CALENDAR | CCW | FAQ | CONTACT US
When we discuss Second Amendment issues, we do so through the construct of civil rights. The Second Amendment was codified to recognize the intrinsic natural right of self-defense and, more importantly, to establish a defensive line against tyranny.
As I have mentioned before, tyranny is a broad concept. It should be viewed as expansively as possible. The Second Amendment protects us against invading armies, it protects us against our own army, it protects us against the State, against the magistrate, against the abusive spouse, the hostile neighbor, or the common street thug.
Tyranny exists on many, many levels.
The other amendments each, individually, protect us against tyranny as well. Their primary purpose is to recognize the fundamental limitations on government. Each recognizes core rights of the individual, typically at the expense of the government.
While Cosmo would certainly argue the overriding importance of the Third Amendment, we will have to forego that discussion for another time.
This blog is dedicated to the First, and specifically freedom of speech.
Let’s begin by stating what the First Amendment is not. It is not a limitation on private prohibition of free speech; it is only a limitation on government regulation of speech. Private individuals, private companies, and private publications are absolutely free to promulgate or regulate commercial, or even public, speech (to the extent that their private industry is a necessity for promulgation of that speech). If people wanted to use this blog for the purposes of articulating an anti-gun message, I am completely free to refuse to print their missives. Failure to promulgate their message on my own platform is not a violation of their First Amendment rights. When the government says they can’t say something… well, that is going to be a problem.
What becomes troubling is when agents of the State start calling for private regulation of speech. The “one step removed” idea is functionally absurd. If the State demands a private company regulate speech… and the fear of government retribution is always hidden behind the smiling teeth of a politician… one could say that the government itself is simply compelling its agent to perform an otherwise unconstitutional act.
So we look on with troubled eyes at the missives of Connecticut Senator (D) Chris Murphy who is demanding that media platforms begin censoring speech, because the “future of our democracy is at stake.” Specifically, he is talking about far right websites and conspiracy sights that he feels postulate “dangerous” ideas.
(If you have arrived here from our newsletter, continue reading here…)
John Stuart Mill, one of our founding philosophers, wrote an influential book at the time of the Revolution titled, On Liberty. He postulates many theories but, in my mind, his most important one is his passionate defense for unbridled freedom of speech. His argument is essentially a capitalistic one. Free speech, at its most fundamental level, enriches everyone. The speaker, the audience, and the critic.
If someone were to postulate an argument that is contrary to the views of another, the recipient must contrast these new potentially radical views against the dogma that he has accepted as orthodoxy. He, of course, is completely empowered to point out the logical inconsistency of his opponent's positions as well. Either way, one of three outcomes will emerge from this “incidence of free speech”: 1. The recipients will realize their dogma does not have the same strength as the new information, and the recipients will abandon their dogma for the new, better idea. 2. They will realize that the proffered argument fails to usurp their original beliefs, and their understanding of the original position is strengthened after being tested against competing ideas. 3. A mix of the two takes place, and their original idea is modified to accept valid points articulated by the challenger. No matter what, each participant is left enriched by the experience.
Nietzsche, roughly 80 years after Mill, came up with a similar, decidedly Germanic concept: Philosphize mit hammar, “philosophy with a hammer.” Nietzsche argued that dogma is like a golden statute; you must constantly hammer at the statute with intellectual ferocity. One of two things will happen… the idol will break, or your hammer will break. If the idol falls, you should never have been accepting of it in the first place; if your hammer breaks, then you know that the idol is strong.
The belief that we are somehow better off if we limit the amount of speech injected into the body politic is a dangerous thing. Some speech is indeed abusive, coarse, and often flat out wrong. The antidote to that speech is fundamentally more speech.
President Trump, for all of his boorish articulations, essentially has mastered this concept. When the mainstream media articulates either a falsehood or a heavily slanted article, he labels it “fake news.” This causes a massive level of insecurity amongst the media as they push the narrative that it is not, in fact, “fake news,” but factually accurate. As they expand upon their stories, alternative narratives begin to emerge which allow the audience a far greater understanding of the original story.
When the media makes editorial decisions to limit the access to information that does not support a collectivist narrative, they are essentially making speech by prohibiting it. With the decentralization of media, stories that otherwise would never have been published, now find their way onto internet sites. (When was the last time you saw CBS/ABC/NBC MSNBC or CNN show stories of CCW holders saving lives?) When the President lambasts the above as “fake news,” invariably these hidden stories start seeing the light of day… even if they are not placed on these purveyor’s news feeds.
When someone… anyone, especially a Senator, suggests that democracy can only be protected by limiting the amount of speech the public can consume, he need to be shown the exit door for he is the existential threat to democracy.
Finally, after three weeks, I now get to write about Judge Kavanaugh!
President Trump has officially nominated DC Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh as Justice Kennedy’s replacement on the Supreme Court. Many of us in the Second Amendment Bar have been waiting with baited breath on a replacement for Kennedy, specifically. While putatively a conservative, Justice Kennedy had a far more checkered view on Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The lack of predictability of Justice Kennedy caused many gun cases, cases that could have further clarified the scope and application of the Second Amendment, to not be heard by the Supremes.
In order for a case to be granted certiorari (permissible to be heard by the Supremes), four of the nine justices must agree that the case is worthy of merit. While it only takes four to hear a case, it requires five justices to win a case. Thus, with the bona fides of Justice Kennedy in question, many cases were torpedoed by pro-Second Amendment justices for fear of establishing generations of bad 2A jurisprudence.
