Ask a political science professor what constitutes a government and he’ll likely tell describe it along the lines of an organized monopoly on the legitimate use of force. There are some permutations, but this is the basic thrust of the idea of what a government is. Except it’s not true. Those of you who read my earlier article may see where this is going. . .

Governments are most free when they don’t have that monopoly. I mentioned Athens, Britain, Florence and America, all states which achieved great political freedom with a well-armed populace. Now, we could get into a hair-splitting contest over the word “legitimate” but I doubt there’s a legion of PS profs to take me to task here. When a government encourages/allows an armed citizenry, it legitimizes their access to the tools of violence.

Firearms represent the ultimate democratization of violence. They’re the great leveler. What is the old saying? “God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal.” A gun is of the greatest benefit to the weakest in society.

A sword is deadly, but requires a fair amount of strength, skill and training to use one. A bow requires upper body strength and a lot of practice. A gun…well, one needs training to use one properly, but the basics are easily attainable with a quick lesson. I’ve seen this process a hundred times and I can tell you this, I can take a person who has never touched a firearm and get them handling a weapon properly and hitting their targets in one short session. Sure, a shooter needs a minimal amount of hand strength but even a heavy trigger is usually under ten pounds. Virtually any human being who can drive a car or ride a bike can use a firearm. Even those with severe disabilities can usually manage one.

Of course, with any tool there are risks, small though it may be. Democracy isn’t always pretty, and it doesn’t always follow the course we’d like. The evidence is undeniable that gun owners – as a group – are a remarkably peaceful and law abiding lot. There will always be the small minority who can’t manage their freedoms responsibly. But much of our position today is due to the emphasis put on training and safety in the gun rights community.

I put it to you thus: Even counting the risk, even with the most apocalyptic predictions our opponents can dream up, the democratization of violence is am almost unqualified human good. It’s a basic question of equality. All men and women may be equal before the law, but how are people to be equal in the face of violence?

It’s men who would have the advantage, and younger men in particular. I say this as one whose position would be least improved by the addition of a firearm. Were all society to be disarmed, my relative position in this continuum would be improved. I am relatively young, fit and have the advantage of military training.

I don’t hold this position out of fear of other people. I’ve seen the elephant in the room. I believe that the broad public ownership of firearms is a positive societal good, for my sisters, the service men who came back short an arm or leg, the minorities threatened with violence by the intolerant and the urbanites dealing with the meltdown of inner city society (I live in Michigan, I know of  which I speak). A firearm is literally the power of life and death, and while some may fear having that power distributed to the furthest reaches of society, I do not. I fear the concentration of that power.

My drive through districts five and six in my grandfather’s Cadillac was a sobering reminder that the police can’t always be there to protect you. For those who don’t want to click links, district six in STL had 1016 crimes against people and 2902 crimes against property in 2011.

However, the local 5-0 want the fine citizens there to know that, thanks to police mutt Nanuk, your resistance is futile. Maybe this is the kind of thing that works in St. Louis. Then again, maybe it doesn’t, judging from the numbers. Either way, I’m glad to see that the K-9 unit is making no effort to hide their machismo. And now I wonder how long it will be before some screeching politician tells me that only the police and military should have German Shepherds . . .

CCW advocates have been following the progression of HR Bill 822, which proposes national concealed carry reciprocity by which a person who has obtained a valid CCW permit in one state can legally carry concealed in any other state. This bill has, of course, generated a tremendous amount of fear and doubt on both sides of the issue. Here are a few of the concerns (both real and imagined). . .

• The law would create a “race to the bottom” in which states that have very strict laws around CCW permit issuance would be forced to allow visitors who come from states with less strict gun laws to be able to carry in their states, thus circumventing the existing structure.
• The law would create a Federal registry and Federal standards for permit issuance thus letting the Federal Government and their “Black Helicopters” know who has guns and who does not.
• States rights would be trampled as they would be forced to possibly change the criteria under which they issue licenses to comply with the new law.

