News Release: LPNOVA Resolution Supporting Concealed Carry Reciprocity

The following news release was received from the Libertarian Party of Northern Virginia (LPNOVA). It was distributed by Reston resident Steve Resz.

The Board of the Libertarian Party of Northern Virginia has passed the following Resolution:  “The Libertarian Party of Northern Virginia (LPNOVA) supports passage of S. 446, H.R.38, and H.R. 2209, people with lawful concealed carry status from other states the same status as lawful in-state concealed carriers.”

On June 14, 2017, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and three other people were wounded when a gunman opened fire on members of the Republican congressional baseball team as they were practicing on a field in Alexandria, Virginia.  In a life and death situation where seconds count, Alexandria police officers arrived “only” three minutes after the first 911 call was received and logged. [1.  NBC News]

Luckily for Scalise and the others, two Capitol Police from D.C. were present and quickly returned the gunman’s fire – one of whom was wounded in the firefight. [2.  New York Times]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told CNN shortly after the dramatic incident that, “Nobody [of the defenseless Congressman, Senators, and aides present] would have survived without the Capitol Hill police … it would have been a massacre without them." According to Senator Paul, “I probably heard 50 to 60 shots.  Then, finally, we heard the response from the Capitol Hill police."[3.  The Hill]

Many people have the impression that our Representatives and Senators are routinely protected by Capitol Police when they are away from the Capitol grounds. They are not. Only the Congressional “leadership” gets such personal, gun-carrying protection. If Majority Whip Scalise had not been a member of the baseball team, there would have been no Capitol Police present.

One might ask themselves: “Don’t important people like that – or their aides/bodyguards – routinely carry concealed weapons for their protection?” The answer is yes. Some do – but only in their home state. However, in this specific case they didn’t because that would have made them criminals. Why? Because the District of Columbia has some of the most restrictive “gun control” laws in the country – and has no reciprocity with any other jurisdiction anywhere in the nation.[4.  D.C. Gun Law]

Therefore, if any of the Congresspeople at the baseball practice did have a concealed carry permit from their home state, and brought a self-defense weapon with them to D.C. they would be violating the law - or any of the Democrat team who had practiced earlier in the morning.

As Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) noted, “We had nothing but bats to defend ourselves.”

Therefore, the Libertarian Party of Northern Virginia (LPNOVA) supports passage of H.R. 2209 which would guarantee reciprocity for concealed carry permits specifically in the District of Columbia [3.  The Hill]

But why should only our elected representatives be able to protect themselves? What about the citizens who elect them? Don’t they also deserve the right to self-defense guaranteed by the second amendment when they travel to another state or the federal District of Columbia? Of course they do. That’s why LPNOVA also supports passage of S.446 and H.R.38 both of which would allow legal gun owners and concealed carry license holders nationwide to responsibly arm themselves no matter where they are. [3. The Hill] [4.  NRA-ILA]

Steve Resz, LPNOVA Chair, said, “Citizens shouldn’t lose their second amendment right to self-defense when they travel outside their home state.  The U.S. Constitution says, ‘Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.’ Your marriage license doesn’t become invalid when you travel outside your home state, and neither should your concealed carry license.”

From the Archives - Privileges, immunities, gun rights: Charlottesville lawyer Buddy Weber discusses the 14th Amendment

Privileges, immunities, gun rights: Charlottesville lawyer Buddy Weber discusses the 14th Amendment
August 6, 2010 12:49 PM MST

In a recent post on the group blog, The League of Ordinary Gentleman, the Cato Institute’s Jason Kuznicki discusses the history and understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constition.

Kuznicki, a historian and assistant editor of the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, argues that “maybe we could make the Fourteenth Amendment apply to all people. Just one of those crazy ideas, you know, that I got from the text of the amendment itself.”

He further explains that “our constitution must absolutely be a set of general principles pointing at liberty, combined with a set of specific operating procedures for government. It needs to be a general grant of liberty, and a limited grant of power, because a limited grant of liberty very quickly begins to eat itself. General grants of liberty, however, must be expressed in general terms, and this necessarily leaves the working out of particulars to each subsequent generation.”

