via email

March 14, 2007

by Alan Korwin, Author

CONTENTS

1- Court Restores Gun Rights to D.C. (insider analysis)

2- News Media Non-plussed Over Restoration of Rights

3- "Supreme Court Gun Cases" Book Named to All-Time Top Ten List

4- Gun Sales Up, Gov't Tax Revenue Increases

5- Gun Ownership Up But Firearm Fatalities Hit Record Lows

6- "Sudden Jihadi Syndrome" Identified

1- Second Circuit Court Ends D.C. Gun Ban (insider analysis)


By now you've probably heard that the federal 2nd Circuit Court has overturned the firearms ban in Washington, D.C. It's a glorious decision, accurately reflects reality about the Second Amendment's Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and vigorously supports the individual right to arms enjoyed by Americans everywhere. It could hardly be better in the battle to defend firearm rights. Details on the court's decision are posted all over the web, try this one from the main sponsor in the case, The Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=502

Or see the decision yourself:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

And there was rejoicing throughout the land..., but how about a dose of reality, and what this landmark decision really means --


(1) This decision won't stop the antis.

Anti-rights activists will take heart in the lone dissent, just as you would. They will be no more deterred by this case than you would be if the decision said D.C. residents have no rights at all (as other courts in other areas have said). The ultimate battle for the right to arms will be fought in the court of public opinion, where the news media holds inordinate sway (and slant).


(2) The news media will ignore the facts and continue to bash your rights.

It's business as usual for the anti-gun-rights mainstream media. They're afraid of guns, hate gun owners, don't know what "the good side of guns" means, and will continue filling their reports with anti-rights bigotry, crime and distortion in their battle to disarm the public. If a case works against the public's rights, they'll headline it. For a case like this that accurately reflects history and protects your rights, they'll focus on whining authorities and tell you to prepare for doom in the streets. See the detailed analysis of their trash, below.


(3) One-third of the court said you do not have an individual right to arms.

This defies tons of scholarly work now available that establishes the intent and history of the individual right to keep and bear arms in this country, but that won't stop ideologically driven court characters. The dissent does agree with other anti-rights decisions, and the antis will rely on this. We only "won" by a single vote. They only lost by a single vote.


(4) It's probably too risky for the antis to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.

They may ask for a re-hearing from the Second Circuit "en banc," meaning from all the judges, not just the three-judge panel that reached this decision. They will count votes BEFORE they seek an appeal, and if the think they MIGHT win, they will ask, since they have nothing more to lose.

But let me be a complete skeptic here for a minute: The contents of this case WILL NOT MATTER at the Supreme Court. Insiders already know where the Justices stand on support of your right to arms. Four men stand four-square in favor of the truth on the issue -- you have an individual right to arms -- Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. The other five are hard lefties, or a mixed bag, and this case of itself (or another one) won't change their philosophy -- Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Kennedy and Stevens.

This makes an appeal to the Supremes too risky for the losers at this time, and since we "won," we have no standing to file the appeal. That would change if an "en banc" decision reversed the three-judge panel. Would you risk it if the choice was yours? The Circuits are now strongly split, which the Supremes look for before taking a case. They also estimate where the case will wind up before accepting an appeal. No one really knows what they will do.


(5) The smart choice for the antis is to wait for 2008 and then destroy gun rights.

They are aware of this of course. If the anti-rights forces, largely Democrats though with a good share of Republicans and quislings, take greater control of Congress or the White House, THAT'S the time to finally wipe out this pesky right the people currently have, and have always had. Stack the Court and push through their agenda. Calmer voices on the left are arguing to lay low, do nothing, and wait for the right time to pounce. Fortunately, their radical wing is impatient and pushing for severe actions right away, afraid they may never have a better chance. It's a drama.


(6) Certain elements of the gun lobby fought AGAINST this case.

