Ari Armstrong's Free Colorado

Update below.

We all know that many journalists and pundits will ignore, as much as they can, the violence and craziness at union rallies and Occupy events, and they will go out of their way to cast—in defiance of the facts—any right-leaning rally as racist, violent, and all-out nuts. So why do some right-leaners go out of their way to write the left-leaning media’s scrips for them?

Alex Jones has read Piers Morgan the riot act on guns. Jones has also called for Morgan’s deportation—a violation of Morgan’s rights—and he has led the charge on concocting ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theories. It doesn’t even matter if some of what Jones says about guns is accurate and defensible; he has disqualified himself as a sensible commentator, about anything. If I were into spinning conspiracies theories as absurd as those pronounced by Jones, I’d claim that Jones is actually a closet leftist who has made it his mission in life to discredit the right (a line I adapted from a Facebook friend.)

(By the way, it is only recently that I started self-identifying as on “the right,” and only in the respect described by Craig Biddle, meaning an advocate of individual rights.)

Locally, we have Neal Pashman, whom I’ve met (and whom I’ve de-friended on Facebook for posting grotesquely offensive imagery), who publicly announced he’d illegally carry a gun openly at a gun-rights rally in Denver February 9. As the Denver Post gleefully reported, Pashman wrote the following on Facebook: “[W]e should be openly carrying our high-capacity capable, semi-automatic rifles and handguns! Let thousands of us show up with loaded weapons!!! Put the fear of God into the police and the legislature, and that scumbag governor!! Let them know what will come next!!!”

What’s coming next, Mr. Pashman: Are you going to flap your lips even harder next time? Perhaps insert that magical fourth exclamation point? Please, for God’s sake, just shut the hell up. Zip it!

Every person with a lick of common sense knows that Pashman is just an ignoramus who likes to hear himself talk. Unfortunately, we are not talking about people with common sense, here, we are talking about professional journalists. And journalists stick to crazy like stink on s**t (as my wife put it earlier this evening). Journalists will try every conceivable means to paint the gun rally as crazy, nutty, loony, scary. With dumbasses like Pashman around, they don’t even have to try.

Unfortunately, the organizers of the rally have hardly been the voice of reason. They have, if not openly invited people to illegally carry nonconcealed handguns in Denver, openly tolerated it. In a January 8 comment on the group’s Facebook page (the “Pro-Gun Rally at the Capitol” organized by “Guns for Everyone), they write, “People should act on their convictions, know the risks involved with OC [open carry], and use good judgment.” Sorry, but “good judgment” left this crowd’s building long ago.

Look, I was in Denver in 2001 when Rick Stanley openly carried a handgun on his hip, knowing he’d be arrested for it. I applauded his courageous act of civil disobedience. (Later, I also applauded the courts for handing him a felony conviction after he threatened a judge.) But the fight now is not over open carry in Denver. Apparently the organizers of the rally have failed to notice this fact, but the fight now is about gun bans, magazine bans, and expanded gun-owner registration. So what in the hell are they doing, allowing open carry at their rally? It’s sheer stupidity, from the standpoint of political strategy.

I have attended dozens of pro-liberty rallies. I even organized one. And I’ve been writing about politics on the web since before the term “blog” was even coined. Although certainly I’ve made some mistakes myself, I think I’ve picked up a thing or two about political tactics over the years.

At a minimum, the organizers of the rally should have insisted that participants not violate any laws and not advocate violence or racist views—on penalty of ejection from the event. That the organizers failed to do so tells me they’re irresponsible morons who could care less whether their rally actually ends up promoting or damaging gun rights.

While we’re on the topic of crazy, consider this little gem from the rally’s organizers (from a January 3 Facebook post):

People who are attending, please remember to remove the batteries from your cell phones if you care about your movements being tracked. Call me a conspiracy theorist but the DPD has a history of recording protest attendees by their cell phone signals as well as a history of keeping secret spy files on activists.

God forbid that the Denver Police waste their time trying to pick up my cell phone. I mean, these guys might as well hand out tin-foil hats at the gate. (However, it’s true that the Denver Police once maintained files on ralliers; I was among those on whom Denver police kept a file.)