Collectivists, who cringe at the possibility of citizens not having a forced reliance on public policy and governmental agents for their safety, rightly have been concerned about a President Trump replacement for Kennedy.
Trump’s pick of brilliant jurist Brett Kavanaugh is unlikely to assuage their concerns.
Judge Kavanaugh has written extensively about many issues, and has proven to be a both a Constitutionalist, as well as a textualist. Essentially, this means that Kavanaugh has little interest in legislating from the judiciary. He is far more concerned with the actual language of the Constitution and the textual history surrounding ratification.
His feelings on the Second Amendment are not vague predictions… his extremely well-reasoned opinions from the DC Circuit give us a glimpse, not just as to his views on the Second Amendment, but how he interprets precedent as well.
One of the most interesting writings was his dissent in Heller II. This case ultimately made its way to the Supremes, where he was essentially vindicated… but the reasoning he made bears a thoughtful analysis… especially because there is a high probability it might make its way into a future decision.
The area I would like to focus on is the concept of “intermediate scrutiny” as a balancing test for whether a challenged law violates the Second Amendment.
In the seminal case of Heller v. DC, Justice Scalia wrote that that “rational basis” was not an appropriate test for balancing the Second Amendment.
Ok… so, what does this mean?
Typically, when we look at First Amendment cases, the court has articulated a balancing test to determine whether the challenged law should be upheld. There are essentially three tests used. Strict scrutiny is one when a core aspect of the First Amendment is at issue. The test for strict scrutiny is, “Is there a compelling state interest, and are there no less restrictive alternatives?” If the answer to this question is yes, then the law will be upheld… even though there is an obvious abridgment of the First Amendment. Assuming that the law does not touch upon a core principle of the First, but the First is implicated, we use an “intermediate test.” Namely, is there “a substantial state interest, and is the challenged legislation reasonably related to achieving that interest?” The least volitive test is the “rational basis test.” When there is a minimal connection to the First Amendment, or the Amendment is not impacted at all, the court will use a “rational basis test.” Here, the court looks to see if there is a “state interest, and the challenged legislation is rationally related to achieving that interest." Typically, laws tested against strict scrutiny fail… and those tested against rational basis survive.
Justice Scalia never expanded on the proper test since in Heller the core principle of the Second Amendment was completely abrogated by the District of Columbia. He never really got into the balancing test because there was nothing to balance.
Appellate courts have jumped on his specific language, though. Being foreclosed the least restrictive test of rational basis, they have elected to adjudicate statutes that limit the exercise of the Second Amendment to an “intermediate level of scrutiny”… and surprise, surprise… the challenged statutes are upheld.
Justice Kavanaugh disagreed with the entire concept.
Rather than using a First Amendment test, he argued, in his dissent, for a textual approach. The “test” to be used in determining whether the challenged statute violates the core principle of the Second Amendment is to first determine what the Framers were intending the Second Amendment to protect in the first place.
His historical analysis lands squarely on protection of individual liberty, protection against tyranny, and the individual’s inherent right of self-defense.
Balancing tests that were developed for other amendments serve no purpose in determining whether a challenged law violates the Second.
His approach, in my opinion, is spot on.
In identifying the core principles of the Second, Judge Kavanaugh puts his thumb on the scale clearly in favor of individual liberty, exactly as our Founders intended it to be. While his confirmation is by no means a foregone conclusion, there is a high probability he will be confirmed by the Senate. For this we can thank former Majority Leader, Harry Reed, the Democrat who altered the rules of the Senate to allow for a simple majority for confirmation of judges. (Reed was frustrated that President Obama’s picks were being held up by recalcitrant Republican Senators.) Evidently, it never occurred to him that a Republican may one day sit in the White House, charged with nominating a new justice to the Supreme Court.
We welcome the confirmation hearings, and look forward to Justice Kavanaugh fleshing out more of his judicial and political philosophy. One thing is certain… his stance on the Second Amendment makes me very, very happy.
So, you know how I was so excited to finally be able to talk about Judge Kavanaugh? Well, guess what? It has to wait yet another week.
The 9th issued another ruling… and like in Duncan v. Becerra, which I wrote about last week… it was a good thing. (Rarely do I get to write that sentence.)
This time the ruling was in Young v. Hawaii, and this was a biggie.
As in the original three-judge ruling in Peruta v. San Diego, this three-judge panel had its opinion drafted by Justice O’Scannlain.
Justice O’Scannlain is my new spirt animal.
The case at bar revolves around Hawaii’s issuance of both open carry and concealed carry permits. The second part, concealed carry, was not directly tackled, but is incorporated through a very important footnote, and the general ban of concealed carry in the State of Hawaii is a predicate requirement for the ruling to have the logical consistency it does.
Like California, Hawaii is not favorable to guns. To bear arms outside of your home in Hawaii (“bear” being an important phrase here), you need to have either an open carry permit, or a concealed carry permit. Hawaii has issued concealed carry permits for 19 years, and only a handful of open carry permits, exclusively to security guards.
Young, the plaintiff, applied for both permits twice and was denied.
He sued under a 1983 action in federal court, arguing that his inability to openly carry outside of his home was a fundamental deprivation of his Second Amendment rights. The court did acknowledge that pursuant to Peruta II (the en banc review case), a CCW is a legitimate time, place, and manner restriction and could be upheld, as long as the plaintiff still has the core Second Amendment right available to him… in this case, he can still open carry.
The big question before the court was, “Does the Second Amendment exist outside a person’s home?” The answer to that question, in Justice O’Scannlain’s excellent opinion, is unambiguously yes.