Of the three points above, only the first is really relevant. The other two are the result of  FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). The proposed law does not create any Federal system for licensing gun owners, nor does it require states to change their existing policies for CCW issuance. Point three does have some merit in that Federal law would override States’ interest in creating laws, but if you subscribe to the argument that the Constitution trumps State Law then, technically, it is illegal for states to define laws that undermine the second amendment.

All that aside, I’d like to make a modest proposal that might help bridge some of the gaps.  It certainly won’t please everyone as some people simply do not want guns in the hands of citizens period under any circumstances. But they are by far not in the majority in this country and that view is so far outside the main stream of opinion in this country that it doesn’t merit consideration here.

Let me start my proposal by laying out several of my beliefs with respect to CCW:

1. CCW licenses should be issued only to law-abiding citizens. If you have a history of committing felonies, committing domestic abuse or similar crimes, then no soup for you.
2. We require drivers of automobiles to receive training and pass a competency test before they are allowed to drive. Why should we not ask the same of people who plan to carry concealed weapons in public? Note here that I am not saying you need to take a course and pass a test to simply own a gun. I only want competency tests for people who plan to carry them in public. We require our police to periodically demonstrate competency by periodically qualifying with their weapon, so why should citizens be different?
3. Any qualification program must be reasonable. One fear that many people have is that the state might set the qualification bar so high that few people can ever pass it. A qualification program must be constructed such that a person can reasonably pass it with some practice. My gun club, for example, requires all members to annually qualify by putting 9 out of 10 shots onto a 2′ x 3′ cardboard target from 50′. This is not that hard and would demonstrate that at 50′, a person can generally get their bullets into the right place.

With that said, here is my modest proposal. First, I would define the qualification and background check requirements by incorporating the opinions of multiple stakeholders from police to the NRA to very senior firearm instructors, etc. Call it a blue ribbon panel that would define the criteria.

Once we had reached agreement on the criteria, I would then offer the states a choice. If their existing permit issuance program meets or exceeds these national standards, then they are all set. Carry on business as usual and your permit will be recognized in all 50 states.

If, however, you live in a state whose permit issuance criteria does not meet the national standards, the state would have a choice. It could continue to issue permits the way it always had, but those permits would not be recognized outside the home state, absent a specific reciprocity agreement with other states. For instance, your New Hampshire CCW permit would only be good in New Hampshire.

Alternatively, the state could change its permit issuance process to comply with the minimum Federal standards at which point the state’s permits would be recognized everyone. On the off chance that you wanted a nationally recognized permit and your state did not want to change its rules, you could always apply for an out of state permit from one of the states that has a qualifying program and thus obtain a nationally recognized license.

The beauty of this system is that it preserves most of the states’ rights. Your state and only your state would have your personal qualifying information. There would be no Federal registry and, even better, you would not have to apply for permits in every state you want to take a firearm into. States could choose to modify their permitting process to comply with the program or not, but they cannot choose to prevent U.S. citizens who have passed the qualifying criteria from carrying concealed where they want. It would also take the power away from anti-gun politicians and return it to the people where it belongs.

There’s an old rule of thumb that states that any law that’s named after someone is almost invariably ill-conceived and poorly written. The reason: named laws (Anton’s Law or Meghan’s Law) are typically enacted in the wake of high-profile incidents or crimes by politicians looking to do something about a situation…practical applications and unintended consequences be damned. Which perfectly explains Marc Anthony’s Law. . .

Jersey City policeman Marc Anthony DiNardo was shot in the face and killed last July after breaking into an apartment while trying to arrest a robbery suspect. Now, as anyone who’s ever seen an episode of Law & Order or CSI: Anywhere probably knows, it’s already very much against the law to shoot just about anyone – much less a police officer – in the face. But as you can imagine, the DiNardo shooting was big news in one of the biggest media markets in the country.

Enter New Jersey Assemblyman Charles Mainor.

Sponsored by Assemblyman Charles Mainor, the proposed law would make it a first degree crime to use a defaced or stolen firearm to cause serious bodily injury to a law enforcement officer, and a second degree crime to use a defaced or stolen firearm to cause bodily injury to a law enforcement officer.

Prison sentences are pretty much guaranteed with second-degree crimes but not always with those lower. This would become another charge that prosecutors could add in seeking longer terms.

Did you catch that first paragraph? It’s probably just a case of poor journalism on the part of the hapless cliffviewpilot.com, not that it really matters. Mainor’s intent is to make killing a cop more badder and illegaler than it used to be if the shooter had scratched off the gun’s serial number first. Because without the serial number, the poor cop will suffer more and end up even deader. Or something.

“[Detective] DiNardo was a decorated officer. Just weeks before his death he helped save a woman who had jumped into the Hackensack River. He should have been readying to celebrate his 38th birthday, but instead his life was cut short by a stolen 12-gauge shotgun,” said Mainor (D-Hudson).

The law hasn’t been passed yet, but it’s only a matter of time. What self-respecting local politician will want to vote against stiffer penalties for cop killers? And being the primary sponsor will, of course, look awfully impressive on Mainor’s campaign materials in his next election effort. Which is really the ultimate point here.

It’s a meaningless, feel-good exercise that will allow the gallant Assemblyman Mainor to stand before the microphones and say, “by God, I did something about this heinous crime.” Bravo, Assemblyman Mainor. Your everything the people of New Jersey have come to expect from their representatives in Trenton.

The internet is on fire following the release of the video of a deadly shooting outside a Carl’s Jr. in East LA. Armchair commandos, Canadian car guys, average Joes, military vets and law enforcement professionals have all had their say. Some agree with the actions of the Monterey Park PD, some think it could have been handled differently. I am not a lawyer. I only played one in college. But I would remind you that in most states a private citizen would be perfectly within their rights to shoot someone attacking them with a conduit bender, without the need to seek alternative methods to deescalate the situation. However, as a peace officer, I’m here to say that Law Enforcement Officials (LEOs) are bound by the use of force continuum. . .

The definitions from each of these sections are taken straight from the National Institute of Justice, and are verbatim what I was taught.

• Officer Presence — No force is used. Considered the best way to resolve a situation. The mere presence of a law enforcement officer works to deter crime or diffuse a situation. Officers’ attitudes are professional and nonthreatening.
• Verbalization — Force is not-physical. Officers issue calm, nonthreatening commands, such as “Let me see your identification and registration.” Officers may increase their volume and shorten commands in an attempt to gain compliance. Short commands might include “Stop,” or “Don’t move.”
• Empty-Hand Control — Officers use bodily force to gain control of a situation. Soft technique. Officers use grabs, holds and joint locks to restrain an individual. Hard technique. Officers use punches and kicks to restrain an individual.
• Less-Lethal Methods — Officers use less-lethal technologies to gain control of a situation. Blunt impact. Officers may use a baton or projectile to immobilize a combative person. Chemical. Officers may use chemical sprays or projectiles embedded with chemicals to restrain an individual (e.g., pepper spray). Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs). Officers may use CEDs to immobilize an individual. CEDs discharge a high-voltage, low-amperage jolt of electricity at a distance.
• Lethal Force — Officers use lethal weapons to gain control of a situation. Should only be used if a suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual. Officers use deadly weapons such as firearms to stop an individual’s actions.

This is the progression of force that dictates how a LEO should respond to any call, dictated by department policy. Ideally, you start with officer presence and work your way up from there, depending on the situation presented.

Let’s say, for example, that you’re dispatched to a call where a man is in a public area wielding a large blunt object in a threatening manner. The man sees that the cops have arrived, but he just doesn’t give a rat’s ass. Officer presence then goes out the window.

Now we can’t hear what the cops were saying in the video, but I would imagine at some point they utilized verbalization and ordered the man to stop what he was doing and drop his weapon. Obviously that didn’t work either.

At that point you have to adapt to the situation.

Empty hand control would be and should be skipped in this situation. Many have said he should have been “rushed” by the cops or the dog, assuming it’s a bite dog, which would have led to the use of empty hand techniques. In either of these situations there is a high probability that someone in law enforcement would be seriously injured. Blunt force trauma to the head is not what I would call a good time.

We then move along the continuum to less lethal methods.

Utilizing blunt impact (baton) would still leave you open for more unnecessary bodily harm as you would easily be in range of his weapon. You generally have to be pretty close to utilize chemical agents as well; they’re easily affected by environmental factors, such as wind or rain. I’ve seen firsthand that OC does not always affect people as adversely as it’s advertised. So we are left with our Conducted Energy Devices or Tasers.

Oft times Tasers are deployed too readily when other methods could have been used effectively. The Carl Jr shooting’s doesn’t appear to be one of those situations. The officer in the video used the device that would keep the assailant at the furthest distance and hopefully incapacitate him without the need for lethal force. When that didn’t work he attempted to holster his Taser—instead of dropping it and drawing his sidearm.

That’s when the assailant advanced on the officer and we find ourselves at the end of the continuum, lethal force.

The K9 officer fires five shots in order to protect his co-worker and, at least in my estimation, stops the threat. Whether the other officer just felt like he needed to get his shots in; there’s certainly a chance that he fell victim to what’s called “sympathetic fire.” Or there may have been a genuine reason for officer two to fire another five shots. That remains to be seen.

The long and the short of all this: the officer followed the use of force continuum. Lethal force was deployed as a last resort.

In my estimation, this was a justified shooting. The investigation will probably reflect that view. Not because cops are corrupt or the system is rigged, but because a man threatened serious bodily harm or death with a dangerous weapon. For LEOs and CC’ers that’s the gold standard of when we can use deadly force to defend our lives or others with a firearm.

South Carolina’s new voter ID act has been in the news lately, with various civil rights groups and the Department of Justice damning it as discriminatory and racist. In fact, DoJ Civil Rights Division Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez wrote a letter to Assistant Deputy Attorney General C. Havird Jones, Jr., Esq. concerning South Carolina’s new voter ID law, Act R54, in which he states (on letterhead which means he’s wearing his Official DoJ Civil Rights Division Enforcer of the Law beanie), “In other words, according to the state’s data … minority registered voters were nearly 20% more likely to lack DMV-issued ID than white registered voters, and thus to be effectively disenfranchised by Act R54′s new requirements.” So it is the official position of the United States Department of Justice that requiring a government issued photo ID to vote is racially discriminatory. What does this have to do with gun rights you ask? Patience grasshopper, all shall be revealed. . .

Now, we already know how the DoJ feels on the subject of literacy tests and poll taxes, these measures were merely poorly camouflaged tools used to disenfranchise minorities and (in some locales) the poor, although it wasn’t until 1966 with their ruling in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that the Supreme Court finally put a stake through the heart of the poll tax, stating:

We have long been mindful that where fundamental rights and liberties are asserted under the Equal Protection Clause, classifications which might invade or restrain them must be closely scrutinized and carefully confined. See, e. g., Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 ; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561 -562; Carrington v. Rash, supra; Baxstrom v. Herold, ante, p. 107; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 580 -581 (BLACK, J., concurring).

Those principles apply here. For to repeat, wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned. [emphasis added]

It is good to see that our precious civil rights are so strongly protected from sneaky measures designed to ensure that only a select few can exercise them. In fact, in January of 2010 the 9^th Circuit Court ruled in Farrakhan v. Gregoire that Washington state’s felon disenfranchisement law was illegal because it had a disparate impact on minorities:

We are bound by Farrakhan I’s holding that § 2 of the VRA [Voting Rights Act of 1965] applies to Washington’s felon disenfranchisement law. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the discriminatory impact of Washington’s felon disenfranchisement is attributable to racial discrimination in Washington’s criminal justice system; thus, that Washington’s felon disenfranchisement law violates § 2 of the VRA.

This ruling was overturned by an en banc panel of the court and although there were promises to appeal to the Supreme Court, I can find no further mention of the case. However, the mere fact that two Circuit Court judges were willing to look at the facts and apply this sort of scrutiny to a disenfranchisement case leads me to ask one question:

When-in-the-hell are you people going to start treating the Second Amendment like it’s actually a part of the Bill of Rights?

• It is discriminatory to require a photo ID to vote but not to purchase a firearm.
• It is discriminatory to require training and testing to vote but not get a permit to carry.
• It is discriminatory to require payment of fees and taxes to vote but not to purchase a firearm or get a permit to carry.

How much longer is the Second Amendment going to be treated like the bastard step-child at the family picnic?

I watched the YouTube video from the fast food restaurant shooting story presented by Robert Farago and tried to digest what I witnessed – both in the video and the subsequent comments by posters following the story. My biggest issue was the amped-up macho posing displayed by the witnesses in the video and afterwards by some of the posters . . .

I can almost understand the YouTube boys’ reaction. After all, they’ve grown up with easy access to video games, where cartoon guys fall in a hail of bullets. In this case, the reality of the situation eventually dawned on them. They’d just witnessed a real life incident where the “bullet meets the bone,” to borrow from an old Golden Earring song. The guy was bleeding out for real.

Nervous giggles began to replace the flippant remarks that punctuated the early part of the festivities, as they began to understand what was unfolding right in front of them: this guy was shot many times. No reset resurrection would follow.

The difference between the videographers and the posters at the TTAG story: the macho posing displayed by the video guys was a knee-jerk reaction to something that was a surreal. TTAG’s posters, however, had time to think about their responses. Several were openly critical of other posters who had any degree of compassion for the dead guy.

The circumstances dictated that a lethal police response was both justifiable and necessary. But the event was still incredibly tragic to watch, even through a badly filmed You Tube video. Any criticism directed at the posters who came to the same conclusion is highly unwarranted and does nothing to further the pro-gun cause.

The TTAG posters who were uncomfortable with the death are not weak-kneed geldings who don’t have a big enough set of cojones. They’re responsible gun owners who have enough humanity and common sense to understand that somebody died in that parking lot.

We can debate the worth of the dead guy or we can take a lesson from his death. A discharged firearm is a serious matter and the posters who recognized that fact are hardly wimps. They are gun owners with the right attitude about guns.

Never take your gun rights for granted. Never believe that “common sense” gun regulations are OK because, well, they seem to make sense. Always keep in mind that the expression “the camel’s nose under the tent” isn’t just an allegory about avoiding insidious calamity; it’s a barely-coded message from God telling you to defend—to the nth degree—your God-given right to protect yourself and your family from evil. Now, where was I? Oh yes, New South Wales. “THE NSW Greens hope to reduce gun numbers in the state with new legislation it is putting before parliament,” heraldsun.com.au reports.

“It is simply wrong that individuals can accumulate an unlimited number of deadly weapons with next to no scrutiny,” says Greens MP and firearms spokesman David Shoebridge.

Under the legislation, registered holders would be limited to a maximum of three guns.

It follows a spike in gun theft, gun ownership and gun crime in NSW.

“Less guns in society mean less opportunities for gun crime,” Dr Shoebridge said in a statement.

And that’s good for everyone, apparently.

“Some registered gun owners clearly own an excessive number of firearms, and their private arsenals are targets for organised crime.”

Dr Shoebridge said figures from the Australian Institute of Criminology show a 60 per cent jump in stolen guns in NSW in the four years from 2008/09.

