|
|
About once a month, Dave
Kopel produces a free e-mail Newsletter containing short
summaries and links to important new research and writing
involving the Second Amendment and firearms policy. The
newsletter also reports on Kopel's latest writing.
The content of this newsletter is produced by the Second Amendment Project at the Independence Institute, a think tank in Golden, Colorado. The newsletter is electronically distributed by the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Washington. Thus, the Second Amendment Foundation will be given your e-mail address. Archive of past issues. Dave Kopel's Second Amendment Newsletter. July 8, 2005. I've long supported reviving the custom of offering 13 patriotic toasts at Independence Day parties. This article collects some of the historic toasts; I've enabled comments so that people can supply some modern toasts. And of course practicing the responsible use of firearms is an excellent way to honor the anniversary of our revolutionary independence, all the better if you can instruct or introduce someone else to responsible gun use. You may also choose to read, or re-read, the words of our Founders. Teaching your children about the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence will help them understand the meaning of the day, and the meaning of their nation. A few days before Thomas Jefferson died on July 4, 1826--the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence he could see that the revolution he had helped to spark was burning throughout the world. He wrote: "All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general
spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the
palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on
their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them
legitimately, by the grace of God. These are the grounds of hope for
others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh
our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to
them..." "But sources at police headquarters in Harare said the move was just precautionary to ensure such weapons could not be used by civilians should tension gripping Zimbabwe in the wake of the government's clean-up exercise erupt into public violence. "The ban is targeted at all automatic weapons which the government fears could pose a security threat in the country should the civil strife in Zimbabwe turn violent," said a source, who did not want to be named for fear of victimisation. This is not the first time that the government has cancelled firearm licences. At the peak of its chaotic and often violent farm seizure programme in 2000, the government issued a decree compelling civilians to surrender their guns. The move was targeted at white commercial farmers who at that time held a number of assault guns for self-protection. Zimbabwe's security forces have been on high alert since the government launched a "clean-up" campaign last month that has left close to a million people without shelter after their shanty homes were demolished." As I detailed in a 2001 article, Zimbabwe's dictatorship has a long practice of using gun controls, many of which were inherited from British colonial rule, to ensure that victims of its barbaric abuses of human rights are unable to resist. The International Association of Genocide Scholars, in a June 7 statement, warned that the Mugabe government was again on the path to mass murder. Perhaps the most effective foreign aid which should be sent to the
people of Zimbabwe would be millions of W.V. Court Vindicates Self-defense Right for Employees In the 2001 case of Feliciano v. 7-Eleven, a masked woman with a gun attempted to rob the 7-Eleven where Feliciano worked. While the robber was distracted by another employee, Feliciano grabbed her gun, and held her captive until the police arrived. "Following this incident, 7-Eleven terminated Feliciano, who was an at will employee, for failure to comply with its company policy which prohibits employees from subduing or otherwise interfering with a store robbery." The West Virginia Supreme Court cited numerous precedents showing that the right of self-defense is very well-established and substantial public policy. Accordingly: "We hold that when an at will employee has been discharged from his/her employment based upon his/her exercise of self-defense in response to lethal imminent danger, such right of self-defense constitutes a substantial public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine and will sustain a cause of action for wrongful discharge. Consistent with our prior precedent, we hold further that an employer may rebut an employee's prima facie case of wrongful discharge resulting from the employee's use of self-defense in response to lethal imminent danger by demonstrating that it had a plausible and legitimate business reason to justify the discharge." Zimbabwe Democide Facilitated by Victim Disarmament: StrategyPage explains why the Mugabe tyranny is able to perpetrate democide: "There hasn't been any revolution so far because the potential rebels cannot get guns. No one is willing to arm the dissatisfied majority... The government seems determined to starve its enemies to death, secure in the knowledge that the victims are unarmed, and the government forces have lots of guns." Back in 2001, Paul Gallant, Joanne Eisen, and I warned that Zimbabwe was "ripe for genocide." We also detailed how the Mugabe tyranny has used gun licensing and registration laws, inherited from British colonial times, to disarm the people of Zimbabwe, leaving them helpless against government-controlled gangs of young thugs. In a 2002 article in the Rocky Mountain News, I noted the American media's extremely inadequate coverage of Zimbabwe, including the failure to report on an explicit statement by the ruling party (Zanu-PF) about the advantage of getting rid of half of the country's population. The international community's response to the highly visible democide in Zimbabwe has been even more ineffectual and tepid than the response to the highly visible genocide in Darfur, Sudan. One reason is that the Mugabe dictatorship retains the support of South African President Mbeki. Likewise, the dictators who run most of sub-Saharan Africa strongly oppose creating a precedent of international intervention against mass-murdering African tyrants. But if the people of Zimbabwe had not been disarmed under the pretext of "gun safety", they would be able to help themselves. A revolution would not be guaranteed to succeed, but fighting to live is much better than helplessly starving to death. After the Holocaust, the international community said "Never again." Yet in Zimbabwe, as in so many other nations in the last 60 years, the combination of citizen disarmament and international indifference has made democide a reality again and again and again. An excellent daily news source about Zimbabwe is the ZWNews website, which also offers a free daily e-mail update. The courageous Zimbabwe Independent is still publishing a web edition. Abusive Anti-gun Lawsuit Rejected by Florida Appeals Court: Banning Kitchen Knives: UPDATE: This seems a good opportunity to tout Bernard Levine's excellent website on U.S. knife laws. He offers the full text of all state and federal laws, plus many articles on knife history and policy. The laws of many states are much more severe than many people realize, and include bans on the possession of some types of knives, as well as bans on carrying. Gun Prohibition One Country at a Time Single-country (or single-region) gun prohibition is called "micro-disarmament." Success stories of micro-disarmament are a very important part of international gun prohibition advocacy. In "Microdisarmament: The Consequences for Public Safety and Human Rights," my co-authors Paul Gallant, Joanne Eisen, and I examine six case studies of microdisarmament. In three of those cases Albania, Bougainville, and Cambodia microdisarmament has seriously harmed human rights. Limited disarmament in rural Guatemala was followed by a crime wave, but it is not clear that the former caused the latter. In San Miguelito, Panamana, there was a successful program to convince youthful gangsters to surrender their guns, in exchange for participation in a government jobs program. In Mali, northern tribes rebelled against the corrupt central government which starved and oppressed them. After the central kleptocracy was replaced with a democratic government, the new government recognized that the northern rebellion could not be violently defeated; when the new government agreed to respect the rights of the northern tribes, the northern tribes laid down their arms. In Mali, disarmament was not the cause of peace, but rather the result of a successful war for indigenous self-determination. The Microdisarmament article will appear in a forthcoming symposium on
firearms policy in the UMKC Law Review. The PDF version available on the
web at:
Previous Florida programs created by Marion Hammer have done very well in other states. In 1988, her lobbying led Florida to enact "Shall Issue" concealed handgun licensing legislation-so that any law-abiding adult with a clean record and who passes a safety training class may obtain a permit to carry a handgun for lawful protection. Before 1988, only a handful of states had Shall Issue laws; now, only a little more than a dozen states do not have such laws. Similarly, Hammer invented the "Eddie Eagle" gun safety program, which trains elementary school-age children not to touch a gun unless they are being supervised by a responsible adult. Eddie Eagle has been taught to millions of children, has won an award from the National Safety Council, and has been lauded by state legislature and city councils all over America. So Florida-style self-defense rights may be coming to your state soon.
