BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Gun Rights Archive

Saturday

5

September 2009

0

COMMENTS

Gun Hating In Maryland

Written by , Posted in Gun Rights, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

A 16-year-old boy in Maryland committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with his step-father’s gun. The boy’s biological father demanded that the step-father take responsibility, and has launched a crusade – culminating in a $50,000 jury award – to prove that he is at fault. Underlying his efforts is a clear anti-gun subtext.

Does it really make sense to place responsibility for a teenager’s suicide (we’re talking about a deliberate act here, not an accident) on the availability of a gun? An individual determined to commit suicide will use whatever means is available. Guns are the easiest and are therefore used in a majority of suicides, but plenty of people find other methods.

If the step-father did not have a gun, surely he has knives that could have been used, or some prescription medications, or a rope.. The absence of the gun in question would not have made suicide impossible, or even significantly more difficult. It is therefore illogical to conclude that the step-father, simply by having an accessible gun, is responsible for the child’s act. We must not allow the need to assign blame for one tragic act compound the situation with an even more tragic assault on personal liberty.

Tuesday

11

August 2009

0

COMMENTS

Breaking News On MSNBC: Man Uses Multiple Constitutional Rights

Written by , Posted in Gun Rights, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, Media Bias

MSNBC is freaking out.  Apparently the exercise of not one, but two constitutional rights at the same time is too much for the liberal network to handle.  An American with a gun? The horror!

Outside the event where President Obama will conduct his town hall, there is an anti-Obama protestor with a gun — a pistol strapped to his lower leg.

The local police chief said it’s legal for the man to have a registered handgun — as long as it is not concealed. What’s more, he is on private property, a church yard, which has given him permission to be there.

*** UPDATE *** More on the man with the gun… William Kostric is a married man in his mid 30S who works in sales. He says he moved here to New Hampshire from Arizona about a year ago, because it’s a “live free or die” state — and he thought Arizona was becoming too restrictive with its gun laws.

…

The local police say he is within his rights to carry a handgun openly under state law. He was carrying a 9-mm Smith and Wesson strapped to his lower leg.

Police say he’s OK on a public sidewalk. Kostric says he has permission from a church just down the street from the high school to be on its private property.

Be warned: the ignorant, anti-freedom attitude continues in the article’s comments.

Update: Chris Mathews makes an ass of himself.  Kostric handles his hysterics well.

Thursday

2

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

Where's The Proof?

Written by , Posted in Gun Rights

I recently sent the following letter to the New York Times:

To the Editor:

Your recent editorial (“The Fast-Draw-but-Don’t-Drink Law,” June 25th) regarding the decision by the Tennessee legislature to allow bar owners the right to decide for themselves whether patrons should be allowed to bring guns onto their property was heavy on hyperbole and light on facts.

The editorial approvingly quoted Gov. Bredesen’s claim that the bill is “an invitation to a disaster,” then lamented that “there is no requirement for owners to post warnings of the dangers inside at the doorways of gun-friendly places.” It also highlighted the fact that over 30 states have similar laws. With all these states creating so many opportunities for disaster, it’s interesting that your editorial writers weren’t able to muster up any specific incidents to bolster their case. Either your editorial stuff is incredibly negligent in its research, or reality simply isn’t cooperating with your anti-gun agenda.

Sincerely,

Brian Garst

Wednesday

17

June 2009

1

COMMENTS

Left Using High Profile Murders To Advance Agenda

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society, Gun Rights

In a slight twist to the “never let a crisis go to waste” motto on constant exhibit at the White House, prominent leftists have approached the recent string of high profile shootings with a resolve to not let the tragedies go to waste.  The agenda? Hate crimes and gun control.

Hate Crimes

Explicitly citing the recent shootings as evidence, Attorney General Eric Holder called for new hate crimes laws as a way to stop “violence masquerading as political activism.”  Although each incident involved the commission of acts which are already considered crimes, Holder says Congress needs to pass new legislation “to protect the rights ensured under our Constitution.”  Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has said that he is committed to getting to hate crimes legislation before the August recess.

A particularly pernicious aspect of the current hate-crimes push is the willingness of proponents to submit the accused to multiple trials, if necessary.  Although the Constitution’s prohibition against double-jeopardy has never applied cross-jurisdictions between states and the federal government, it has nevertheless long been seen as desirable to avoid the prospect of federal prosecutions following state acquittals for the same crime.  Now, the ability to try acquitted individuals again using federal hate crimes laws is seen by liberal advocacy groups as a virtue.

They’re even attempting to tie opponents of open immigration into the issue of hate crimes.  Meanwhile, ceaseless race-baiter Jesse Jackson takes the well worn low road and blames the attacks on everything from conservative talk radio to “our obsession with guns.”

