ownership laws were in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China — if indeed there were any — but even universal gun ownership would have done nothing to stop them.

   4) This is really a very simple matter. Do you believe, along with the NRA, that terrorists should be allowed to own guns? Minors? Felons? The insane? If you answered any of these questions with a no, then you are supporting government regulation of gun ownership, as it is the only entity which can enforce such a ban. If you believe that each of these classes of people should enjoy the unfettered ability to own weapons, then, as suggested above, you are morally culpable for the devastation which such a reckless position invites.

   Posted June 29, 2010 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
7. Malcolm says

   No, Peter, comparing the US with other countries won’t do. (And by the way, homicide rates have risen in the UK since the gun laws became more restrictive.)

   What I want you to demonstrate is any correlation between loosening gun laws and a rise in violent crimes, which you assert is a “certainty”. The National Academy of Sciences tried to establish exactly this claim in 2004, by conducting a meta-analysis of gun-crime studies from all over the nation, and they failed.

   (The real issue, I hate to say, is one of demographics, but if I say any more the Diversity police will be pounding on my door.)

   As for tyranny: you make two astonishingly blithe assertions here.

   First, you say “We do not have a tyrannical government…”

   Leaving aside the growing feeling among many that we are well on our way, the Framers made it very clear that in their view the ascent of tyranny is always a possibility; it requires naught but the ignorance and apathy of the governed, and the normal working of power upon corruptible human nature. They rightly saw that it is better that the people have the means to defend themselves.

   Second, you assert that an armed populace is as defenseless against the advent of tyranny as a disarmed one. Why on Earth you would suppose this to be true I cannot imagine. As for the tyrannies you mention, yes, let’s have a look: they are instructive. In both Nazi Germany and China, establishing gun-control laws was an essential pre-requisite to their campaigns of extermination. A moment’s online search turned up the following:

   Germany established gun control in 1938, and from 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.

   China established gun control in 1935; from 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were exterminated.

   Guatemala established gun control in 1964, and from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were exterminated.

   Uganda established gun control in 1970 – from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 people were exterminated.

   Cambodia established gun control in 1956, and from 1975 to 1977 one million educated people were exterminated.

   In a more recent example, the British Broadcasting Company reported on May 10, 2000, that the United Nations convinced the people of Sierra Leone to turn in their private weapons for UN protection during the recent civil war. The result was disastrous. The people ended up defenseless when UN troops, unable to protect even themselves, were taken hostage by rebels moving on the capital of Freetown.

   Estimates run as high as 56 million people who have been exterminated in the 20th century because gun control left them defenseless.

   Clearly, it made sense to the Framers that an armed people are better able to defend themselves, and it makes sense to me.

   Regarding your item 4), there is ample precedent for denying minors, felons, the certifiably insane, etc., various rights that are accorded other citizens.

   Finally, you needn’t worry: I will cheerfully accept — in company with the Founding Fathers, a majority of the Supreme Court, and a majority of Americans — moral culpability for any “devastation” that may occur as a result of this laudable and long-overdue restoration of one of our fundamental liberties.

   Posted June 29, 2010 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
8. the one eyed man says

   1) Comparing American homicide rates to those of other countries is the only valid source of comparison, because of the ability of people in all fifty states to acquire weaponry. Just as you are only as happy as your most miserable child, so the control of gun ownership is only as strong as the state with the weakest controls. Washington DC probably has the nation’s most restrictive gun laws (or did, until they were struck down), but it is across the Potomac River from Virginia, which has very accessible gun laws. So whether gun laws are loosened or tightened in any given area, the effect is negligible, due to the easy ability to acquire guns elsewhere.

   Moreover, you give no reason why comparing different countries is invalid, except to say that it “won’t do.” Do you really think that Europeans are five times as peaceable as we are? Absent the ability to control gun ownership, why would their homicide rate be so much lower than ours?

   2) Those who think “we are well on our way” to tyranny are simply wrong, as there is not a shred of evidence to support the notion. Those who believe this are truly off the deep end.

   3) Your historical examples are either irrelevant (if Germany established gun control in 1938, it was seven years after Hitler became Chancellor — obviously the availability of weapons failed to stop the Nazis’ rise to power) or miss the point (the question is not whether dissidents get killed without gun control; it is whether having guns would have prevented the rise of tyrants, and there is nothing to indicate that this is the case. As one example, there are guns a-plenty in Iraq, which did nothing to prevent Saddam Hussein from seizing and exercising control, not to mention killing lots of dissidents.)

   4) “There is ample precedent for denying minors, felons, the certifiably insane, etc., various rights that are accorded other citizens.” Fine. These are all examples of gun control. Glad you’re on board. The only way to achieve this is for state legislatures to pass laws which regulate who can own a gun (or what types of weaponry should be allowed — a shoulder fired surface to air missile is, after all, a gun.) Regrettably, the Court decision this week greatly complicated this effort.

   Posted June 29, 2010 at 2:35 pm | Permalink
9. Malcolm says

   Peter, Switzerland mandates that all households have a firearm on hand. By your reasoning they should have a staggeringly high homicide rate. They don’t. You have no basis whatsoever to assume that the only relevant difference between America and other countries in terms of homicide rates is our gun laws, and you overlook the fact that the places in America where the homicide rates are highest are exactly those places where the gun laws are as restrictive as any place in Europe. Your dismissal of any other form of analysis being valid, because of the patchwork of gun laws in neighboring states, founders on the fact that it is nevertheless illegal to own unregistered guns in the gun-controlled communities, or to transport them without proper permission. If you respond that those legal details don’t make an effective difference, then I’ll answer that this ruling won’t either, so no worries. We are arguing here about what law-abiding citizens are allowed to do.

   This is why I say that facile and simplistic comparisons to other countries “won’t do”: they do not make your point. I know you are not a scientist, but you’re a highly educated man; you can do better than such shoddy arguments.

   I’ll say this again: you have claimed that it is a “certainty” that loosening gun laws in America will result in “devastation”. I repeat: the NAS tried to prove exactly this, by a meta-analysis of 80 or so gun-crime studies, and could not.

   You need to demonstrate that loosening gun laws here in America will have the effect that you predict.

   As for the rise of tyrants, to oppose it requires, of course, a will on the part of the people to do so (a disposition that you and I, methinks, may possess in unequal measure). Hitler was enormously popular during his ascent to power. Do you honestly believe that an armed citizenry is a defenseless against usurpation of its liberty as a disarmed one? Certainly the Framers didn’t think so.

   But this is all water over the dam at this point, I’m sorry to remind you. The decision’s in; let’s see how that “devastation” thing that worries you so works out.

   Posted June 29, 2010 at 3:06 pm | Permalink
10. bob koepp says

    I’m not going to enter into this debate, but urge caution in interpreting homicide rates. Much of the violence perpetrated with firearms is self-directed, so ignoring suicide rates in nations where guns are not readily available skews the data.

    Posted June 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm | Permalink
11. the one eyed man says

    1) I did not “assume that the only relevant difference between America and other countries in terms of homicide rates is our gun laws.” However, while this is not the only relevant difference, it very likely is the most relevant difference, and perhaps the defining difference. When one country has a homicide rate which is five times that of others, combined with the fact that one country has effectively no gun control while the others have much stricter controls, the linkage is inescapable. To borrow a razor from Occam: the more guns you have, the more opportunities to use them. (To contemplate the bust of Homer: D’oh.) Unless you feel that Americans have five times the murderous intent of Europeans — and if you do, I shall have to ask you to step outside — then the burden is on those who deny the availability of guns to be the determining factor to show why there is such a disparity.

    2) “You overlook the fact that the places in America where the homicide rates are highest are exactly those places where the gun laws are as restrictive as any place in Europe.” I’m not sure if this is true (gun controls have tightened in New York City and homicide rates decreased, correct?), but in any event, regional differences in gun laws are inconsequential because they are available pretty much everywhere.

    3) I agree that “those legal details don’t make an effective difference,” as — let’s face it — the horse is outside the barn. We’ll always be awash in guns. The tragedy of the Court ruling is that now we will never even come close to fixing the problem. The only thing we can do is try to reasonably determine who is capable of owning weaponry and restrict ownership to them, as best we can. The tragedy of the Court ruling is that it shackles the states and cities from trying to do this.

    4) Similarly, it’s not “about what law-abiding citizens are allowed to do.” Nearly every city and state in the country allows law abiding citizens to own guns. The few exceptions which try to restrict gun ownership — New York, Washington, and Detroit — do so because their elected officials presumably are following the wishes of their constituents. The NRA doesn’t care if there are lots of guns in housing projects in Bushwick. The parents of Bushwick probably do. While popular consensus does not always trump individual rights, in this life and death instance it should.

    5) While perhaps “there is ample precedent for denying minors, felons, the certifiably insane, etc., various rights that are accorded other citizens,” the fact is that these exceptions are not routinely granted to these people (or the hurdles to overcome them so low that they are effectively permitted). If we will allow the 1200 or so people on the high alert terrorist watch list to own guns, then we have no meaningful restrictions.