Opponents of the law have made dire predictions about turning Florida into
"the Wild West." Similar predictions were made about the Shall Issue law,
and those predictions did not come true. If you read the actual text of
the Florida law, it becomes clear that the new law simply codifies
common-sense principles of self-defense, including the principle that
violent criminals, not innocent victims, should be the ones at risk during
a violent crime. WHEREAS, the Legislature finds that it is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others, and WHEREAS, the castle doctrine is a common-law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a person's home is his or her castle, and WHEREAS, Section 8 of Article I of the State Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves, and WHEREAS, the persons residing in or visiting this state have a right to expect to remain unmolested within their homes or vehicles, and WHEREAS, no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his or her personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack, NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Few people could disagree with the statements in the Preamble, which simply affirm existing rights, including the rights of innocent people not to be attacked. The operative part of the law begins by setting forth the standard for
use of deadly force against an attack in one's home or one's automobile:
In other words, a person may use deadly force against someone who unlawfully and forcefully enters a person's home or vehicle. A victim may also use deadly force against a criminal who attempts to force a person out of her vehicle or home. Thus, if someone kicks down your front door in the middle of the night, or attempts to carjack you, you can use firearm or other deadly weapon to protect yourself. You do not have to worry that a prosecutor might second-guess your decision, and claim that you should have used lesser force against the violent intruder. The bill makes several exceptions. The right to use deadly force does not apply against someone who has a right to be in the home or car (unless the person is the subject of domestic violence restraining order or a no-contact order). The right does not apply in child custody dispute. Of course the right does not apply if the person trying to enter the home or automobile is an identified police officer acting within the scope of his duties. Similarly, persons who are using the automobile or dwelling to commit a crime are not covered: (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: Prior Florida law about self-defense allowed defensive deadly force only when the victim believed that no lesser force would suffice. The principle remains in effect in all self-defense situations in Florida, except when the attack takes place in the home or automobile; the legislative judgment was that attacks in a home or vehicle are so outrageous, and so threatening to the social order, that victims should be guaranteed that they will be protected from having their defensive decisions second-guessed in court. Outside of the home or vehicle, a victim may only use deadly force when it is reasonably believed to be necessary. (So the victim continues to face a risk of prosecutorial second-guessing). However, the new law specifies that victims are not legally obliged to retreat anywhere: (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. So if a gang tries to mug you while you are walking down a dark street, and you draw a gun a shoot one of the gangsters, a prosecutor cannot argue that you should have tried to run away. The prosecutor still can, however, argue that use of deadly force was unnecessary, because the victim could have used lesser force in the particular situation. The next section of the law makes explicit one of the presumptions of the law-that violent invaders of the home or automobile are presumed to be intending to commit violent crimes after they enter. (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. The first section of Florida Act concludes by defining "dwelling" to
include a porch which is attached to the dwelling, and to include
temporary dwellings, such as camping tent: The second and third sections of the bill amend existing statutes, to
make explicit the absence of an obligation to retreat. (Italicized
language is new; strike-through language has been repealed.): Principled opponents of the Florida law can object to the bill because it allows deadly force against home invaders and carjackers, because crime victims are not required to retreat, or because criminals may not sue crime victims. In the United Kingdom, such objections would carry the day. Earlier this year, the Blair government defeated a move in Parliament to ease Britain's severe restrictions on self-defense in the home, because, in the British government's view, criminals also have a right to be protected against violence. Likewise, the British courts have allowed burglars to sue victims who used force against them. But in the United States, social attitudes tend to favor the victim's rights over those of the criminal. Most Americans would disagree with the idea that a mugging victim should be sent to prison because he didn't try to flee, or that violent predators ought to be able to sue victims who shoot them. As the Florida bill is introduced in other states, victims-rights
opponents will probably be successful in getting newspapers and television
to describe the proposal in very frightening terms. But when legislators
and their aides read the actual text of the bill, many legislators
will-like their Florida counterparts-conclude that bill is nothing more
than some common-sense protections for crime victims.
New Zealand "Dairy owners are arming themselves with crowbars, baseball bats and machetes to protect themselves from criminals in the Western Bay of Plenty... Some say they are even prepared to have guns to deter intruders." Papua, New Guinea (PDF format requires Adobe Acrobat Reader) United Kingdom 15564076&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=is-that-a-gun-on- your-t-shirt--or-are-you-just-alarming-us--name_page.html A Welsh rock musician was detained at Heathrow for wearing a T-shirt that had a picture of a pistol embossed upon it. Sinking Feeling over Firing of Cannons "A flamboyant patriot has ended up with a criminal record and bill for court costs after firing a set of ornamental cannons to celebrate Lord Nelson's birthday." Scotland in grip of weapons culture' "Police want to reduce the availability of blades, citing murders where horrendous' hunting knives have been used... It is not always just knives and other bladed instruments; people are using bottles, glasses, anything they can get their hands on.' - Tom Buchan, the president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents." Pellet Gun Ban Call after Boy Shot Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=7174 "Following last night's incident, a local councillor said the use of pellet guns should be banned... Sinn Fein's Paul Maskey also urged parents to be more responsible after he revealed he has seen children as young as eight using them." A two year old boy was hit in the head with a pellet from an air pistol, treated, and released. Switzerland The Swiss, traditionally an armed and free people, are bridling at proposed European Union restrictions upon their acquisition and ownership of firearms.