If you want to read the opinion in its entirety you can find it here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/24/12-17808.pdf
What does the opinion actually say?
Well, grab your own cup of coffee and read on…. this gets exciting!
Justice O’Scannlain first decided to tackle the question of “Does the Second Amendment even apply outside someone’s home?” Heller v. DC (the seminal case that recognized the Second as a fundamental right) and McDonnel v. Chicago (that incorporated the Second to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment) never explicitly recognized the Second Amendment as applying to activity that occurs outside a person’s home. (Remember Heller was a ban on possession of a firearm by residents of the District of Columbia. The court recognized the core purpose of the amendment was to protect “hearth and home.”)
O’Scannlain points out that the phrase to “keep and bear arms” is a two-part proposition. Clearly, as Heller stated, the law-abiding citizen enjoys a right to “keep” arms, but equally clear is the proposition that “bear” does not mean incidental movement from room to room in one’s house. “Bear” clearly means to take a firearm outside one’s home. More to the point, since the core purpose of the Second Amendment is self-defense, it stands to reason that self-defense is just as important outside the home as inside.
He then goes on a lengthy historical analysis of the Second Amendment’s 19th century cases. These are important since they are relatively close in time to the actual ratification of the Amendment. He points out that the vast majority of the cases (with the exception of the unfortunately named State v. Buzzard) held that laws that forbade the open carrying of weapons were in conflict with the Second Amendment.
He then takes on the State’s odd argument that the Second Amendment should be interpreted through the lens of the 1328 Statute of Northampton. (To be fair, the State of Hawaii was using this line of argument pursuant to Chief Justice Thomas’s en banc decision in Peruta II. Remember, O’Scannlain wrote the original Peruta decision saying that the court takes judicial notice that, “A general interest in self defense is sufficient good cause for a CCW.” His opinion then, as is this one, was heavily based in historical analysis. Chief Justice Thomas overruled him, and wrote his own “historical analysis,” essentially saying the issuance of a CCW is not a core right envisioned under the Second Amendment. He left open the possibility that open carry is a core right, though even doubted that, opining that the Second Amendment is of limited scope and probably does not exist outside the home…. especially since there is that ole “Statute of Northampton” thing.
O’Scannlain uses this opinion to strike back at Thomas.
He does this by eviscerating the State of Hawaii’s (Chief Justice Thomas’s) analysis of Northampton.
I won’t go into detail on this… but, if you read the decision and keep Thomas in mind, you will get a chuckle.
Thus, identifying the Second as a right that exists past the boundaries of one’s home, and its principal purpose being self-defense, he then goes on to analyze Hawaii’s statutes that prohibit carrying a firearm outside the home without a permit.
In Heller, the court said when a statute implicates a core principle of the Second Amendment, there needs to be a balancing test employed to see if the suspect statute is unconstitutional. In Heller, there was no need to engage in this balancing test, because the statute completely abrogated the Second Amendment. In Heller, the court postulated that the balancing test needs to be something more robust then “rational basis test”… but never specifically mandated a “strict scrutiny” analysis. Thus, circuit courts have adopted an “intermediate level of review,” which… surprise, surprise, all statutes tested have survived.
In Young, O’Scannlain essentially stated that the same prohibition that existed in Heller exists in Hawaii. With no empirical evidence that the State provided that someone “could” get a permit to carry openly for self-defense; it must be understood that the general public is prohibited from carrying openly for self-defense. Since this is a core component of the Second Amendment, and, as such, has effectively been foreclosed to the average citizen, the statute is patently unconstitutional.
Importantly, in Footnote 21, O’Scannlain states:
21 We do not address whether, after Peruta II, a concealed carry regime could provide a sufficient channel for typical, law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to bear arms for self-defense. See 824 F.3d at 927. While the County’s police chief purportedly awaits an “exceptional case” to grant a concealed carry license, section 134-9 is effectively a ban on the concealed carry of firearms. As counsel for the County openly admitted at oral argument, not a single concealed carry license has ever been granted by the County. Nor have concealed carry applicants in other counties fared much better: Hawaii counties appear to have issued only four concealed carry licenses in the past eighteen years.
Yeah… that was another dig at Thomas and Peruta II.
Had Hawaii taken the position that CCW permits were issuable to the general public…. and had they actually issued them… the ability to prohibit carrying openly most likely would be acceptable, since the average citizen could still carry outside the home.
So… based on the number of phone calls I have fielded in the last couple of days, the question on the top of everyone’s list… especially our patriot brothers and sisters who live in non-permissive counties like Los Angeles and San Francisco… is:
Where does this leave us?
Is open carry now legal?
What happens to California’s statute prohibiting open carrying of firearms?
The short answer is “good questions.”
The statutes prohibiting the open carry of firearms may still have validity to those who actually have CCWs, since their Constitutional rights have not been curtailed. To those who live in LA, who cannot get a permit, it would seem to be the law… at least in a federal tribunal… has been overturned.
There is little impetus for the State Legislature to unilaterally strike its anti-gun laws, though. If citizens were to open carry and be arrested for open carry, their response to the prosecution’s filing would be a demurrer. (A legal term that literally means “so what.”)
It is unknown if a lower court would accept the demurrer and toss the case; clearly, an appellate court would.
There is also the distinct possibility that O’Scannlain might watch Young suffer the same fate as Peruta. That is, an en banc review is requested, and the case overturned.