Gun-rights advocates are not as unified as you might wish they were. Fear, uncertainty and conflicting agendas fought against this successful effort, a success not lead by the usual suspects. The Cato Institute and others lead this successful charge (the case is named after Cato senior fellow Tom G. Palmer).

Within the gun lobby, powerful forces wanted the case dropped, and sought to overturn the D.C. ban in Congress -- which would have made this case moot. The case was delayed and harmed while that activity took place behind the scenes. Orrin Hatch (among many others) tried to derail the case by getting a bill through Congress, but he was unable to do so.


(7) D.C. is not a state so the precedent is indeed low.

That's one reason some power brokers argued against the case -- it doesn't set a national precedent. Fooey. Everyone -- pro and anti -- is too scared of losing to go after a full-blown national decision. That made the D.C. case ideal if you ask me -- get a great decision (which we did), and then argue over how important it is. The sole dissent argued that the Second Amendment doesn't even apply because D.C. is not a state. The majority's reply: fooey; they're Americans like the rest of us (though sometimes the beltway crowd makes you wonder).


(8) The big legal issue will not be over whether a right to arms exists, it's how far the right goes.

A definitive ruling against RKBA would have people rioting out in the streets, and is just too far from the record to support. What's much more likely is some definition on the limits of the right. All rights have limits -- you know, your right to swing your arms stops at the tip of my nose, you can't shout Fire! in a crowded theater.

The Second Circuit left that door open, and that's where this battle is headed. The "news" media made a point of concocting limits that might apply (see the analysis below). The court said registration might be OK.


(9) Thanks to this decision, the media will renew their overhype of criminal activity.

As soon as Bob Levy at the Cato Institute sent me a note, right after the decision was released, saying in red, "We won!" I wrote back predicting that the media would run stories like "Authorities Brace For Crime Wave," "Local Court Sides With Crooks, Ignores Precedents," and "'Gun Nuts Will Run Wild,' Says Some Police Spokeswoman." Sure enough, they did. If you get email you've already seen the flood -- civil rights groups like NRA, GOA, SAF, JPFO and state groups shouting hooray, and every mainstream outlet singing the blues.


(10) Congress could care less.

There will be zero effect on anti-rights proposals for gun owners from the Democrat-controlled Congress (main Dem gun-ban plan summarized here:)
http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNine-27.htm

If anything, they will step up their efforts to counter the tidal wave of court and scholarly support for your right to self defense, personal safety, crime control, counterbalance to government, self sufficiency, terrorism deterrence (see Sudden Jihadi Syndrome below), sport, fun, recreation, competition, and all the other good things guns represent that government, on principle, prefers to deny.

If ever there was a motivator to join the rights groups locally and nationally, and to do something, anything, to help preserve traditional America and your gun rights, this is it.

Links for national groups:
http://www.gunlaws.com/links/us_gunlaw_groups.html

The Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/

Easy ways to have fun while getting active:
http://www.gunlaws.com/Tactics%20That%20Work.htm


THE BIG Q:
(11) Now that D.C. residents can have guns at home, how will they get them?

Don't count on gun stores opening in the nation's capitol any time soon. And it's been illegal to buy a handgun outside your home state of residence since 1968 (under the Gun Control Act). Will nearby Virginia and Maryland gun stores sell sidearms to people whose ID says Washington, D.C.? It's anyone's guess, and the law, as near as I can tell, is not real clear on the point. Would you risk your FFL to sell to some decent-looking individual whose rights are now reaffirmed by some court somewhere out of state? How about to some sleazy-looking character in rags?

So D.C. residents now have (pending appeals, if any, I suppose) the right to keep a loaded sidearm at home, for personal safety, crime deterrence and self defense, but they have no predictable way of getting one. How's that for a fine mess of stew.

And remember, this ruling has no impact whatsoever on the thousands of vicious armed criminals and drug gangs running free, who are unaffected by and could care less about the 1976 ban or this case. All they have to care about now, maybe, is that their victims may not be as defenseless as they have been for so many years. Now THERE'S a deterrent.