Three quarters have never been recovered and remain in criminal hands.

At the same time, the number of permits issued in NSW to acquire new weapons has jumped from 65,997 in 2005/06 to 111,792 in 2009/10.

Well, that’s wrong. Something must be done! Or not.

The Athens Banner-Herald published an editorial a couple of days ago that supported a bill in the GA legislature which, “would require applicants to complete a four-hour firearms safety training course from either a certified peace officer or a state-licensed weapons training instructor” in order to receive a permit to carry. Naturally this stirred up a minor hornet’s nest, to which the A B-H replied in this editorial. Editor Jim Thompson (and kudos for not hiding behind the title of Editor) picks one of the (to him, predictable) reader responses to attack. . .

“Is there some other constitutionally guaranteed right that requires mandatory, government authorized training before you can exercise it?” Oracle asked.

“For example, say, the First Amendment? Maybe editorial writers should have to submit to state-mandated training — made to study an approved list of words to never use in an editorial, and demonstrate a proficiency in using the standard American vocabulary.”

In his response Thompson condescendingly states that most reporters are graduates of journalism school and are constantly getting “on-the-job training” as they rise through the ranks. Editorials are almost all written by seasoned journalistic veterans, something the mere hoi polloi would be unaware of.

Where to begin…for the purposes of this piece, let’s ignore the questionable validity of requiring a government permit to exercise the natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right to own and carry the weapon of your choice and focus instead on the question of requiring state authorized training for same.

To start with, who the hell does Jim Thompson think he is? Does he seriously believe that someone who chooses to take responsibility for his own safety and the safety of those he loves is going to be so irresponsible as to neglect to learn basic safety rules? Does he really think that permit applicants require, “instruction on the features of a firearm and a brief explanation of loading, firing, and unloading the firearm” as will be required by the new law?

Does he honestly think that someone who is completely ignorant of firearms will one day be driving down the road, see a gun shop and say “Gee, I think I’ll get my permit to carry!” That such a person will plunk down the (minimum) several hundred dollars for a weapon, holster and ammo, plus the $75 to $89 permit fee, get fingerprinted and background checked all for the purpose of carrying a piece of equipment they have no idea how to use? (See what I mean about the arrogance?)

Seriously though Jim, would you get your PTC without knowing how to safely operate your weapon? If your answer is “Yes” then perhaps the whole idea of state-mandated training for editors isn’t such a bad one, because you’re clearly too irresponsible to be trusted with a pen, much less a firearm. If your answer is no, then how dare you presume that other people are less conscientious than you are?

Jim wraps up with this pearl of wisdom:

It’s not government-mandated training, certainly, but it is training nonetheless, and I think it’s sufficient to blunt Oracle’s argument.

Actually, no, Jim it is not sufficient to blunt the ‘argument,’ it’s merely sufficient to blunt Oracle’s example. The argument which you avoided throughout your editorial – a skill you probably learned rising through the ranks. The argument is that there should be no government mandated training in order for people to exercise their natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right to own and carry the weapon of their choice. Since you dismiss the possibility of such strictures applying to journalists, let’s look at a different example. An example with some history behind it so we can see how well it worked in the past. Let’s look at voting.

Let’s suggest a bill which would require a four hour course, taught by a registered lobbyist or a state-licensed voting instructor, on the principles of democracy, a background of economics and current events, and the mechanics of how to operate a voting machine. According to your editorial board, it would be difficult to argue that such a bill would represent anything but the most limited attempt to ensure that people who want to exercise the right to vote are competent to do so.

A four-hour course which, under the terms of the bill, must cover only the most rudimentary aspects of exercising the franchise can hardly be seen as an onerous or overbroad attempt to curtail peoples’ right to vote. Right? I mean who could ever argue that such training would be used as an excuse to deprive people of their rights.

No. Mandatory training for the exercise of an enumerated right is neither reasonable nor common-sense no matter how many “other kids are doing it”.