But, then again, if this were to happen, it would most assuredly be appealed to the Supremes… The Supremes with a new member, Justice Kavanaugh, who I really, really hope to write about next time!!!
Ugh! I really, really wanted to write about Judge Kavanaugh… but, once again, that is going to have to wait…
This last week a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit handed down a decision on the preliminary injunction of Duncan v. Becerra.
Yes… it was a good thing.
It was not, however, the angels heralding and the clouds parting. It was a fairly simple procedural decision, and one that was not wholly unexpected.
Unfortunately, some have seen headlines and already begun proclaiming that “the 9th circuit has overturned California’s standard capacity ban!”
Errr… not exactly.
So let’s review exactly how we got here, and do a little prediction for the future.
California Penal Code §32310 says:
(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
Seems pretty clear right?
The law does not explicitly state that you cannot have a “large capacity” magazine. It regulates the method of acquisition of said magazine. Moreover, the law is written in two clauses: The first clause is a commercial clause and stipulates the commercial methods that you, as a seller, are prohibited from selling the magazines. The second clause, following the word “or,” regulates the non-commercial methods, and those wishing to act as buyers.
Most people get tripped up on the clause “imports to the state.” This is a commercial term of art and relates to the importation for commercial sale, not the importation for personal use.
Had the legislature simply wanted to make them all illegal, it could have very easily written the law to say, “No magazines acquired after January 1 are legal in the State of California.” That would have been easy… yet, the legislature did not do it.
In the battle to “out gun control” each other, Gavin Newsom and De Leon both drafted, and ultimately passed, legislation to further restrict standard capacity magazines.
Newsom’s Prop 63 passed, which amended §32310 to essentially make the mere possession of a magazine capable of holding more the ten rounds, regardless of how it was acquired, a finable infraction.
A lawsuit was filed called Duncan v. Becerra. That case was brought before Judge Benitez in San Diego, and the plaintiffs (the ones looking to overturn the law… the “good guys”) asked for a preliminary injunction.
Basically, they were arguing that since the law could not be litigated before it was set to take effect, they asked the judge to hold off implementing the law. (That is essentially what a preliminary injunction is.)
For Judge Benitez to issue a preliminary injunction, he needs to find two things: First, that the plaintiffs have a high likelihood of prevailing at trial, and second, that if the law ends up taking effect before the trial, they will suffer an irreparable harm.
In a spectacular opinion, Judge Benitez issued the injunction and called out the State of California for constantly passing unconstitutional laws.
Now, typically when someone loses on a preliminary injunction, it is a huge indicator that when the actual trial comes up, that party will lose as well. After all, the judge has already said that the plaintiffs have a high likelihood of succeeding on the merits.
What was the Department of Justice’s response to losing the preliminary injunction?
Appeal the loss to the 9th!
The three-judge panel who heard the case was indeed incredulous with the State.
“Why are you doing this? The case is to be heard in a couple of months anyway. What extreme necessity requires the immediate implementation of this law?”
These were some of the questions that the justices on the 9th asked of the State.
Not surprisingly, they upheld Judge Benitez’s power to issue a preliminary injunction without second guessing him.
So… yes… it is a good thing.
Did the 9th overturn §32310? Not even by a long shot.
So… what happens now?
Well, the case of Duncan v. Becerra will be heard in a couple of months in front of Judge Benitez. He, more than likely, will overturn the law enacted by Prop 63 leaving us in the exact same position we were prior to Prop 63’s passage.
DOJ will appeal that final ruling to the 9th.
Then the 9th will formally overturn Judge Benitez, and say that Prop 63 is perfectly acceptable.
This will then be appealed to the Supreme Court, where, hopefully, we have Judge Kavanaugh sitting confirmed as the newest associate justice.
Then… having been given the opportunity to finally rule, these stupid magazine bans will be overturned once and for all.
Originally, I was going to write about President Trump’s nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to fill the vacated Supreme Court seat of Justice Kennedy.
That will have to wait until next week.
Today, we get to talk about the California DOJ and “assault weapons”… again. Specifically, what constitutes an “assault weapon,” and how does that definition relate to law enforcement activities?
But, before we get into that, we need to talk a little bit about legislative philosophy and the development of law.
As I have written before, law is, by definition, a freedom-limiting event. That should not necessarily be seen in a pejorative context. For people to have the greatest potential for maximizing individual freedom, the actions of others need to be regulated to some extent.
Think of motor vehicle laws.
Many of us would love to drive our vehicles with complete disregard for traffic laws. Doing this, however, would increase the potential of everyone being killed while on the road. To minimize the potential of disaster while driving, we regulate everyone’s behavior equally to not only create predictability while on the road, but also to minimize the risk of operating a vehicle.
While the benefit of safety on the road is clearly maximized by having enforceable laws, make no mistake… “freedom”… the ability to do what you want, when you want with your vehicle, is compromised.
Our Framers understood this and realized that the development of law… any law… was a necessary impediment to individual freedom. As such, they made it difficult to pass laws. They also relegated the passage of laws to the political crucible of the legislature.
If legislators crafted a law that would limit freedom “too much,” they would still need political allies to support that law, allies that would have to stand for reelection themselves. If a proposed law is too onerous to freedom, then, arguably, those allies would seek restrictions, exemptions, or redrafting to minimize the law’s impact on freedom, while still striking a balance between public policy and the individual freedom which is effected. Ideally, that balance is struck with individual freedom having the most weight.
In California, we often have two sets of laws, legislation that comes from the Legislature (that crucible of law-making) and administrative regulations that allow executive agencies to develop polices for the purposes of execution of the laws passed by the Legislature.
We run into a problem, though, when the Legislature passes laws (only to the extent that it has the political will to pass) and the Administrative Agency promulgates rules that exceed the law that the Legislature can pass.
Such is the case with the California DOJ.
DOJ was handed SB 880, which created not only the “assault weapon” reclassification of a bullet button, but also the registration process for registering a previously-owned weapon as an “assault weapon.”
It attempted to file its “assault weapon” definition (actionable rules) with the State Office of Administrative Law and immediately was met with resistance. Specifically, DOJ asked that the rules be subject to what is called “file and print.”
This essentially means: “nothing to see here… move along.”
Typically, when a rule is proposed, the public needs to be given an ample opportunity to participate in the rule-making process and be able to make public comments. “File and Print” is reserved for benign administrative stuff that does not meet the requirement of public comment.
Here, DOJ attempted to fundamentally alter what is considered an “assault weapon”… and arguably constructed a brand new form of weapon called a “bullet button assault weapon.”
This clearly went beyond what the Legislature was capable of developing under their political constraints, yet the unelected bureaucrats at DOJ decided to carry the water of the Legislature and do it for them.
The NRA, CRPA, Firearms Policy Coalition, as well as a host of other civil rights organizations, went operational.
One of the big issues was that DOJ attempted to clarify that the regulations were both for purposes of registration and enforcement.
That enforcement provision clearly went beyond the scope of the legislation, as well as fell outside the parameters of “file and print.”
Last week, DOJ pulled its regs from the Office of Administrative Law.
Essentially it is preparing for a “do over.”
This does not mean that SB 880 is no longer the law. It is still in force, and since the registration period for registering rifles as assault weapons has passed, I am not entirely sure I know the bigger picture for the vast majority of gun owners in California.
Clearly, DOJ has attempted to strong arm the gun owning public (again) in California, and it has been rebuffed. It has also established defenses for those who potentially run afoul of the registration law.
This is just one more “issue” with DOJ, and it is, sadly, a fight that is not over.
See Something, Say Something.
Our society has become far more “connected” than at any time in human history. Our ability to post events we witness, explain to our “friends” the intimate moments in our life, and pontificate on social trends is unparalleled to any point in our past. Yet, the grand irony is that in our effort to stay current with those we follow on social media, we often literally miss the forest for the trees.
There is an ubiquitous video that makes the rounds on social media. A compilation of individuals paying so much attention to their phones that they either become embroiled in embarrassing disasters or come frighteningly close to meeting their own demise. People become so focused on the postings of others, they unwittingly become a “post” themselves.
Those of us who have CCWs are essentially prohibited from engaging in this type of behavior. By definition, we must be aware of our surroundings, and slavish devotion to our phones prevents this.
Putting down the phone and getting eyes up is, at times, a Herculean task. I will be the first to admit that I am a hypocrite when it comes to this. If Sandy had a dollar for each time she told me to put the phone away, she would be a very, very wealthy woman.
That said, Sandy is entirely correct. It stands to reason that we would never reach for our phone to check status updates in the midst of a gunfight. We would also never do that when we suspect an altercation was about to occur. Why then would we do it when an altercation “could” occur?
As CCW holders, we must place ourselves at a higher standard. We, as individuals, are not the only ones who benefit from this… society as a whole becomes safer.
As CCW holders, we are constantly training to be observers. We see things others miss. Oftentimes those things are entirely benign… yet, at times, they are potentially life-changing. Once they have been detected, our responsibility does not end. We now need to do something with that information.
If you were in a bank and suddenly saw four men, roughly the same age, come into the bank, take up separate positions and begin scanning the crowd holding their jackets closed, you would probably decide it was best to immediately leave. That seems like an entirely prudent decision. Once outside, would you simply just drive away? Would you be comfortable knowing that you have potentially left all of those other patrons in the bank in harm’s way? Most of us would probably get a safe distance and call 911. If it turns out that the men who entered the bank were simply there to do a transaction, and had no criminal intent then no harm, no foul. If they were there to threaten the lives of the bank personnel and the patrons then, well… you just may have saved many lives by that simple phone call.
A phone call you would not have been able to make had you not been aware of their presence in the first place.
Beyond the local crimes, this also has national security implications as well.
When we see things, things that just don’t add up, we can either ignore them or report them.
To be sure, sometimes law enforcement drops the ball at this reporting stage. After the Parkland shooting it came to light that there were numerous reports to law enforcement about the shooter. Nothing of any substantive value took place. Greg Gutfeld, of Fox News, coined the phrase, “See Something, Say Something, Do Nothing.”
He has a point.
Regardless, denial of information to a law enforcement agency based on the premise that they will not act upon that information is just as asinine.
As CCW holders, we are often in a unique position to see things that, as a friend of mine in law enforcement says, “…make you get a pit in your stomach as you go to bed at 11 pm.”
Perhaps your “actionable intelligence” is nothing more than benign and eminently explainable, Constitutionally-protected activity. Perhaps it is something far more nefarious.
The activity in and of itself may be minimal; but, it might be part of a larger criminal enterprise, one that law enforcement has been monitoring for quite some time. It might also be the “tip” that leads to the unraveling of a conspiracy that could have put our troops, and even us at home, in danger.
I always tell you to train constantly, train consistently, and train with purpose. Your training is all encompassing and begins with situational awareness. When your training enhances a skill, and that skill uncovers something you would have otherwise let go unnoticed, you must act upon it.
“Posterity! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.”
On this the 242nd Anniversary of the recognized signing of the Declaration of Independence, I thought it only right and proper to muse upon the origins of the Framers’ thoughts and the sizable risks they took in articulating those thoughts.
More importantly, however, is our own individual responsibility made manifest from the inheritance we have received… a spectacularly fragile inheritance that was born in blood and protected by continual sacrifice from generation to generation.
What had started as grievance against the Crown, ultimately culminated in a severing of political ties between the largest empire on Earth and its upstart colonies. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, even Adams’ more ardent cousin, Samuel Adams, did not begin this journey seeking independence from England. Quite the opposite, they rightly felt that the English Bill of Rights was not being applied logically to the colonies and the British citizens who resided there.
The English Bill of Rights, drafted in the 1600s, articulated fundamental principles that governed the relationship between Parliament and the people. To those residing in the colonies, many in Parliament felt that compensation for the costs of defending the colonists from the French and Indian Wars were more important then legalistic adherence to the English Bill of Rights.
When British troops were sent to Boston to be quartered amongst the population, essentially as an occupying law enforcement source, (Yes, Cosmo… I am thinking of you!) the people of Massachusetts became irate.
When it was ordered that the subjects of the King be disarmed, that was simply the final straw.
(If you have arrived here from my newsletter, continue reading here…)
The Declaration of Independence was by no means a “certain thing.” In the Continental Congress, the delegations from New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina proved resistant to moving forward with a formalized break from Great Britain. After all, they were fighting for the rights of Englishmen… not the formation of a new country. The idea of “country” was not really even in their lexicon. To Virginians, their “country” was Virginia itself. To New Yorkers, their “country” was New York. The colonies were collectively really nothing more that a collection of states. Arguably, as the historian Shelby Foote describes, the transformative process of becoming a single country did not take place until the conclusion of the Civil War in 1865. The language is telling. Up until then, people would describe actions of the United States in the plural…. “the United States are going to do something”. After the Civil War, there was an unconscious shift that took place…”The United States is going to do something.”
So what would have been the end result of General Washington losing at Yorktown? What would have happened had Franklin not endeared himself to the French Court and secured an alliance with France? What would have happened had Washington not employed the skills and talents of Baron Von Steuben and developed a professional Continental Army?
The Framers would have been hanged.
John Adams, in the quote referenced at the beginning of this blog, speaking directly to us is prescient. The Framers knew they were putting themselves at risk. They knew failure was death, and the chances of prevailing were extraordinarily small. They were staking their very lives on the prospect that they could defeat the strongest military power on the planet.
Subsequent to the Revolution, they saw continual problems, from funding the new government to, in some instances, governing the ungovernable.
Still they persevered. With each perseverance they sacrificed personally and professionally. These sacrifices were for a singular beneficiary… us.
Our generation, like every American generation that has come before us and all that will follow, are temporary custodians of the glorious experiment in popular government that our Framers paid so dearly to provide. We must be ever vigilant against the forces of tyranny that will always, by design, seek to nullify the achievements in freedom that our forebearers fought so dearly to preserve.
This Forth of July, this “Birthday of our Country,” please pause for a minute to reflect upon the awesome responsibility that you… you as an individual… have to protect freedom not just for us, but for our posterity. The Declaration… that document, inspired by Divine Providence, sets out the terms: “All men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
From the highest official, to the lowest among us, there is an equality and dignity of the individual. Government is established for the singular purpose of securing those rights.
You, dear reader, are the source of power for the government. It is upon you, as those who came before you, to shoulder the mantel of responsibility as well, to ensure that these rights are protected and nourished for future generations.
God bless you tonight as the festivities ring out across the country…. and God bless these United States of America.
Timbs v. Indiana
“You have a really nice business there… it would be really terrible if something were to happen to it.”
When the Mafia makes a statement like that it is scary.
When it comes from the government it is downright terrifying.
The Framers were also keenly aware of this.
The goal with the Framers was to establish a Constitutional framework that enshrined the concept of limited government, a government that was given specific enumerated powers and nothing more. Even within the debates of the Framers there was a tension to expand the powers of the federal government (See the arguments between Jefferson and Hamilton.). Regardless of those who sought a stronger centralized government, all understood that power is not a static concept.
The Framers understood that once limited power had been granted to a body, the impetus would be for the that body to constantly expand the scope of its control.
One of the interesting ways the Framers sought to place a check against governmental abuse of the individual was the Eighth Amendment.
The Amendment reads: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Clearly this is a right of the people (as opposed to a right of the State as articulated in the Tenth Amendment).
It is also a right that protects you from federal actions that may impose excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. State actions, notwithstanding their own individual Constitutions, are free to set high bail, fine you to the moon, and cruelly and unusually punish you.
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, incorporated “fundamental rights” directly into State Constitutions.
The funny thing is… the “excessive fines imposed” is a phrase that has never been directly incorporated.
As a result, State governments have become “for profit” industries, fining people (often poor people) as a way of raising revenue without legislatively passing taxes.
With the Supreme Court case of Timbs v. Indiana, slated to be heard next year, that will hopefully change.
(If you have arrived here from our newsletter continue reading here…)
One of the biggest issues I have… and yes, gun owners, this is going to directly apply to us… is when the State uses fines as a means of establishing a social policy.
The State essentially makes the argument: We don’t like X. We don’t have the legislative ability, either Constitutionally or politically, to ban X. We want it to be as burdensome as possible to engage in X, so we will establish economic penalties associated with the performance of X.