Gun Control

Perpetually displeased with the reality of living under the Second Amendment and its protections for individual gun rights, the left is forever looking for ways to undermine and destroy our deep historical and cultural beliefs in self-protection and personal freedom.  Gun grabbers have a history of hijacking high profile tragedies in hopes of harnessing the emotions of the moment to enact far-reaching bans without any need for consideration of the merits.  The most recent spat of shootings are no different.

The Washington Post’s Marie Cocco dramatically writes that we are “enduring a spring of slaughter.”  And the cause of our present horror is that “we have decided to let just about anyone have a gun.” Cocco also offers the usual gun control lie, claiming that, “among the guns Poplawski reportedly used in his attack was an AK-47, a so-called “assault weapon” whose manufacture was banned in the 1990s, but is no longer.” Lying about the AWB has always been common place among its proponents.  As reality would have it, Ak-47s were not simply banned by the bill, and many variants were legal to purchase, as the bill comically dealt more with what combination of cosmetic features a gun had rather than its functionality.

The various shootings over the last few weeks are deplorable. but so are the left’s efforts to stretch the facts in order to advance a radical agenda.  Whether it be lying about the contents of past legislation and its impact, or pretending that a lunatic, jew-hating, 9/11 truther is “right-wing,” the left has demonstrated that they have no intention of getting tripped up over facts while pushing for greater government control.

Monday

9

March 2009

0

COMMENTS

D.C. Sued Over Gun Laws Again

Written by , Posted in Gun Rights

Some people just don’t learn.

The Second Amendment Foundation and three Washington, D.C. residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a regulation by District of Columbia city government that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “acceptable” handguns approved by the State of California.

The District is using this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense. This scheme could eventually bar the ownership of any new handguns.

Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, noted that District bureaucrats “told Tracy Ambeau Hanson her gun was the wrong color.” Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions, he said. A handgun protected by the Second Amendment doesn’t need to appear on any government-approved list either.

“The Springfield XD-45 is approved for sale in Washington,” Gura noted, “so long as it is black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly ‘unsafe.'”

Added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “The Supreme Court’s decision is crystal clear: Handguns that are used by people for self-defense and other lawful purposes cannot be banned, whether the city likes it or not. The city needs to accept the Second Amendment reality and stop this nonsense.”

Hanson, one of the individual plaintiffs in the case, wondered, “Do we really need a gun-fashion police? I just want to be able to exercise my Second Amendment rights without interference from the District government.”

Friday

6

March 2009

0

COMMENTS

Freedom Is Never A Bad Export

Written by , Posted in Gun Rights, Liberty & Limited Government

I recently sent the following letter to the Boston Globe.

To the Editor:

Your recent editorial blaming Mexico’s drug violence on our gun laws (“A lethal export to Mexico,” March 3) missed the mark. It is not insightful to say that 90% of guns picked up in Mexico are from the U.S. Of course they are; we are the closest supplier. But that does nothing to show that restricting sales in the U.S. would make them unavailable to Mexican criminals, as your editorial suggests. In fact, the evidence shows that view is simply false.

Mexican drug cartels are currently fighting police with machine guns, grenades and even RPG’s. None of these items are legal to purchase in the U.S. There is simply no connection between gun laws and the ability of criminals to arm themselves.

Our drug prohibition has created a black market which the must unsavory characters are willing to fight over. But there is nothing inherent to drugs that makes its trade violent. If the U.S. outlawed meat, there would be meat-related violence in Mexico as criminals vied to smuggle meat to U.S. consumers willing to pay black market prices. If we really want to help Mexico, the best thing we can do is expand our freedoms, not restrict them.

Sincerely,

Brian Garst

Thursday

31

July 2008

0

COMMENTS

Heller Redux

Written by , Posted in Gun Rights

Some people just never learn.

Exactly two weeks ago, we told Mayor Adrian Fenty and the D.C. Council that the overbearing emergency legislation regulating gun purchases, registration and ownership they passed would face a lawsuit. The week before, we told them how to possibly avoid litigation. City Hall did not listen. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, the District remains onerous.

A lawsuit was filed Monday by Dick Heller, the very gun-rights advocate who challenged the city’s strict handgun ban that led to the Supreme Court decision. The high court affirmed that citizens do indeed have the individual right to bear arms. In his latest suit, Mr. Heller is contending that the new D.C. regulations are “unreasonable and burdensome” for prospective gunowners. Mr. Heller argues, for example, that the city’s classification that a machine gun is any weapon that shoots more than 12 rounds without reloading makes most semi-automatic pistols off limits and does not conform to the public’s perception of what a machine gun is nor with the definition in any English language dictionary.

But there are other encroachments, including a provision that requires residents to keep their guns unloaded and disassembled in the home or equipped with a trigger lock.

They must be under the mistaken understanding that houses are only burglarized by appointment.