    6) If the next Mohammed Atta gets weaponry because the right wing refused to allow suspected terrorists to be restricted from owning guns, and something awful happens, the right wing will blame Obama for it.

    7) “Do you honestly believe that an armed citizenry is as defenseless against usurpation of its liberty as a disarmed one?” Against a country like modern-day America? Sure. I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where the Glenn Beck crowd, no matter how well armed, would successfully defend against its putative usurpation of liberty. What are they going to do, go to town hall and kick out Andy of Mayberry? However, it’s a moot point. There are plenty of tyrannies, and plenty of people with guns, and I’m hard-pressed to think of a single modern example of a tyranny which was overthrown by an armed rebellion.

    8) You are wrong about Switzerland. I emailed my friend Randy, who is Swiss, who writes the following:

    There is no Swiss law which mandates that every household has to own a gun. However, there is compulsory military service and each member of the army has to keep the gun at home during active service duty (along with 24 rounds of sealed ammunition). So one could argue that all men serving in the army would equal all households having arms. That’s not entirely correct though because if a household doesn’t have an active service member in the army, there won’t be an army gun in the house. In addition, women are not required to serve either, so there will be no army guns in all female households.

    He is correct that the Swiss homicide rate is low, but that has nothing to do with the army guns. Even though you have the army gun, you cannot actually buy the ammunition (it’s only given out by the army)! The only ammunition you get is the aforementioned 24 rounds which are sealed and only to be opened in case of war. I guess someone could theoretically break the seal and go on a shooting spree, but thankfully that’s extremely rare.

    9) Bob: duly noted. However, this may be a distinction without a difference, unless you’re in favor of people shooting themselves. I personally think suicide should be legal, both because I think it should be outside the realm of state power, and it’s sort of pointless to make it illegal anyway. But that’s another question.

    Posted June 29, 2010 at 8:00 pm | Permalink
12. Malcolm says

    1) No. I have already refuted this objection. Again I will point out that in Switzerland guns are everywhere (I address your correction below), yet the homicide rate is very low. This is much more a matter of culture and demographics.

    2) I have already refuted this objection also. If guns are illegal in my city, and I defy the law, and buy a gun elsewhere and keep it in the city, then I am already disregarding the gun-control laws. The only people who will be affected by this are law-abiding citizens, who are currently defenseless.

    3) I think we’ll be just fine. Let’s see what happens, Mr, Doom And Gloom.

    4) It may or may not be true that local constituencies enjoy being disarmed by their government. The fact is that a great many citizens in high-crime areas do indeed keep guns in their homes and businesses for self-defense, in defiance of the law, and so make criminals of themselves.

    Regardless of any of this, the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. If local voters wanted to pass laws that violate other basic rights, they would rightly be overruled, as they have been here.

    Finally, it seems just a bit thick for you to make this argument after gloating over the passage of that monstrous health-care bill, which was opposed by a clear majority of Americans.

    5) What planet are you living on? Regardless of this ruling, just how difficult do you think it is for a terrorist to get hold of a gun if he wants to? Do you imagine that such a person will say “Oh, I’d better forget about shooting up the mall, now that they’ve tightened up the registration process?

    I see no reason to disarm law-abiding Americans in order to allow myself the conforting delusion that by doing so I am preventing terrorists from arming themselves.

    6) Are you feeling OK, Peter?

    7) Gee, let me see. Well, there was that little business in 1776… Oh yes, and Russia, and Iran, and Cambodia, and the Dominican Republic, and Romania, and Cuba, and Kyrgyzstan, and…

    Seriously, are you OK, Pete?

    8) Oh, sorry. I stand corrected. Only the households that have people in the militia (of course, all males are required to serve, and must remain in the militia until age 30, or 34 for officers) are required to have guns (assault rifles) in them (and you can keep the gun after your service is over if you want). And of course, that sealed package of ammo is a huge deterrent; after all, if you murdered somebody with your gun, you would also have to face the charge of opening the package!

    Here are some facts for you: in Switzerland, a country of fewer than 8,000,000 people, there are an estimated 420,000 fully automatic assault rifles in private homes. There are another 320,000 of these weapons that have been converted to semiautomatics. All in all there are about 2 or 3 million firearms in private hands.

    I guess someone could theoretically break the seal and go on a shooting spree…

    Yes, I guess they “theoretically” could. Come to think of it, it wouldn’t be much use having it otherwise, would it?

    …but thankfully that’s extremely rare.

    Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it’s because Switzerland is a highly homogeneous nation, filled with Swiss people?

    Naah, must be because guns are so hard to get your hands on over there.

    Posted June 29, 2010 at 10:04 pm | Permalink