All that said, nearly all of the people who attend the rally will be reasonable, sensible people. It would be pleasant—though I won’t hold my breath waiting for it—if local journalists would actually interview some normal people, rather than just the tiny minority of Pashman-types.

The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is far too important for thoughtless clowns to impede the real gun-rights movement. Many great scholars and activists have devoted significant portions of their lives to defending the fundamental, inalienable human right of self-defense, and its corollary right to bear arms. If you refuse to devote enough brain cells to actually help, rather than hinder, that movement, then, please, shut up, go home, and stay the hell out of the way.

Update: Thankfully, the rally was peaceful and “low key.” Thank you, ralliers (including Pashman) for behaving intelligently. And thank you, Kurtis Lee of the Denver Post, for reporting the rally fairly and getting some good, representative interviews.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

A regulatory “taking” is when government legislation destroys or reduces the value of one’s property. The Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from regulating away the value of property, although it does require “just compensation.” (The courts have not always required compensation in cases of regulatory takings.) Recently proposed federal gun legislation would impose a regulatory “taking” on select semi-automatic guns and gun magazines, not by confiscating those items directly from their owners, but by outlawing their transfer. If one cannot sell or will an item, its value is substantially reduced.

Obviously Dianne Feinstein’s proposed ban on so-called “assault weapons” constitutes a regulatory “taking” of the value of the affected guns, as it would ban the “transfer” of all those guns. The NRA obtained a draft copy of Feinstein’s legislation, and, by the NRA’s reading, “under Feinstein’s new bill, ‘assault weapons’ would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.”

However, there seems to be nothing in Feinstein’s proposal that prohibits the transfer of existing magazines by their current owners. A writer for TruthAboutGuns.com believes Feinstein’s proposal would prohibit such transfers, but I see nothing in Feinstein’s summary or the NRA’s summary supporting that conclusion. (I have not yet seen the bill’s language.)

On the other hand, legislation proposed by Representatives Carolyn McCarthy and Diana Degette apparently would ban the transfer of existing so-called “large capacity” magazines, meaning those holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The new bill is H. R. 138; “As of 01/08/2013 text for H.R.138—To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes—has not been received.”

A January 3 release from McCarthy and Degette states, “The High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, as the bill is formally known, bans the sale or transfer of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds.  Such a standard was federal law between 1994 and 2004, when the assault weapons ban was in effect.” The Denver Post claims, “DeGette introduced legislation that would ban high-capacity magazine clips in the week-old 113th Congress. The legislation mirrors failed legislation that she and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York introduced last year. . . . This restriction was in place from 1994 to 2004, during the assault weapons ban, but has since been lifted.”

Although both Degette and and the Post claim the new proposal mirrors the 1994 ban, that does not seem to be the case. The 1994 ban did not ban the transfer (or importation) of existing magazines; the new proposal apparently does both.

First consider the language of the 1994 ban: “[I]t shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device,” except that provision “shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.” This was known as a “grandfathering” clause.

Contrast that with the language of H. R. 308, which McCarthy introduced in 2011: “[I]t shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device,” except that provision “shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.”

Notice the absence of the word “transfer” in the “grandfather” clause of H. R. 308. Notably, while the bill appears to ban the transfer of all affected magazines, it makes no provision for what’s supposed to happen to those magazines upon death—they apparently cannot be “transferred” to children or other heirs.

If the newly proposed legislation in fact prohibits the transfer of magazines holding more than ten rounds—the overwhelming majority of which are factory-standard magazines owned by tens of millions of Americans—that will constitute a significant regulatory “taking” of those items.

Such legislation would, over the years, also turn millions of peaceable Americans into criminals under federal law when—either by lack of familiarity with the provisions or by intentional civil disobedience—they illegally transfer their magazines to their children, spouses, or others.

How turning millions of peaceable Americans in federal criminals is supposed to stop violent crime, is beyond me. Perhaps Representative DeGette can explain that.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

We don’t need Wayne LaPierre’s crazy and expensive idea for Congress “to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation.”

Colorado law already allows schools to invite those with lawfully permitted concealed handguns into their halls—if schools do it the right way.

Statute 18-12-214 (in Part 2 of Article 12) states:

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. . . .

(3) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvements erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school; except that:

(b) A permittee who is employed or retained by contract by a school district as a school security officer may carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvement erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school while the permittee is on duty . . .

Obviously this law does not apply to private schools, only to “public” ones. So private schools may already invite armed administrators, teachers, parents, and guests to carry concealed handguns on campus. What about “public” schools?

Colorado law allows “public” schools to bring in “security officers” “retained by contract” by the district. The law is non-specific as to how much a security officer must be paid. So my plan is simply for a school to hire 40 (or so) concealed-carry permit holders—parents, retired police officers, military veterans, etc.—at a dollar each per year, to take shifts patrolling the school. I pulled 40 out of the air because that would enable two people to take a shift for a single day each month. Essentially this would be a volunteer service, but the participants would be officially declared “contracted security officers” for purposes of complying with the law.

A better solution would be to revise the law giving individual “public” schools the authority to allow those with concealed carry permits to carry their handguns into schools. Even better would be to allow anyone with a concealed carry permit to carry their handgun into any “public” school—as Utah already allows.

Of course, I am a big advocate of good training (such as my father Linn provides in Grand Junction) for everyone who carries a concealed handgun.

We all know that allowing more responsible adults to carry their concealed handguns into the schools would make schools safer. Even leftists who decry the idea know that it would work. (That said, we ought not lose context about this; the chances of being victimized by a mass murderer at a school remain extremely low, despite the high-profile atrocities.) We all also know that Colorado’s “public” schools probably will not allow more responsible adults to carry their guns inside the schools. The politics simply won’t allow it—even though it would obviously improve safety at minimal cost.

Update: As has become evident in the comments, obviously willing and trained teachers and administrators could be declared “security officers” as well. Indeed, if ONLY teachers and administrators were allowed to carry concealed handguns in their schools, that would be a huge help, again for minimal expense.

Image: Wikipedia

If you think politicians should pass (and law enforcement agents and bureaucrats should enforce) more laws restricting the sale and/or possession of guns among the general population, then you and I are on opposite sides of that debate. However, my goal here is to help you to more effectively argue your position.

Why would I do that? I’m tired of the irrationality and ignorance surrounding the issue. I believe that, given a reasoned debate, my side will prevail. I grant to you the courtesy of presuming that you believe the same thing about your side. So, if we both want a reasoned debate, what can you do to present reasonable arguments in support of your position?

1. Stop demonizing America’s millions of gun owners.

Not only is the tactic of demonizing (and scapegoating) gun owners unjust and intellectually dishonest, it is strategically stupid on your part. Gun owners tend to be wealthier and more politically active. If you really want to mobilize millions of people against your position, the best thing you can do is subject them to vicious name-calling and unjust character attacks.

To offer a personal example of how this works, after I read some idiot on Twitter call the National Rifle Association a “terrorist” organization, I purchased a five-year membership to the NRA. (I was a member many years ago but let my membership lapse mostly due to disagreements over political strategy.) I regard the NRA as the nation’s oldest civil-rights organization, and if its critics persist on maligning it, I’ll seriously consider upgrading to the $1,000 lifetime membership.

2. Don’t confuse faux self-righteousness with an argument.

Many advocates of restrictive gun laws have thought very carefully about the relevant issues. Unfortunately, many have not.

I understand that people get emotional over guns. But don’t expect your rage to persuade me that your policy proposals are a good idea.

Consider the following argument: “If the perpetrator of a mass shooting had not had a gun, he would not have been able to commit the mass murder (with a gun); therefore, the government should restrict everyone’s access to a gun.” If, without further reasoning or evidence, you find that argument compelling, I suggest that you are not thinking at all seriously about the issues at stake. You are instead grasping at pretexts to rationalize your emotionalist commitment.

At a minimum, to seriously grapple with the issues at hand, you need to seriously consider the following questions:

• What will proposed gun restrictions mean for the many thousands of Americans who use a gun in self defense each year?
• If criminals have no fear (or less fear) that their potential victims might be armed, won’t criminals be more likely to commit more crimes?
• Is it a good idea to expend police resources enforcing laws impacting every existing or potential gun owner, rather than use those resources to target actual or likely criminals?
• How will you prevent criminals from buying guns on the black market or switching to other weapons?
• Even if you can prevent (some) criminals from obtaining guns, if you also prevent their intended victims (who tend to be physically smaller) from obtaining guns, are you not giving the advantage to the criminals in many contexts?
• Is it a good idea to create what William Burroughs warned against, “a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military?” If that’s not your goal, what is?

Please understand that what I am asking for here is not an unresponsive or fact-free sound-bite. I’ve heard plenty of those. I’m asking that you seriously grapple with questions such as these and formulate your arguments (and your policy proposals) accordingly.

3. Learn something about guns.

I understand that many advocates of restrictive gun laws know a great deal about guns. Unfortunately, many know nothing or close to nothing about guns.

If you have little or no idea what are the answers to such questions as the following, then why should I believe that you are remotely competent to help craft the nation’s gun laws?

• What’s the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic gun?
• Are automatic guns currently legal in the United States?
• What’s the difference between a rifle and a shotgun?
• What is a revolver?
• What is a magazine as used in a semi-automatic gun?
• With respect to guns, to what does “9 mm” and “.223 caliber” refer?

If you have never fired a gun, I suggest that you find a competent instructor and actually go shoot a gun. You might learn something useful about guns—and about gun owners. And you might even learn something useful about yourself.

If you take my three tips to heart, you will more effectively argue for your position in favor of more restrictive gun laws (for the general population). As someone who opposes that agenda, I’m okay with that. Because I believe that, the more reasonable your position becomes, the more it will shift to look like my position. At least we’ll each be able to see more clearly where the other side is coming from. And may the best case win.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Note: The following commentary originally was included in the article, “Denver Post Publishes Misleading ‘Assault Weapons’ Story.”

The mass murders at Sandy Hook Elementary horrified the nation. The pain of that loss of innocent life is immediate and overwhelming, for everyone in the country, and most especially for the community hit by the violence. There is not a light heart or a dry eye in the country.

In my view, this is the absolute worst time to hold political debates invoking that atrocity, for two reasons. First, we should be focusing on grieving the loss of the victims and, as best we can, comforting their friends and family. Second, policy decisions should be based on calm deliberation, not raw emotions. This just isn’t the right time for politics.

And yet that ship has sailed. Within hours—indeed, within minutes—of the murders, activists and media outlets around the nation began calling for stricter gun laws. Various leftist commentators indignantly rejected the idea that we should wait to hold the debate about guns until the dead are buried and we’ve all had some time to emotionally process these horrific murders.

And now the one-sided “debate” about gun laws is ubiquitous. I heard it on NPR this evening. I saw it on the cover of USA Today this morning. Certainly those advocating more-restrictive gun laws are raring to go. Frankly, I find their politicization of these horrific murders troubling.

And yet what I am to do? Obviously I am not going to stop the debate by refraining from entering it. Right now, gun owners and gun-rights advocates are being tried in absentia, in a kangaroo court created by the mass media. So I see little choice but to enter the debate.

I begin by criticizing an article penned by Allison Sherry of the Denver Post. My reply is in the form of an open letter.

Obviously Americans are going to debate various laws following the horrific mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary. But before I get into that, I thought it would be useful to briefly review some of those things about which we all agree.

We agree we should seek to aid and comfort, in whatever ways we can, the families and friends of the victims. The nation mourns the loss of these innocent children and adults. The mass murder at Sandy Hook was horrific. Those murdered lost the rest of their lives. The families and friends of the victims have suffered, and will continue to suffer, unspeakable pain. We cannot take that pain away, but we can try to comfort those afflicted.

We all agree that, whatever the surrounding circumstances, this evil act was perpetrated by a single individual. He could have made different choices than the ones he made, but he did not.

We all agree that the government should take appropriate steps to prosecute criminals and try to prevent crimes. (Many of us will disagree about what constitutes appropriate action.) We agree the government should pay special attention to those who have committed violent crimes in the past—and to those who have signaled an interest in committing violent crimes in the future.

We agree that we love America, and we love living in America, whatever problems the nation faces, and whatever disputes arise among her citizens.

When I saw various newspapers, prominent web pages, and political leaders laying out their political agendas within hours (and in some cases within minutes) of the atrocity at Sandy Creek, I knew we were in for some contentious debates. I thought it was important at the outset to remember those important things about which we agree.