So, who ends up taking the brunt of this? Those who have the least ability to pay. Essentially, they must avoid any potential of being drawn into X for the economic repercussions that could occur.
It also sets up an odd philosophical conundrum to those who would benefit from the imposition of those fines.
Say the “fine” for smoking in a no-smoking zone is $5000. (Excessive? Perhaps.) Let’s say the funds generated from this activity are earmarked for cancer research. If people avoid smoking, they are robbing the funding mechanism that pays for cancer research. Does this then mean that it is morally mandated that you should smoke in no-smoking zones as a means of generating cancer research funding?
Smoke ‘em if you got 'em! You need to do it!
For the children!
The Constitution sets up a framework for limited government with specifically enumerated powers. When government has a pecuniary interest in the collection of revenue that goes beyond the enumerated powers of the government, you have the recipe for tyranny. Hopefully, the Supremes will agree and incorporate the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment.
If not… well, imagine what beautiful government programs we will be able to have without State fear of that pesky Bill of Rights.
“… and many of those gun laws have either an irrational basis to begin with or, as applied, are unconstitutional.”
“Those are just your opinions!”
“All you are doing, all you have been doing, is giving your opinions!”
The rabbi jumped in… “Okay, okay, the temperature in here is getting a little hot, and we need to cool it down. I know there are people in this room who disagree with some of the things being said, but we have to be respectful.”
“Thank you, rabbi, but I want to hear what the gentleman has to say; I’m not sure what I have said that would give him offense.”
“Fine! You want me to say it, I will say it! You have been doing nothing but spouting off your pro-gun opinions all night! I don’t want to hear them! Someone needs to call you out, and if no one else is going to do it, I will! You shouldn’t even be up there, I don’t want your OPINIONS!”
The rabbi jumped back in, “Let’s move onto the next question…”
This little exchange took place last Tuesday at a synagogue here in Orange County. I had been asked to participate in a “town hall” type of event where three of us would act as panelists to discuss the issue of gun violence. One of the participants was a Los Angeles City Attorney who evidently had a pre-existing relationship with the Moms Demand Action group that had a table by the doors leading into the event. The other was a probation officer (she actually has trained at Artemis), and was a survivor of the Las Vegas shooting.
Then there was little old me.
The demographics of the audience was interesting. About 50 people were in attendance and most of the attendees were in one of three “camps”: 30 to 45-year-olds who were decidedly anti-gun, but were interested in asking probative questions, and I suspect capable of being persuaded by logic. 50 to 70-year-olds who were decidedly pro Second Amendment, and then a small handful of aging ex-hippies who were completely antagonistic to firearms and prone to fits of hyperbolic hysteria when even the idea of firearm ownership was mentioned.
(As an aside, the synagogue is patrolled by armed security… go figure.)
Yes, there were occasional outbursts, the above-referenced one being the most egregious.
My initial thought was to subject this gentleman to a logical Socratic dialogue, a cross-examination of his emotive beliefs as it were… but I realized that to do so would probably make me come across as a bully.
Benjamin Franklin once famously chastised John Adams after Adams had insulted Rutledge on the Congressional floor. Franklin told Adams to never insult someone in public… always do it in private. When done in private, they might actually thank you for it… when done in public, they know you are serious.
It was exquisitely apparent that this gentleman was “serious.” From the look of embarrassment the other members of the congregation showed as he went on his emotional diatribe, the “seriousness” of his behavior did more to negate the value of his message than anything I could have additionally contributed.
One of the other emotional outbursts took place between two congregants. At the end of the program the rabbi decided that individuals should stand up and discuss their feelings. (Yes… this was a thing). The three of us on the stage, I guess, were just supposed to sit there and listen without responding. I’m still not exactly sure what the point of this was… but okay.
One of the members of the crowd, a woman I suspect who was in her early sixties, stood and agreed with a point that I had made earlier. Violence is something that has to do with the worsening of our culture. It’s not about the guns. She explained that when she was in high school she was part of the shooting team. Everyday they brought their guns to school and there was never any danger of a shooting. The very idea that students would use their guns against their classmates was as foreign as someone using a vehicle to drive over students in the school parking lot.
She was interrupted mid-sentence by one of the elder ex-hippies:
“Why did you bring your guns to school?!”
“I was in a shooting club. We all did.”
“You brought your guns to school?! Oh, my God! Oh, my God!”
The ex-hippie began to feign hyperventilation and had to be calmed down by one of her comrades.
The woman looked on at her fellow congregant with a mixture of annoyance and disgust.
Dialogue only takes place when both sides are rational.
To believe that “minds were changed” would be the height of folly.
There were those in attendance who were silent throughout the proceedings. Perhaps they came to the event with a preexisting bias. Perhaps they were a pure tabula rasa. Either way, these individuals were shown the histrionics of the antis… maybe, just maybe, our arguments became a little more persuasive when colored by the outbursts of the opposition.
This one is for you, Pops…
With the election behind us… (Congratulations, Sheriff-Elect Don Barnes, and keep up the fight in November, Congressman Rohrabacher!)… I seriously thought about doing an election analysis for this week’s blog. Being a political junky, Tuesday night elections are the equivalent of the Super Bowl for me. That said, one of the things that is spectacularly irritating is the various analyses of elections that don’t offer any great insight, other than to rehash the actual election. As I assume all of you share the same dislikes I do, I will spare you that annoyance.
Instead, I want to focus on another upcoming “day”… Father’s Day.
Specifically, I want to focus on the relationship that I have with my own father, and the reflections I have in light of being a father myself.