Fourteenth and Second Amendments
Kuznicki’s blog post fits in nicely with the argument made by Charlottesville attorney Charles “Buddy” Weber on WINA-AM’s The Schilling Show earlier this week, during a discussion of two recent Supreme Court decisions that addressed the right to keep and bear arms.

In an interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner on August 5, Weber summed up the two cases, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

Buddy Weber

Heller, he said, held that a Washington resident had the individual right under the Second Amendment to possess firearms within his own home in a federal enclave, the District of Columbia. McDonald, he explained, had essentially the same facts but was applied against a state (Illinois).

In Heller, Weber explained, “the interesting thing about the case, although it came out 5-4, was that all of the justices used originalism as the basis for their argument. I know we’ve always heard about the debate among the justices between originalism vs. the ‘living constitution’ concept. Those in favor of the living constitution have always critiqued originalism as a basis for interpreting the constitution.”

What this shows, Weber continued, is “that reasonable people can disagree as to what the history really was, but it boiled down to the plain meaning of the language of the Second Amendment. When it says ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ does ‘the people’ really mean the people, or does it mean ‘the government’?”

Weber was particularly impressed by the reasoning of Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion in McDonald.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
“The question is,” he said, “does the Fourteenth Amendment incorporate the entire body of the Bill of Rights and hold the states responsible for the content, the substance of those rights?”

That question is still relevant “because the Supreme Courts in the post-Civil War era just simply refused to acknowledge what was intended by the Fourteenth Amendment,” Weber explained. The court “issued a whole bunch of decisions that narrowed the meaning of it, specifically the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which came out of the Slaughterhouse Cases. They eviscerated that and [it] was dead-letter law for well over 100 years.”

Prior to the McDonald case, Weber said, “in order for the courts to backtrack and get some of those rights applied against the state, they’ve used the Due Process Clause.”

‘Absolute Clarity’
In McDonald, however, “Justice Thomas, in a moment of absolute clarity, has basically looked at that whole history and said, you know, this is all legal fiction. How can you possibly claim that a clause in the constitution that guarantees only a legal process guarantees any substantive rights whatsoever?”

Paraphrasing the Thomas opinion, Weber explained that “we need to go back and revisit that whole line of cases on the Privileges and Immunities Clause,” saying that “it ought to be held against the states because the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms as a privilege of citizenship in the United States and the Fourteenth Amendment specifically says no state shall abridge the Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the United States.”

‘Straightforward Reading’
Praising this “really straightforward reading of the words of the Constitution,” Weber exclaimed, “thank God, it’s about time! Maybe we’ll get back to that sort of legal interpretation in the future.”

Weber, who is also chairman of the Charlottesville Republican Committee, predicts that the remaining rights listed in the Constitution – to a grand jury indictment, to a jury trial in civil cases, against excessive fines, and against the quartering of soldiers during peacetime – will “all get incorporated in time. It’s a question of whether they get incorporated piecemeal” or whether, like Jason Kuznicki, “somebody just says ‘these are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and they all ought to be incorporated.’”

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 6, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Voters get the ignorant elected officials they deserve

James Madison's Montpelier is hosting a workshop for educators about how to teach history and government better. NBC29 has the story:

Teachers across the nation this week are gathering at James Madison’s Montpelier inside the Robert H. Smith Center for the Constitution.

"We ask our students to be lifelong learners, and if we're not lifelong learners, then we're not uh fulfilling that on our own," said Jim Rossi; who teaches Social Studies in Maryland.

The James Madison Legacy Project allows teachers to dive into the history of U.S. government with special attention to the constitution.

Earlier this week, NBC29 had another story. This one featured a Charlottesville city councilor who could use some of the lessons taught at Montpelier.

In Kat Boardman's report on a City Council debate about gun laws, one city council member is quoted:

“The Constitution itself, in the body of the Constitution, talks about the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gun violence in this country has denied thousands and thousands of people those basic rights,” said Kristin Szakos, Charlottesville city councilor.

Imagine this: in the City of Charlottesville, in the shadow of Thomas Jefferson's Monticello, an elected government official talks about how the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are found "in the body of the Constitution."

Kristin Szakos

As my freshman English teacher at MUHS, Father Richard Forrey, S.J., would have berated an errant student: "Sorry! ZERO!"

The Constitution does not refer -- anywhere, in the body of the original document or in the amendments added since 1791 -- to "unalienable rights" or to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Those words appear in the Declaration of Independence, written by Charlottesville's own Thomas Jefferson.

For her ignorance of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, City Councilor Kristin Szakos needs to take a remedial course in American Government. And she ought to apologize to the community for so embarrassingly displaying her ignorance on local television and internationally on the Internet.

I mean, we'd expect something like this from Donald Trump -- but from an elected official who lives and works in Charlottesville?

Sometimes I think the voters get exactly what they deserve.

Preparing for the Coming Viral Apocalypse (Please Retweet!)

More than 30 years ago, I was involved in the preparation of an anthology called The Apocalyptic Premise, which was edited by Ernest W. Lefever and E. Stephen Hunt and published by the Ethics and Public Policy Center.  The book gathered 31 essays about the then-current nuclear arms debate.

In an introduction, Lefever and Hunt define what they mean by the anthology's intriguing title, noting that, in public policy debates, "some ideas obscure desirable ends and confuse the means for reaching them."  They go on to say that

One such influential idea is "the apocalyptic premise," which has always flourished in times of trouble and uncertainty.  Both the Old Testament and the New Testament have vivid apocalyptic passages portraying how the world will end for both the righteous and the unrighteous....

But in current secular usage, an apocalyptic event is one that spells doom for a nation,  a civilization, or the human race itself...  In the nuclear era some secular apocalyptic prophets proclaim that the world will be destroyed by fire and brimstone unless their particular prescriptions for avoiding catastrophe are adopted.

In the context of the early 1980s, apocalypticism -- if I might coin a word (or not) -- dealt almost exclusively with fears of an imminently (immanently?) impending nuclear holocaust.  (See, for instance, my commentary on the ABC-TV movie, The Day After, which was broadcast the same year as The Apocalyptic Premise was published.)

End-times hysteria is nothing new.  It spread across Europe like hellfire in the years before the turn of the first millennium (around 1000 A.D.).

More recent years have seen a slew of end-times prophecies that have come and gone.  In 2011, for instance, radio preacher Harold Camping predicted the Rapture would take place on May 21 and then, when it didn't happen, said his calculations were off and the end of the world as we know it would instead take place in October.  Disappointed that the world did not end as he prophesied, Camping withdrew from public life and died a few weeks ago.

On January 9, Gon Ben Ari wrote about some recent apocalyptic predictions for The Jewish Daily Forward:

This may seem odd, but a surprisingly large chunk of the Western World believed we wouldn’t get to see 2013, purely because that’s what the Mayans thought. Most of these people never did anything else that Mayans did — never ate human flesh, for example, or at least never offered to pay for it. So why did they rush to embrace that specific bit of Mayan faith? Eschatology proves to be a human urge, just like hunger, sleep or love. We need to know that there’s at least a hint of a chance that the world is in danger, perhaps because it is too hard to care for anything that isn’t, or because it is easier to believe in a disaster that is inflicted on the planet from above than to admit to the one we cause daily. Secular media is fueled by eschatology — the Y2K bug, meteor scares, terrorist threats — with Hollywood blockbusters competing for the chance to feed it each summer. Who by fire? By water? By zombies?

If there is one thing in common among all the conflicting beliefs in the world, it is the belief that the world will come to an end. Hindus count down to the completion of Kali Yuga; Muslims await the arrival of Mahdi; Christians fear the Day of Wrath. Jewish participation in “hisuvei kitzim” — “end calculations” — is as harshly forbidden as it is widely practiced. Every great rabbi has an end date: The Vilna Gaon, Rashi, Maimonides. In 1927, Rabbi Avraham Yalin published a book in which he claimed that Zionism would be the end of the world and that it would reach its goal in 1948. He died in 1934 and never got to see which part came true. The Gemara itself claims that the world will get to be only 6,000 (Jewish) years old. In Gregorian Calendar time, this means 2,240.

Ben Ari went on to note that a prominent 18th-19th century rabbi prophesied that the end of the world would come in the Hebrew calendar's year 5775, which begins in September 2014.

In other dire warnings, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church last year said that permitting gay people to marry will either (depending on your interpretation of his remarks) be a sign of the apocalypse or will hasten the world's end.

Patriarch Kirill stated in a cathedral sermon:

This is a very dangerous apocalyptic symptom, and we must do everything in our powers to ensure that sin is never sanctioned in Russia by state law, because that would mean that the nation has embarked on a path of self-destruction.”

To take a current example that expresses our contemporary apocalyptic premise in a single word, Lou Dobbs, a popular and sometimes controversial TV host on Fox News, has written a new book published this week and called Upheaval, in which he argues that

the chief threats to the stability of our social order and economic well-being, indeed the very essence of our American way of life, go well beyond leagues of nation-states and ideologues who mean us harm.  The greatest threat of upheaval is a combination of those nation-states, ideological extremists, religious zealots, and the confluence of internal forces that are weakening our notion of who we are, diminishing our confidence in the American dream itself, and leaving many of our citizens and many of our leaders questioning American exceptionalism, our way of life, and our relationship to one another and to the world itself. The very idea of America is under great stress, from within and without.  The prospect of a great upheaval rises with each passing day that we decline to examine the consequences of the choices  we are making as a people and as a nation.  And these forces are allied, not in conspiracy, but in their contemporaneous array against us, our ideals, our values, and our nation's future.

Amidst this climate of dread and apprehension, even a possible shortage of Velveeta processed cheese within weeks of Super Bowl Sunday is being called a "cheesepocalypse," either mocking or reflecting the eschatological mood of the country.

The obsession with the apocalypse and the foreboding end of the world as we know it came to the attention of a Charlottesville financial advisor, David John Marotta, who described in last Sunday's Daily Progress how an off-hand remark on one of his blog posts ended up being distorted in a game of Internet telephone and, because of this distortion, ended up with a link to his post on the Drudge Report, bringing him a cascade of traffic and new visitors to his web site.

Marotta's December 11 blog post about preparing for possible emergencies is what stirred this apocalyptic pot. As he explains it,

Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner picked up the story first in his Dec. 26 Washington Secrets column titled, "Be prepared: Wall Street advisor recommends guns, ammo for protection in collapse."

Three parts of the headline are misleading.

I am not a Wall Street advisor; I am in Charlottesville. My only connection to Wall Street is having my photo taken at the Bull and eating at the Deli. The article does mildly clarify, describing me as a "Wall Street expert" — true if that means investment advisor. However, future articles referencing Bedard's article were misled by this description.

Furthermore, I did not exactly recommend guns and ammo. I suggested that two-dozen items on the list are more important. This is mentioned in the article when Bedard quotes me as saying, "Firearms are the last item on the list, but they are on the list."

I did not suggest there would be a collapse. I had written in the first of the series, "There is the possibility of a precipitous decline, although a long and drawn out malaise is much more likely."

Bedard was accurate in stating, "Marotta said that many clients fear an end-of-the-world scenario. He doesn't agree with that outcome, but does with much of what has people worried."

The very popular Drudge Report picked up the story next and featured it above its banner: "Wall Street advisor recommend guns, ammo for protection in collapse." The original Washington Examiner article was also copied on multiple sites without comment. Over three days, we had a record 30,946 unique visitors to our two sites.

After suggesting that the viral nature of his otherwise non-descript blog post may reveal something about the changing mood of the country and a reversal of traditional left/right political roles, Marotta said the solution to this apocalyptic thinking may simply be to reduce the size and scope of government. This, he asserts, will have a calming effect on political tempers:

Moving in a more libertarian direction blends the concerns of the right and the left on the abuses of governmental involvement in everything from marriage to spying. A smaller government could focus on what we all agree is its rightful purpose.

Journal of Civil Defense - April 1981

The lesson I take from Marotta's experience isn't that I should emphasize libertarian ideas more. After all, I've been doing that for years, especially since the launch of this blog in December 2004.

Instead, I think I should draw more on my years in the civil defense movement -- years in which I rubbed shoulders with fallout shelter-builders, survivalists, nuclear physicists, and even TV's Ben Cartwright himself, actor Lorne Greene -- and write more about how to prepare for the coming apocalypse.  If I could do it in the 1980s, why not do it today?

Scary headlines that say "Grab your guns and gold and run for the hills!" may stimulate the kind of blog traffic that Marotta experienced, and -- one would hope -- a corresponding increase in advertising revenue (and maybe a few cray-cray comments to enhance our entertainment value).

The end of the world as we know it is more than just a song title. It's a way of life.

So -- grab your gas masks, stock up on Bitcoin, and bunker down in the nearest mountain. Rediscover your inner Boy Scout ("Be prepared!"). The eschaton is imminent and it begs for your enthusiastic participation.

And please don't forget to leave a tip for your blogger and share this article on social media.

When Squirt Guns Are Outlawed ...

You know our society's threshold for panic has sunk to new low levels when a local police department sends out a warning to citizens about teenagers playing with squirt guns.

This sort of warning was, in fact, distributed by Montgomery Township (New Jersey) police in an email dated April 23. The web version of the email says, in part (telephone number redacted to reduce the number of justifiable crank calls):

A portion of Montgomery High School seniors are participating in a Township wide game known as "senior assassin." The game is not supported nor condoned by the School District. The game involves teams of students seeking out each other and squirting them with water guns. The activity causes both residents and law enforcement alarm due to the devices and methods used by the participants. Citizens may notice an increase in both vehicular and pedestrian traffic involving groups of high school youths. Motorists are asked to use extra caution especially during evening and early morning hours. Parents of participating students are asked to caution their children on the dangers of possessing realistic looking weapons, careless driving, and overall risky behavior. Residents should not attribute suspicious activity to the game and contact Montgomery Police at (908)xxx-xxxx or 9-1-1 in case of an emergency.

The game in question -- here called "senior assassin" but which goes by other names such as "Gotcha, Assassins, KAOS (Killing as organized sport), Juggernaut, Battle Royal, Paranoia, Killer, Elimination, or Circle of Death" -- is not a new phenomenon. I remember playing a version of it in my college dorm in 1980 (I was eliminated in the first round) and the game is a principal plot element in the 1985 Cold War comedy thriller, Gotcha!, starring Anthony Edwards when he still had a full head of hair.

It has been years since commercially-available squirt guns have borne any resemblance to actual firearms, so the police department's stated caution about "possessing realistic looking weapons" is a bit disingenuous.

Maybe New Jerseyans have a different temperament than Virginians, but what really disturbs me is how this innocent game "causes both residents and law enforcement alarm."

As I recall from The Sopranos, therapists are available in New Jersey. Anyone who is "alarmed" by squirt gun fights among teenagers really needs to be under the care of a licensed psychologist.

The last sentence of the missive offers me some comfort, however, and a suspicion that even the communications staff at police HQ in Belle Mead, New Jersey, are rolling their eyes in disbelief at what they are compelled to do. If you read it grammatically, the last sentence says: "Residents should not ... contact Montgomery Police..."

(Cross-posted from Bearing Drift.)

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 
See my articles on Examiner.com! 

Climbing to the Top? A Roundup Roundup

Yesterday in Glen Allen, Republican activists from the Seventh Congressional District (and from farther away, too -- there was a busload from Page County, as well) gathered at the Innsbrook Pavilion for the fifth annual Republican Roundup.

Not a fundraiser -- anyone who attended did so with no fee -- the Roundup is more of a pep rally timed to the homestretch of the election campaign. Yesterday marked 17 days before Virginia's statewide elections on November 3. Two of the top-of-the-ticket candidates were there, former Attorney General Bob McDonnell (who is running for governor) and state Senator Ken Cuccinelli (who is running for attorney general). Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling (who is running for re-election) was unable to attend because of a family commitment.

Seventh District Congressman Eric Cantor, who serves as the House Minority Whip, also attended and spent a lot of time in conversation with his constituents. In addition, there were about two dozen past and current elected officials, including members of the House of Delegates, former Governor Jim Gilmore, and former Lieutenant Governor John Hager. RPV chairman Pat Mullins was also in attendance.

The Roundup offered live music, hot dogs and barbecue, moon bounces for the kids, and a climbing wall, in addition to the politicking.

The Seventh District committee set up a "bloggers' row" with electrical connections and tables available for Virginia bloggers. Crystal Clear Conservative was live blogging there, and so was Bearing Drift. Bearing Drift put up at least two posts on the Roundup, including an exclusive video interview with Representative Cantor. Tom White of Virginia Right and Lynn Mitchell of SWAC Girl were also there, but they don't seem to have posted anything about the Roundup (at least not yet).

As for me, I took the opportunity to videotape the speeches, which from start to finish lasted less than 35 minutes. (No Joe Bidens on that stage, that's for sure!)

First, Seventh District GOP Chairman Linwood Cobb welcomed the crowd. His remarks about respecting the property rights of the owners of the Innsbrook Pavilion (they do not permit firearms on their property) have attracted a flurry of criticism on the YouTube page where I posted the video last night. Judge Cobb's explanation for yourself:

Second, Delegate John O'Bannon delivered a prayer:

Third, a candidate for the House of Delegates in the 69th District, Ernesto Sampson, led the group in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance:

Fourth, Ken Cuccinelli stimulated the crowd with a broom and chants of "Sweep! Sweep! Sweep!," referring to the Republicans' chances of winning all three statewide offices on November 3, a repeat of what happened in 1997, when Jim Gilmore, John Hager, and Mark Earley were elected, respectively, Governor, Lt. Governor, and Attorney General.

Fifth, Bob McDonnell encouraged the activists to reach out to their friends and neighbors to get them to vote, because political success is determined by who shows up:

Finally, Minority Whip Eric Cantor took the stage. He said, "We have a stellar statewide team" in McDonnell, Bolling, and Cuccinelli. "We're going to win," he said, "because this is a campaign about ideas." Check out the rest:

I have posted more photos from the Roundup on Facebook. They can be seen here, even by non-members of the world's most popular social networking site. (You know who you are!)

Update: SWAC Girl has photographs and an additional, detailed report on the Roundup.

Another Update: My most popular video on YouTube, the speech by Adnan Barqawi at the 2009 Republican Party of Virginia state convention, is about to have its 15,000th view. As of right now (7:28 p.m., October 18) it has had 14,997 views.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter!

On the Columbine Anniversary

The past decade has seen many events that have overtaken most of our memories about the shocking massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, on April 20, 1999, precisely ten years ago. USA Today has a report on the commemorations taking place:

Tributes began Sunday evening with a candlelight vigil at the native Colorado stone monument in neighboring Clement Park, where the community left impromptu memorials in the days after the shooting. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter ordered flags to fly at half-staff Monday. A formal commemoration begins at 5 p.m.Monday at the Clement Park Amphitheater.

"We cannot allow the lessons of this tragedy to fade with the passage of time," Ritter said in the statement.

In the immediate aftermath of the shootings at Columbine, I wrote an article for The Metro Herald, which appeared in its edition of April 30, 1999. In retrospect, I might have written something different, and I would not have had just this same reaction if these events happened last year or last month or last week.

We have learned more about Columbine itself, and we have experienced similar school shootings -- such as the one two years ago at Virginia Tech -- that have provided still more questions and more material for study, and thus for learning better techniques for prevention and response. Police tactics are different today because of Columbine, for instance.

Those caveats aside, much of the piece holds up after ten years, so I am republishing it here and welcome comments.

RANDOM THOUGHTS ON RANDOM VIOLENCE
Richard E. Sincere, Jr.
Special to The Metro Herald

Crime stories in the news seldom merit my attention. Yet the story of the massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, on April 20 has kept me transfixed in front of my TV for days. The drama has been preternaturally compelling. The shattering news from Littleton has evoked hours upon hours, page upon page of reporting, analysis, speculation, and bewilderment. A book would be necessary to reply to all of the commentary on the shooting and its aftermath. (No doubt not just one book, but several, will be on sale soon, with movies and TV shows to follow.)

It is difficult to keep silent in the face of such tragedy. Although my preference would be to provide a comprehensive, coherent essay—and may still do so—what follows are some random thoughts about random violence.

We have heard that the mayhem at Columbine High School demonstrates that our culture is corrupt and depraved. This is simply not so. Precisely the opposite is true. What happened in Littleton was the work of two individuals (perhaps with accomplices), not that of our culture or our society. Two facts are important here. First, events like that of April 20 are exceedingly rare in the United States. There are more than 40 million children in school, and less than 10 percent of them will ever be affected by or observe violent acts of any sort in their schools. Rarity makes us take notice. Second, we have almost universally reacted to the Littleton killings with horror, disgust, and grief. The abnormality of the event, plus our proper reaction to it, provide irrefutable evidence that our culture is strong, that our society and we as individuals still possess a profound sense of right and wrong.

We have heard that school killings like this do not happen "anywhere else," that America is almost unique in experiencing such things. Sadly, this is not true, either. In other countries, such occurrences are all too frequent. In Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, events like this have taken place regularly and with more vicious cruelty. The difference from America, of course, is that there the massacres are carried out by governments or by those who want to control the government. The only comparable acts by the U.S. government since the end of the Indian Wars in the nineteenth century were the destruction of the home of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, in 1993, and of the MOVE rowhouses in Philadelphia a few years before.

We have heard that the Littleton massacre shows the need for more stringent gun control. Once again, a tragedy is being used by those who want to see the state extend its control over the lives of individual citizens. This is misguided, wrongheaded, and exploitative. It is easy to say that we must do it "for the children," but how do those children benefit if their rights as adults are circumscribed and violated by the time they grow up? Previous generations have spent their childhoods in a climate in which guns were pervasive. The difference was that children in those days were taught both to respect their weapons and to respect other people.

A retired police chief noted in a letter published in the Wall Street Journal that the problem at Columbine was that "only the bad guys had guns." Columnist Vin Suprynowicz of the Las Vegas Review-Journal points out that "in Israel, teachers and parents who serve as school aides go armed at all times on school grounds, with semi-automatic weapons. Since this policy was put into effect, terrorist attacks in Israeli schools have dropped to zero. The only recent exception was the tragic case of a group of schoolchildren who were murdered by an Arab gunman as they visited the 'Zone of Peace' on the Jordanian border. The Jordanians specifically requested that the Israeli teachers and chaperones leave their weapons behind—which they did. American schools are, on the other hand, 'gun free zones,'" by law.

We have heard that the tragedy at Columbine High School shows the need for more active intervention into the personal lives of students and parents, to prevent future such events. No amount of intervention is likely to help, and it will more probably result in unconscionable intrusion by government in the form of school authorities. The suspected gunmen, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, had had no disciplinary problems in school. In their one brush with the law, they were released from a community-service program with favorable recommendations. By all accounts, they came from good families, their older siblings had no problems, and they were not "loners" as initial reports indicated—they had friends, girlfriends, and even belonged to a "clique" of their own, the now-notorious Trench Coat Mafia.

Alienation and a sense of loneliness are typical of adolescence. Each of us felt it at some time during our high school years, but for the vast majority of us, it did not lead to crime or violence. The check lists we see about youth "at risk" for disturbing behavior sound like a list of answers to the question, Is your child between the ages of 13 and 19? The "warning signs" include things like: spending a lot of time alone in his room listening to music; rebelling against authority; disdaining being seen in public with his parents; acting "different" from a few years before.

The fact is, we can seldom know when such acts of violence are or have been prevented. An exception was last November in Burlington, Wisconsin, where local authorities received an anonymous tip that an attack on the local high school was scheduled to take place. A quick response led to the arrest of the students involved. In most cases, however, prevention will take place early and unknowingly, through the kindness of teachers and administrators, respect paid by parents or fellow students, by turning potential killers onto the right path of normal behavior. And we cannot know which of them might have been seduced by the dark side. Americans do not like to feel out of control. Randomness itself terrifies us. Random violence compounds the terror. But randomness is part of the price we pay to live in a free society. Only a dystopian sort of totalitarianism could eliminate risks completely, and none of us is willing to live under that kind of dictatorship.

Finally, a question: Why has no one pointed out that the school killings of the past few years—in Bethel, Alaska; Pearl, Mississippi; West Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Springfield, Oregon; and now Littleton, Colorado—have all taken place at government-run schools? Not a single incident like this has occurred at a private or religious school. That, perhaps, tells us more than anything else. It may tell us more than we want to know.

The next few weeks will bring us more solid knowledge about what happened on April 20. But the questions will linger for many years to come, as will the sadness and the pain. Fortunately for those who suffered, the first Sunday following the Columbine tragedy was "Good Shepherd Sunday" in the calendars of the liturgical churches. Across the country and in Littleton itself, congregations were comforted by the words of the 23rd Psalm: "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want . . . Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil . . . Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever" (KJV).

Read my blog on Kindle!

Bill of Rights Day 2008

I have been remiss in failing to post the video of this year's Bill of Rights Day commemoration by the Jefferson Area Libertarians at the First Amendment Monument across from Charlottesville's City Hall on Monday, December 15.

This annual event has taken place, in one form or another, for more than a decade. This year there was a featured speaker from out-of-state, Duke University political science professor Mike Munger, who was the Libertarian Party's candidate for governor of North Carolina in 2008. Professor Munger won a sufficient number of votes to gain the LP ballot status in the Tarheel State for the next four years.

In this first segment, JAL's John Munchmeyer introduces the ceremony, and he and James Curtis lead the participants a formal reading of the text of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution), including its seldom-heard preamble.

In the second segment, Dr. James Lark, a former national chairman of the Libertarian Party who teaches at the University of Virginia, delivers brief (2 minutes 40 seconds) remarks.

In part three, John Munchmeyer discusses the Second Amendment and Mike Munger addresses the participants.

Finally, in the fourth of the four parts, Munchmeyer discusses the much-neglected Tenth Amendment and other, related topics as he closes the ceremony.

The eve of a new year is an appropriate time to reflect on our rights and liberties, which must be vigorously defended so they are not lost to violence or attrition. With a new administration taking the reins of government in only three weeks, now is a good time to reflect on the need to be vigilant in the defense of liberty. Enthusiasm and good intentions are liberty's greatest -- and stealthiest -- enemies.




Don't forget to check out the Christmas ornaments and greeting cards at my CafePress shop and the quirky gift ideas I posted at the start of the Christmas shopping season.

GLIL Submits Brief in Second Amendment Case

Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL), an organization with which I have been affiliated since its founding on February 12, 1991 -- yes, GLIL's anniversary is just one day away -- has submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. This is the most important Second Amendment case to reach the nation's highest court in almost 70 years.

The following news release is being distributed today by GLIL:

News Release from
Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty

Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty Submit Brief in Second Amendment Case

(WASHINGTON, February 11, 2008) – Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL) has joined with Pink Pistols in support of the Second Amendment rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered Americans by filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the United States Supreme Court.

GLIL chairman Richard Sincere explained: “The brief was filed in support of Dick Anthony Heller, who sued the District of Columbia to have its draconian prohibition on private gun ownership overturned. Heller’s rights to own a gun for self-protection were upheld by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty appealed the case to the Supreme Court.”

The brief states that "Laws that prevent the use of firearms for self-defense in one's own home disproportionately impact those individuals who are targets of hate violence due to their minority status, whether defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.… [Not] only do members of the LGBT community have a heightened need to possess firearms for self-protection in their homes, the Second Amendment clearly guarantees this most basic right. This Court should not permit the democratic majority to deprive LGBT individuals of their essential and constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in their own homes"

The brief also makes a unique argument, tying the denial of rights of gay men and lesbians to possess firearms to the statutory mandate to exclude those same citizens from military service through the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" rules:

"… Interpreting the Second Amendment as recognizing a right conditioned upon military service, where eligibility for military service is defined by the Government, prevents the Amendment from acting as any constraint on Government action at all. Such a result is contrary not only to the literal text of the Amendment, but to the intentions of the Framers. Further, in light of the current 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, such an interpretation would completely eradicate any Second Amendment right for members of the LGBT community."

A number of other organizations have also submitted amicus curiae briefs to the Supreme Court in this case, arguing in favor of an individual right to possess firearms, including the Cato Institute, Disabled Veterans for Self Defense, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Rutherford Institute, and a group of women legislators and academics.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, Docket No. 07-290. A copy of the Pink Pistols/GLIL brief can be accessed at http://tinyurl.com/29uqgo.

Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty was founded in February 1991 to advance the ideas of economic and personal freedom and individual responsibility. It has members across the United States and in several foreign countries. GLIL previously filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. For more information, visit http://www.glil.org or telephone [redacted].

-30-

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in D.C. v. Heller on March 18, 2008. A decision will be released later in the year, probably at the end of the Court's term in late June.