==========


2- News Media Non-plussed Over Restoration of Rights
2- News Media Non-plussed Over Restoration of Rights

While much of the nation was jubilant on hearing that civil rights were finally restored for residents of Washington D.C., where the right to keep and bear arms has been denied since an edict in 1976, news media everywhere reported the story as if the civilized world was ending.

"This slanted reporting contributes to the destruction of news credibility, and is forcing an exodus from mainstream outlets to anything else in sight," said Alan Korwin, an author and news-media observer who runs the media watchblog, pagenine.org.

Headlines in alternative media proclaimed, "We Won!," "Victory at Court," "A Victory for Self Defense," and "Civil Rights Restored for Washington, D.C." though the leads in mainstream "news" media were sour across the board and featured pictures of glum looking officials (whose right to arms was never affected). Here's a brief look at the propaganda promoted by some mainstream sources.


CBS:
In a bizarre imitation of providing "balance," CBS ran a single quote from the NRA: "Washington's ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976 and is considered to be the toughest in the nation, according to the National Rifle Association."

Meanwhile, the NRA told its members:
"This week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right and concluded that the District of Columbia's ban on guns in the home is unconstitutional."


NBC:
In covering this news, NBC featured the officials responsible for denying people's rights: "After the District of Columbia's long-standing ban on handguns was overturned by a federal appeals court, Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty, far left, speaks about his disapproval of the court decision during a news conference."

Meanwhile, civil rights activist Larry Pratt at Gun Owners of America told the country by email:
"For 31 years, the DC gun ban has been the criminal classes best friend.  DC victims have been legally disarmed and helpless in the face of savagery from home invaders and street assailants... The Court has provided a lengthy and well-reasoned rebuke to those who have willfully misinterpreted what the Second Amendment protects -- an individual right to keep and bear arms. "


AP:
The Associated Press, one of the most anti-gun-rights outfits around, told the world:
"D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty said the city plans to appeal. 'I am personally, deeply disappointed and quite frankly outraged,' Fenty said... In 2004, a lower-court judge told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns... Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."

Noting that the decision recognized some "reasonable restrictions" might be possible, AP listed some: Restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.

Meanwhile, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms summarized the decision:
"Judge Silberman properly concludes what gun rights scholars have been saying for years," Executive Director Joe Waldron observed. "The Second Amendment is not some mythical "collective right," but an individual civil right equal to rights guaranteed to individual citizens under the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments."


VPC:
The widely media-quoted gun-ban lobbyists at the curiously named "Violence Policy Center" said:
"Today's split decision by the Court of Appeals to overturn the District of Columbia's handgun ban is not only contrary to the overwhelming weight of legal authority, but will certainly increase gun death and injury among District residents and increase the risks faced by the law enforcement personnel who protect all residents and workers in Washington, DC."

Author Alan Korwin notes that:
"Saying the ban 'contradicts overwhelming legal authority' is flat out incorrect. Saying the decision 'will certainly increase gun death' is provocative hysteria, but might be true if they're referring to criminal perpetrators who will be stopped by honest residents of D.C. Saying that restoring rights to innocent residents of D.C. will 'increase the risks faced by the law enforcement personnel' is patently false and shows the irrational hoplophobic mindset of the gun-ban lobby." It should also be noted that the risk faced by law enforcement personnel from countless wild-eyed criminals running loose remains unchanged.

For good measure, VPC concluded that: "While today's decision is a dream come true for America's gun lobby and gunmakers, it may mark the beginning of a long, national nightmare from which we will never recover as nation." If nationwide restoration of civil rights is their nightmare, we can only hope they are correct.


Court:
The Second Circuit Court said, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Meanwhile, news outlets singled out all sorts of quotes, but not that one. AP (and their 1,100 followers) used this point of clarity: "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia." They are such slithery bottom feeders.


==========


3- Supreme Court Gun Cases Book Makes All-Time Top Ten
3- Supreme Court Gun Cases Book Makes All-Time Top Ten

672-Page Tome Set Record Straight

"The New York Times has never issued a list of top ten books in this category, and never will," said Scottsdale author Alan Korwin, on hearing that his book, Supreme Court Gun Cases, was in the top 10 "must-read" books on the civil right to keep and bear arms.

Korwin co-wrote the book with attorneys David Kopel and Stephen Halbrook in 2003. The list appears in the March edition of the 600,000-circulation America's First Freedom, a publication of the National Rifle Association.

"It took six years to finish the first complete study of Supreme Court jurisprudence on this subject," Korwin said, "and it broke new ground. It destroyed the myth that the High Court has been quiet on the subject."

Using plain English, the book examines 92 gun cases, which use some form of the word "firearm" more than 2,900 times (rifle, shotgun, pistol, etc.). Before its release, scholars and the media believed there were less than a dozen gun cases. "The Court has consistently recognized an individual right to keep arms and to bear arms, for more than two centuries," Korwin discovered.

Some of the cases read like novels, with drunken bullies, hotel brawls, blood feuds, property wars, international criminals, family battles, corrupt judges, murderous jailers, abusive parents, vendettas, infidelity, a mutiny and shootouts of every description.
http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm


==========


4- Gun Sales Up, Gov't Tax Revenue Increases
4- Gun Sales Up, Gov't Tax Revenue Increases

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (nssf.org) reports that:
Manufacturers See Increase In Third Quarter

Sales by gun and ammunition manufacturers grew by 7.8 percent in the third quarter of 2006 compared to the same period a year earlier, according to the firearm industry's best economic indicator -- the federal excise tax collection report. Excise taxes are a percentage of wholesale receipts, paid quarterly by firearm and ammunition manufacturers to federal tax collectors, and earmarked for state wildlife conservation and habitat restoration programs.

>From July through September, sales of pistols and revolvers were up 25.7 percent, while ammo sales increased 15.7 percent over 2005. During the quarter, $65 million was generated for conservation, compared to $60.3 million in 2005. The latest tax collections suggest overall sales of $603.5 million during the quarter, not including retail markup or final retail sales.

Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax Collections

Third Quarter 2006 (July - September)
Handguns     $13,154,775.76
Long Guns     $25,201,242.36
Ammunition     $26,716,420.50
Total     $65,072,438.62

Third Quarter 2005 (July - September)
Handguns     $10,461,323.27
Long Guns     $26,769,971.86
Ammunition     $23,088,926.61
Total     $60,320,221.74
Source: U.S. Department of Treasury


==========


5- Gun Ownership Up But Firearm Fatalities Hit Record Lows
5- Gun Ownership Up But Firearm Fatalities Hit Record Lows

More than 99% of all accidents unrelated to firearms

NEWTOWN, Conn. A new report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearm-related fatalities remain at record lows, and accidents involving youths continue to decline significantly. The downward trends are occurring even as firearm ownership rises in the U.S., and was not reported by mainstream news outlets for some reason.

The decline is supported by research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), typically an anti-gun-rights advocacy group. According to the CDC, in the past decade, all four regions of the U.S. have witnessed dramatic declines in the number of accidental firearm-related fatalities.

Statistics in the council's 2007 "Injury Facts" report show a 40 percent decrease in accidental firearm-related fatalities over a 10-year period ending in 2005. The report also shows firearm-related accidents involving children ages 14 and under declined 69 percent between 1995 and 2003.

The council's most recent statistics show 109,277 U.S. residents died in accidents of all types in 2005. Less than 1 percent involved firearms.

The most common deadly accidents involved motor vehicles, poisonings and falls, claiming 75 percent of all accidental deaths. Poisonings and falls, which represent a true threat to an American's safety are not covered by news outlets because they are not considered "sexy" enough.

"Programs and efforts that communicate the importance of firearms safety have undeniably played a part in bringing these numbers to record lows, and continuing that awareness will only help ensure they continue downward," Doug Painter, NSSF president said.

The likelihood of publicizing safety issues where the other 99% of accidents occur is not good, if current news media priorities are any measure.

The estimated number of citizen-owned firearms in the United States, widely recognized as the linchpin of freedom on the planet, has risen to more than 290 million.


==========


6- "Sudden Jihadi Syndrome" Identified
6- "Sudden Jihadi Syndrome" Identified

Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, has recognized that Muslim fanatics do not have to join a "club" to commit horrific acts against innocent individuals, and argues that public possession of firearms needs to expand to meet this growing deadly threat.

"Convinced that they will go to heaven if they die killing infidels (who Mohammed taught his followers to hate), some Muslims don't bother joining al Qaeda or some other organized band of thugs. They get so filled with hatred from hearing Islamic sermons and visiting jihadi web sites that they decide to become freelance jihadis.

"Politically correct spokesmen for the FBI and other agencies seem to be under orders to issue a denial that an SJS-related murder could possibly have anything to do with Islam. The rest of the population should come to grips with the fact that many in America are susceptible to SJS. The best antidote for many SJS-related acts of terrorism is a bullet fired from the gun of a prospective victim."

Pratt has compiled a long list of Islam-inspired freelance murderers, argues that that SJS is a reality, and that, "rational Americans should be prepared to deliver the most effective known antidote - a bullet administered at the first sign of an
outbreak of SJS."

See the entire list and discussion here:
http://tinyurl.com/3de9rm

The Utah jihadi described in Page Nine #27, for example, had no carry permit of course, but carried his weapons to the scene of the crime concealed anyway. "Why should the laws make it harder for the rest of us to counter what criminals are already doing?" Pratt asks. "Our current restrictions on concealed carry in most states facilitate murder by tying the hands of victims. The law should be on our side, not on the side of the bad guys."

WRONG:
"1- Second Circuit Court Ends D.C. Gun Ban"

RIGHT:
1- U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Ends D.C. Gun Ban



WRONG:
"By now you've probably heard that the federal 2nd Circuit Court has overturned..."

RIGHT:
By now you've probably hard that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned... [the 2nd Circuit is up New England way.]



WRONG:
"Congress could care less."

RIGHT:
Syndicated radio host Tom Gresham of Gun Talk notes -- Alan, this means the opposite of what you wanted to say. This means that Congress cares. You mean to say that Congress could NOT care less. It's common usage, but it means the opposite of the intended meaning. Thanks for being on the show Sunday. As always, you did a great job. Tom
http://www.guntalk.com/site.php



WRONG:
"The case is named after Cato senior fellow Tom G. Palmer."
[Dumbest error of them all. Sheesh.]

RIGHT:
"Parker v. DC" is named after Shelly Parker, an African-American woman who lives in DC and had her life threatened by local thugs. I knew that. Cato senior fellow Tom G. Palmer was one of the six D.C. residents in the case who argued for the right to defend themselves in their homes.



WRONG:
"The Cato Institute... lead this successful charge."

RIGHT:
The Cato Institute does not litigate. It does occasionally file amicus briefs, but did not in this case, didn't fund it, and made no arguments. This was a personal project by Cato scholar Robert A. Levy, who paid expenses out of his pocket, and had legal assistance from colleagues. Lead counsel Alan Gura worked for small compensation and co-counsel Clark Neily worked pro bono. Cato was supportive on the issues, and weighed in with the media, but was only indirectly connected to the case.



PLUS:

An NBC correspondent objected to how I characterized their coverage of the case ("I fear your recent note did not fairly represent the story I did for NBC News"). The quote attributed to NBC came directly from the caption at the top of their website story, with the glum-faced DC mayor all upset. Admittedly their story did go further than the single item I used. On the other hand, they didn't lead with jubilant civil rights advocates who were jumping for joy nationwide, now that the tyrannical decades-long repression of basic human rights had been lifted.

In that sense, the NBC coverage was remarkably similar to the other networks and mainstream outlets -- a similarity that leads many in the public to wonder about their independence of thought. Why do mainstream stories have such a uniform slant, which so often does not harmonize with what the public thinks?

Note to correspondent -- I don't recall seeing any reports from NBC on armed self defense, even though by all accounts these occur frequently in America; yet I frequently see isolated criminal acts involving guns from remote areas of the country on national news. This leads many to believe NBC has a bias against all the good that guns do -- saving lives, stopping crime, family enjoyment and the rest. How would you respond to that claim?



Aaron Zelman, the head of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership asked for a public apology, and here it is. They are definitely not "shouting from the rooftops with joy" as I indicated by batching them with other gun-rights advocates who are. They are keenly aware of the downsides of the decision, and the huge potential damage an appeal could cause. Check them out here: http://www.jpfo.org. And Aaron, let's not overlook the court's reliance on permit schemes instead of rights, easy acceptance of onerous conditions like mandated training and registrations, reasoned discussion of the bogus individual/collectivist subterfuge, and the severe limit of the decision to people only in their homes.



Author and scholar Dave Hardy observes:
"And the dissent is ... weird. It doesn't say there is no individual right, it says the right doesn't apply in DC because it was meant to protect states against federal tyranny and DC is not a State. If that sounds rather nonsensical ... well, that's the best I can read it."



Syndicated columnist Vin Suprynowicz notes:
Unfortunately, ALL THREE judges ruled there's no right to keep and bear arms. Yes, yes, I know two of them SAID there's a fundamental individual right. They then proceeded to instruct D.C. to issue the plaintiff a PERMIT to own and carry a weapon, but ONLY IN HIS OWN HOUSE. How can you issue a PERMIT to exercise a RIGHT? Got your Freedom of Religion Permit? Don't try to use it outside your own house, now!

I have to agree with Vin, and have been a long-time foe of all the permit schemes so willingly embraced by gun-rights advocates everywhere. See, for example, "Reciprocity Schemes" http://www.gunlaws.com/recsch.htm. The question before us is one of incrementalism, and politics being the art of the possible. We can, like libertarian purists do, stand on perfect philosophical grounds and be crushed, or stand by and watch politicos of every stripe do battle in the belly of the beast and gather up what crumbs may fall. Yeah, mixed metaphor. And a tough call. For complaints on that point, please place finger in electrical outlet.



Item (6) about the gun lobby being less than unified on the merits of this case (and that's putting it nicely) will be explored in a story under development (not by me), and I'll let you know when there is news.



And finally, news media everywhere characterized this as a battle between the "individual rights" and "collective rights" interpretations of the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The New York Times: "unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to the collective rights of state militias."

That is a fallacious, underhanded and preposterous deception, because the "collective rights" nonsense was invented late last century solely as a way to attack this basic human right. Into the 1960s nearly every high school in NYT's home turf had a firing range and rifle team, and there was virtually no debate on whether you had a right to arms -- it's a new concoction (but why let that stop the Gray Lady).

Attorney Stephen Halbrook's extensive historical research lead him to this interesting conclusion:

"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the 'collective' right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of 'the people' to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis. The phrase 'the people' meant the same thing in the Second Amendment as it did in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments -- that is, each and every free person."

In further research he discovered:

The "collective rights" theory originated in U.S. v. Tot, (1943). The historical references in Tot simply do not support its thesis. See Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed 189-191 (1984). http://www.gunlaws.com/books3.htm. Subsequent cases merely string cite to earlier cases which are ultimately traceable to Tot. http://www.gunlaws.com/SCGC-News.html.


Stephen's work is just SO good.
And thanks, y'all, for your patience with me.