Father’s Day, like Mother’s Day, has become an exercise in Hallmark cards, brunches and gift-giving. While we do well to honor those who are fathers, we frankly spend little time in retrospect as to whom these men actually are, primarily a result of having lived our lives with them. We know these people, we understand their complexities and, having suffered through numerous disputes with them over the years, understand their own fallibility.
There comes a point, though, as adults when a unique realization occurs.
Each of us has suffered, or watched others suffer through extreme times of emotional distress. As children, we look to our mothers and fathers as guides to help us understand how to navigate these dark times. We remember these instances, for oftentimes they are the defining points which have led us to who we are as adults today. We also remember the guidance our parents gave us… for good or ill, for like the event itself, the response to the event is often revealing.
This reflection often happens when we realize we have transcended the age that our parents were when our “childhood event” occurred. When we have the enlightenment of experience to realize our parents were mere children themselves when they were suddenly thrust into this situation, we are often humbled by the sheer intellect of their actions so many years ago, or warmed by the compassionate knowledge they did “the best they could with what they had.”
When I was six years old, our family suffered a catastrophic event. My younger brother, who was only three at the time, succumbed to an acute infection of meningitis. My young parents were utterly devastated. I was massively affected by the loss as well, but on a different level. I was suddenly forced to learn the underlying realities of mortality, as well as the sudden knowledge that my dear brother was no longer to be a part of my life.
My parents, on the other hand, two people who were in their early thirties, suddenly had their lives, as they knew them, terminated.
Back then psychological counseling for grief was nonexistent. Really the only support system that existed at all was clergy, and our relationship with the synagogue became stressed.
I distinctly remember a few weeks after Craig’s death, my father, who was desperately trying to keep me from sinking into depression myself, sat with me to watch a cartoon version of the novel, Charlotte's Web, which was showing on TV.
There is a point where Charlotte, the spider, dies.
I looked back at my father who was sitting in his chair and saw a single tear streaking down his face as he sat stoically with me. When he realized I was watching him, he smiled and asked me how I was doing. The juxtaposition of him trying to be “cheerful” with the wet streak of a tear on his face, taught me more about dignity and compassion than anything I have ever read then or since.
A few months later, my parents noticed I was struggling coming to terms with the loss of my brother. I had, for one reason or another, attached myself to a stuffed Winnie the Pooh doll.
As an eight-year-old boy there was absolutely no justifiable reason I should be so needy of this doll to be in bed with me when I went to sleep. It gave me a measure of comfort, though, and my parents felt little need to wean me from it.
In an effort to get on with the business of life, my two grief-stricken parents decided the three of us should take a trip to the East Coast. I remember little of that trip, except for the fact that we went to Washington, Philadelphia and New York. It was in New York that a secondary tragedy occurred.
Evidently, when I was packing up my stuff at the hotel in Philadelphia, I neglected to secure my coveted Winnie the Pooh doll. When we reached New York and I was getting ready to go to bed on the rollaway cot in my parents’ hotel room, I suddenly realized Winnie was not there.
I was completely devastated.
My father wanted to protect me, to ease my pain. There was little he could do, though. As I sat there bawling, he turned to my mother and said, “I’ll be right back.”
A few minutes later he returned to the room with a paper gift bag from the lobby gift store. He handed me the bag and took a step back with a nervous and hopeful look.
I opened the bag and pulled out two tiny stuffed animals…. a walrus and a lion.
I held each in my hand and looked at my dad and said, “What am I supposed to do with these?”
Instantly, I started crying again.
I look back on that event and realize how much pain I must have caused my father at that time. He was desperately looking for something… anything… that could mollify my pain, and I completely missed that at the time. I was so psychologically damaged that selfishness and lack of empathy dictated my emotional responses.
I’ve thought about that day many times over the years. Each time, I well up with pride that the man who raised me had the capacity to push through his own grief to do what he thought would be best for me all the time. What still gets me, is that he had the presence of mind to do this when he was almost 15 years younger than I am right now.
I’ve told this story to Sandy and my kids over the years.
This year we knew that I was going to be alone on Father’s Day. Carolyn is living in Sydney, Australia, and Chaney won coveted spots at West Point and Annapolis Summer Seminars. Sandy took Chaney to the East Coast last week, and they won’t be back until after Father’s Day has passed.
Before they left, Carolyn “FaceTimed” us, and with all of us in the same room, Chaney gave me their gift to me.
I opened the 5.11 bag (Nice touch girls!).
Inside was a brand new Winnie the Pooh doll.
The pride that I felt at that moment in my girls, and my own father, was incalculable.
To all of you who are fathers, to all of you who have fathers… we are men…which means, as my wife tells me, we are deeply flawed.
But, we do the best we can with what we have.
Be secure with the knowledge that it is never the grand things that will be remembered. It is the little things… like running down to a gift shop at nine o’clock at night to get a struggling child a walrus and a lion. Those are the things that will define you not only as a man… but as a father.
TRAINING: Civilian | CCW | LE | MILITARY EVENTS: Corporation | LE Agencies | Military Agencies | Private Parties | Wholesale Opportunities SERVICES: Firearms Cleaning | Build an Artemis | ARTEMIS: Calendar | Membership | About Us | ADI Blog | Employment | FAQ's | Legal | Contact Us
©2012-2018, Artemis Defense Institute - 11 Spectrum Pointe Drive, Lake Forest, CA 92630 | PH: (949) 305-6586 | FX: (949) 305-6628