Classic Liberal Blog

Lots of interesting stuff coming up ...

Will the 2nd Amendment be restored to its intended purpose?

Killing Slaughterhouse

Understanding the controversial 1873 decision at the center of the Supreme Court's upcoming gun rights fight

The Supreme Court has set a date of March 2, 2010, for oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, the case that will decide whether the revival of the Second Amendment won in 2008’s Heller case will extend to overturning gun control restrictions imposed by local and state governments.

The legal briefs from the plaintiffs, and many of their amici, are now circulating. And an interesting division in the preferred strategy for winning the case has appeared, one based on the daring legal gambit around which most of lead McDonald lawyer (and Heller lawyer) Alan Gura’s brief is built.

To understand Gura’s radicalism, we need to take a quick stroll through a century and more of legal precedent. For decades, the rights contained in the Bill of Rights (both explicitly enumerated and unenumerated) were interpreted to bind only the federal government (see the 1833 Barron case, regarding takings under the Fifth Amendment, for the beginnings of this line of thought). Then in 1868 the 14th Amendment was enacted to impose substantive limitations on the ability of state and local governments to infringe individual rights.

The 14th Amendment was passed in the historical context of Reconstruction, when many southern governments were violating the rights of newly freed blacks. As many of the briefs in McDonald detail quite convincingly, one of the rights that was almost universally understood to fall under 14th Amendment protection (or to use the lingo, one of the rights meant to be “incorporated” on the states via the 14th) was the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The 14th Amendment lists three distinct ways in which states and localities are prohibited from violating our rights: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In a controversial and almost universally derided 1873 set of cases known as the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court permanently scuttled the use of the first, and seemingly richest, rights-protecting phrase, the Privileges or Immunities Clause. As Damon Root wrote here at Reason back in April:

At issue was a Louisiana law granting a 25-year monopoly to the Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company to build and operate a new central slaughterhouse to "promote the health of the City of New Orleans." Writing for the Court's 5-4 majority, Justice Samuel Miller held that not only was the monopoly constitutional, the Privileges or Immunities Clause actually protected only a modest set of national rights, thus leaving the states free to restrict liberty as they saw fit.

Gura explained in an earlier interview with Reason what that decision did to the Privileges or Immunities Clause: “The Slaughterhouse Cases declared pretty much that the only privileges and immunities protected by the 14th Amendment are those of national citizenship, rights that accrue out of the existence of the federal government, like the right to a passport or right to travel the waterways of the U.S. or to petition Congress.”

Speaking of guns ...

Battle Rifle Basics

While anyone with an elementary knowledge of firearms recognizes the advantages of a handgun for concealed and close quarters defense use, the time where a battle rifle could be used for self-defense is rapidly approaching. The size and weight of a handgun provides many advantages but these factors also become a liability if one is forced to defend themselves at a distance of more than a few yards. While there exist handguns used for hunting and target shooting, those are not usually carried or used for self-defense and their effective range is still limited, especially when compared to a battle rifle.

Everyone, with the possible exception of those who still believe answers to our financial woes can be found within the democrat or republican paradigm, know that eventually those economic issues will lead to chaos in this country. When that happens, some 40 million plus who have been told by politicians that they are "entitled" to the property of others will use whatever means available to forcibly take that which they want. The logical scenario will see these folks banding together, most likely in roving bands. They will use numbers and force to steal what others who have seen this coming have set aside for themselves and their loved ones. This criminal activity very possibly could happen with the blessing of the government, for those who are stockpiling food, water, guns and ammunition are already being demonized. The Lever Act of 1917 gave government control over food and fuel storage amounts; it can and will happen again.

Using the events that occurred after Hurricane Katrina as a template, one can see that those who were armed were able to secure themselves and their property on several occasions by simply displaying a firearm when confronted by these roving bands of criminals. Of course after this happened the government moved to forcibly disarm law-abiding citizens. Simply stated, the criminals in government moved to protect their brotherhood among the street gangs and criminal element by disarming law-abiding citizens. This explains in vivid detail why the government continually seeks to disarm the public: it is easier to steal from and enslave those who are unarmed. Considering the police in New Orleans became thieves themselves continues to blur the distinction between government employees and thieves.

And more guns ...

The Poor Man's Survival Arsenal

I know we all like our toys, no doubt about it. After all having the biggest most expensive firearm on the range can be sort of a status symbol . Leading to being looked up to by the other shooters, giving way to pride and boasting, and a feelings of self worth, or something like that. We want the best guns available but very few of us survivalist types have unlimited funds. Not everyone can afford to put down a large sum of cash for a survival arsenal. But being poor or cheap does not mean you must be held to a disadvantage.

Let's say I can tell you about a basic three gun battery that will have you equipped to handle most any survival situation. Most of what we buy are things we want, not need, once we separate the wants from the needs, wise and frugal choices can be made with regard to survival firearms. The three firearms I suggest are low cost, reliable weapons that will serve you well when tshtf. Meeting the needs of foraging and defense of self and property.

The Poor Man’s Arsenal Revisited