Thursday

18

October 2007

0

COMMENTS

Man Shoots Multiple Burglars Over 3 Weeks, Moonbat Reporter Goes Nuts

Written by , Posted in Gun Rights, Media Bias

A Dallas man has been forced by criminals to use deadly force to defend himself and his livelihood on two separate occasions in three weeks.

Dallas business owner kills 2 intruders in 3 weeks

For the second time in three weeks, the owner of a machine shop fatally shot an intruder who had broken into his business, police said.

James Walton fired a shotgun Sunday at a man inside Able Walton Machine & Welding, police said. Walton, who lives upstairs from the shop, was alerted to the intruder’s presence by a motion sensor system.

“He’s got a right to defend his property,” Dallas police Sgt. Gene Reyes said. “What gives a stranger the right to go in and vandalize or burglarize his business? He’s within every legal right to do this.”

. . .Walton also shot and wounded a second man Sunday outside of the shop. Police said the man escaped, but was eventually detained for questioning.

. . .About three weeks ago, Walton shot and killed Raul Laureles when Laureles was climbing through a pried-open window of the business, police said. That incident also was referred to a grand jury.

Let’s hope the grand jury doesn’t do anything stupid. Anyway, since there’s nothing so repugnant to a gun-hating statist as seeing a private citizen engage in self defense (as that negates the need for the state to take power and act on your behalf), a reporter took it upon herself to ambush the 70-year old Walton, asking if he was “trigger happy” and wanted to “shoot to kill.” Being a normal human being who doesn’t want to have to harm people, but will if he must, Walton was reduced to tears. You can see the despicable video here (Edit: Video apparently had to be removed). The reporter gal has been suspended.

Mr. Walton had every right to take the action he did. John Locke explained in his Second Treatise of Government why a man has a right to defend himself with deadly force under these circumstances (emphasis mine):

[It is] lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he please, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can, for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

Thursday

23

August 2007

0

COMMENTS

Still No Freedom For Self-Defense At Virginia Tech

Written by , Posted in Gun Rights

Learning absolutely nothing from the April massacre of 32 Virginia Tech students, the school has offered a mild set of changes supposedly designed to beef up security.

. . . The report said there was adequate coordination between Virginia Tech and local emergency workers, but recommended that officials improve the university?s ability to handle emergencies by centralizing the campus police and fire departments into one building. The cellular and phone systems on campus should also be upgraded to avoid being overloaded in emergencies, the report said.

The report described the university’s mental health system as responsive, but said privacy laws had created confusion about gaining access to students? health information. It called for an increase in the number of case workers on campus who can identify students at risk of mental problems.

Some of the changes suggested by the report have already been made. The university has replaced many of the types of door handles that enabled Mr. Cho to chain the doors during his attack, preventing the police from entering when they first arrived. It has also instituted a system to alert students and staff members of emergencies by text messages to cellphones, e-mail accounts and online instant messages.

So, Virginia Tech students, do your new door handles and new phone systems make you feel any safer? At least you’ll have the comfort of knowing that administration officials can babble on the phone a little bit more efficiently when a madman bursts into your classroom and begins firing. And you’ll furthermore know that when police finally do arrive they won’t have to wait outside, sitting on their thumbs (though they still might). Will these gestures comfort you as you lay dying on the floor because you weren’t allowed the freedom to arm yourself with defensive weapons? I certainly hope so.

Tuesday

14

August 2007

0

COMMENTS

Britain Besieged By Gang Violence

Written by , Posted in Gun Rights

The Guardian reports on Britain’s gang problem:

In a city where more than 3,000 firearm incidents have been logged in the past 15 months, the sound of shots is just background noise for too many people. But last week’s ambush, which left a 25-year-old man struggling to survive serious wounds to his leg and abdomen, has taken gang warfare in Manchester, mainly black on black, to a new level.

. . .UK gun crime is still rare, but the numbers injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled since 1998, with London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands accounting for 54 per cent of recorded incidents. So concerned has the government become that last February Tony Blair held a gun crime summit at which plans were outlined for more funding for community groups and tougher punishments for offenders.

In 1997, Britain banned handguns. 57,000 hand guns were confiscated between July 1997 and February 1998.* Yet the article notes that “the numbers injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled since 1998.” According to the anti-gun lobby, this shouldn’t be possible.

Britain never had a large population of hand gun owners, and such crimes had already been on the rise prior to the ban. So I don’t want anyone to get the idea that the ban caused this crime explosion, but it’s quite clear that Britain’s gun confiscations did absolutely nothing to reverse its upward crime trends. Gun restrictions do not reduce crime.

* Colin Greenwood. The British Handgun Ban: Logic, Politics and Effect, International Firearms Safety Seminar. New Zealand, February 2006.

Newer Entries →
← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives