NR: “4th Circuit Runs Roughshod over Heller and Second Amendment”

Lots of people are asking my opinion of the Federal 4th Circuit upholding of Maryland’s facially unconstitutional so-called “assault weapons” ban.

Simple truth is, Charles C.W. Cooke’s already hit it out of the park on this one.  I concur with his post on the subject entirely.

Here’s a taste, but please do go read the whole thing:

In upholding Maryland’s ‘assault weapons’ ban, the court employed dubious legal reasoning to trample on American constitutional rights. Freed up by the Supreme Court’s ongoing reluctance to engage in depth with the Second Amendment, the Fourth Circuit has taken it upon itself to rewrite Heller en banc. In a 10–4 decision, issued yesterday afternoon, the court upheld Maryland’s ban on both “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.” By so doing, it deprived the people of Maryland, the Carolinas, and the Virginias of the core protections to which the Constitution entitles them.

Click here to go to National Review and read the whole thing.

 

Cooke: “America’s Founding Changed Human History Forever”

From Charles C.W. Cooke at National Review Online:

Today is my son’s first Independence Day. He doesn’t know that, of course, because he’s only three-and-a-half months old. But my wife and I do, and we’ve attempted to mark the occasion nevertheless — in loco filius, if you will. As such, Jack will be dressed today in a special onesie (stylized picture of a milk bottle, “Come and Take It” tagline); he will wear his Old Glory sun hat; and he will be involved in all the festivities that the family has to offer. Naturally, none of this will make even the slightest bit of sense to him; as a matter of fact, today will be the same as is any other day in the life of a baby, just with more people around and a surfeit of BBQ. But you have to start somewhere, right?

Because Jack is three months old, it is acceptable for his parents to treat July Fourth as an excuse for the purchase of kitsch. But what about after that? What about when he is five? Or twelve? Or nineteen? As a native Brit, I am accustomed to the self-deprecating instincts that are the hallmark of British society, and I am acquainted, too, with the reflexive aversion to patriotism that is all-too customary in the birthplace of Western liberty. In consequence, I know that if I were to leave my son befuddled by America’s Independence Day proceedings, he would probably stay that way in perpetuity. And that would be a tremendous, unconscionable shame — a shame that, frankly, would reflect poorly on me.

to read the whole thing–and I urge you to do so–click here.

Read more at:

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437440/4th-of-july-america-founding-changed-history-foreve

Cooke: "Forget Manipulative Editing — Katie Couric’s Team Likely Violated Federal Law"

More great stuff from Charles C.W. Cooke at National Review:

The delicious irony of gun-control advocates breaking laws in an effort to prove they don’t exist

The plot thickens. A couple of weeks ago, it was reported that Stephanie Soechtig, the director of a Katie Couric–fronted gun-control infomercial titled Under the Gun, had selectively edited her interviewees’ testimony in order to make them look dumb. Now, it seems that Soechtig and her team may have bigger problems than having been caught in a lie: One or more among them may be heading toward a felony charge.

During a recent television interview, Soechtig claimed indignantly that she had sent a co-producer from Colorado into the state of Arizona, where he made contact with a private gun seller and purchased three handguns and a “Bushmaster” rifle. According to Soechtig, that these transactions were “perfectly legal” demonstrates that the laws need changing.

The problem for Soechtig — and for her broader argument — is that these transactions weren’t in fact legal. Not even close. Under existing federal law, one may obtain firearms outside of one’s state of residence only from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Moreover, at least until Mance v. Lynch is resolved, one may legally obtain a handgun only in one’s own state of residence. If, as Soechtig claims, a Colorado resident purchased three handguns and a rifle from a private seller in another state, he broke federal law at least four times.

To read the whole thing, click here.

Cooke: "The Great Equalizer"

This fantastic 2A piece from Charles C.W. Cooke at National Review (now an Americophilic gun-owner in the Tri-State area with an American-born anchor baby) is from 2014, but it’s also timeless:

Civil rights and the Second Amendment

In her harrowing 1892 treatise on the horrors of lynching in the post-bellum American South, the journalist, suffragist, and civil-rights champion Ida B. Wells established for her readers the value of bearing arms. “Of the many inhuman outrages of this present year,” Wells recorded, “the only case where the proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves.” She went on to proffer some advice: “The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense. The lesson this teaches, and which every Afro-American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”

I absolutely demand that you click over and read the whole thing, here: https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/384819/great-equalizer 🙂

Cooke: "Even Obama Understands the Second Amendment"

Usual great stuff from Charles C.W. Cooke:

As one might expect, I put little stock in the idea that Barack Obama “believes” in the Second Amendment in any meaningful philosophical way. Nevertheless, the president is by no means a stupid man, and, regardless of his personal ideological preferences, he probably has at least a working grasp of the relevant history in this area. That being so, he has presumably made the same calculation that many other gun-control advocates have made: that it is far more profitable to argue that Heller leaves ample room for his coveted reforms than it is to pretend that Heller was incorrectly decided. Evidently, President Obama and I have dramatically different impressions of what Justice Antonin Scalia meant when he determined that the Second Amendment is not infinite in scope and that some regulations are, in consequence, permissible. But, whatever our differences, we both accept that that argument is a reasonable one to have. The debate that Sarat wants us to have, by contrast, is not reasonable at all, his idea being that we eschew the hard work of discovering the contours and edges of the right-as-written in favor of the pretense that it doesn’t exist at all. Were I a betting man, I’d wager that Obama has refused to follow this course because he rightly believed that he has a much better shot of defining what “shall not be infringed” means than he does at convincing a critical mass of Americans that “right of the people” in fact means “right of the state.”

To read the whole thing, click over to National Review.

Cooke: "President Obama Has Let His Emotion Get the Better of His Judgment"

More great stuff from Charles C.W. Cooke over at National Review:

Arguendo, let’s presume that all these [Obama’s] changes are legal (given, how tightly the laws are written, I’m skeptical). Has Obama lost his mind? This is a man, remember, who is supposed to be admirably dispassionate; a man who is supposed to understand how the game is played; a man who is supposed to reflexively refuse to be taken in by the emotion of the moment. And yet he’s going to use a good deal of his last year’s political capital in order to tweak a few minor rules around the edges? Why? Even if we’re generous and presume that every single one of these regulations finds its way permanently into the law, he will nevertheless have done nothing substantial to further “universal background checks”; he will have instituted none of his coveted magazine limits; and he will have banned none of the weapons that he disdains. Further, he will have set no meaningful precedents whatsoever. In other words: Even if he wins this round, he will have done precisely nothing of merit — except perhaps to have pleased his base and to have convinced the most ignorant parts of the electorate that he has finally stuck his finger into the NRA’s eye. Were these serious measures, I would be squealing. Instead, I’m amused. These are the dampest of squibs.

To read the whole thing, click over to National Review.

Cooke: "Why Would Anyone Want a Firearm?"

More great stuff from Charles C.W. Cooke at National Review:

Of all the ill-considered tropes that are trotted out in anger during our ongoing debate over gun control, perhaps the most irritating is the claim that the Constitution may indeed protect firearms, but it says “nothing at all about bullets.”

On its face, this is flatly incorrect. Quite deliberately, the Bill of Rights is worded so as to shield categories and not specifics, which is why the First Amendment protects the “press” and not “ink”; why the Fourth covers “papers” and “effects” instead of listing every item that might be worn about one’s person; and why the Fifth insists broadly that one may not be deprived of “life, liberty, or property” and leaves the language there. The “right of the people” that is mentioned in the Second Amendment is not “to keep and bear guns” or “to keep and bear ammunition” but “to keep and bear arms,” which, per Black’s Law Dictionary, was understood in the 18th century to include the “musket and bayonet”; “sabre, holster pistols, and carbine”; an array of “side arms”; and any accoutrements necessary for their operation. To propose that a government could restrict access to ammunition without gutting the Second Amendment is akin to proposing that a government could ban churches without hollowing out the First. If a free people are to enjoy their liberties without encumbrance, the prerequisite tools must be let well alone.

Do go read the whole thing.

 

Cooke: "The right to bear arms isn’t up for debate"

More from that brilliant defender of the Second Amendment, soon-to-be American citizen Charles C.W. Cooke, writing in the Washington Post:

When debating the wisdom of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the media tends to start from the presumption that the question is purely scientific, and that the answers can — and should — be derived from statistical analyses and relentless experimentation. This approach is mistaken. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the product of the latest research fads or exquisitely tortured “data journalism,” but a natural extension of the Lockean principles on which this country was founded. It must be protected as such.

The Declaration of Independence presumes that all men enjoy certain inalienable rights, among them “life” and “liberty.” Practically speaking, at both the state level (as a bulwark against tyranny) and at the individual level (as a means by which to protect oneself), this necessitates the auxiliary right to the private ownership of “arms,” which, in the common law that preceded the Second Amendment, was understood to include personal weapons that could be wielded by an individual — such as the “musket and bayonet”; “sabre, holster pistols, and carbine”; and sundry “side arms.”

Do read the whole thing.

NR: A Progressive Guide to Thanksgiving Conversation

More great stuff from Charles C.W. Cooke at National Review:

In the great progressive spirit, here are a few tips on how to talk to — and morally improve — your family this Thanksgiving:

1. Your crazy uncle complains in passing that the construction on Redlands Avenue is limiting the flow of traffic to his hardware store, and wonders if the job could be completed more quickly.

This must not be allowed to stand. Ask your uncle if he’s an anarchist and if he has heard of Somalia. If you missed Politics 101 at Oberlin, refer to the Fact Cards that you have printed out from Vox.com and explain patiently that the government is the one thing that we all belong to and that the worry that it is “too big” or “too centralized” or “too slow to achieve basic tasks” has a long association with neo-Confederate causes.

Remind him also that:

  • the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence.
  • Europe is doing really well.
  • The Koch Brothers.
  • “Obstruction.”

Should all that fail, insist sadly that if he doesn’t fully apologize for his opinions you will have to conclude that he hates gay people. Ask why your family has to talk about politics all the time.

Please DO read the whole thing. 🙂