The Philippines "President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo yesterday pushed for tougher laws on gun control and stiffer penalties on gun-related crimes as vital measures to stop the surge of violence in the country." President Arroyo is currently facing protesters claiming election fraud and malfeasance in office. South Africa "There has been growing anger among gun owners and lobby groups who say new regulations make it virtually impossible for citizens to obtain gun licences..." NGO's Amnesty International concludes that women will be safer against violence if small arms are restricted and global sensitivity training instituted. No Relief: Surveying the Effects of Gun Violence on Humanitarian and
Development Personnel 57627887ece915e3f31303e261b232f7 The report concluded that international aid workers will be safer after
global regulation of firearms under the UN Programme of Action on Small
Arms. The report is available in English at The study was part of the In the Line of Fire' project, a joint initiative by the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue and the Small Arms Survey, supported over 2004-5 by the UK Department for International Development (DFID). For more information on this project, visit http://www.hdcentre.org/?aid=70. Interpol's Involvement in The Fight against International TerrorismFact Sheet http://www.interpol.com/Public/Terrorism/default.asp Interpol describes its on activities involving terrorism, firearms and
explosives, attacks and threats against civil aviation, maritime piracy,
and weapons of mass destruction. Fort Jackson recruits now are given guns much earlier in basic training
and carry them almost 24/7 in order to increase their familiarity with
weapons in time of war. The same purpose was exactly the raison d'etre for
the founding of the National Rifle Association by former Union Generals
after the American Civil War. Eight daily newspapers in the Midwest have joined the growing list of papers that will no longer accept classified ads for firearms from unlicensed sellers. Anti-firearms groups call those The newspaper loophole.' OWAA Board of Directors Apologizes to Membership The Outdoor Writers Association of America's (OWAA) board of directors apologized June 17 to its members for the upheaval caused by sending a letter last July to former National Rifle Association President Kayne Robinson. The board has also offered members who either resigned or did not renew their 2005 memberships the opportunity to reinstate their memberships without application, late charges, or reinstatement fees through August 31, 2005. The offer extends to all former members in good standing in 2004, including life, individual and supporting members. Ithaca Gun Forced to Close Its Doors: Company Owes Hundreds of
Thousands of Dollars In Debt. 20Gun%20in%20Bankruptcy%20once%20again "Mired in debt and struggling to compete, the Ithaca Gun Co. has ended
production after more than a century in business." "The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly yesterday to repeal one of the District's gun restrictions, prohibiting the city from spending funds to enforce a law that requires any firearms kept at home to be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." Gun Ownership Becomes Issue For Democrats "A group of rural Democrats is hoping state Democrats will agree to add more explicit support of the right to bear arms to the official party platform..." Concealed-gun bill back on the table: Senator proposes revisions of
plan vetoed Patrick Marley "A renewed push to allow Wisconsin residents to carry concealed guns
would have private companies and law enforcement organizations issue
permits instead of county sheriffs." The court unanimously found Oregon's felon-in-possession law not to be
unconstitutionally vague. The court also affirmed that the Oregon
Constitution guarantees an individual right to defensive arms. Barry Grunow vs. Valor Corporation of Florida Here is the Florida 4th District Court of Appeal's opinion in the
Pamela Grunow, widow of school teacher Barry Grunow vs. Valor Corporation
of Florida case. The Orion Right-To-Hunt Case Decision columns/swan_james/2098763.html "Many states are passing right to hunt constitutional amendments. The
first court decision on the amendment shows that this is the beginning of
a long legal process to determine just what this law means." "Families Afield, an outreach initiative developed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation and the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, is based on a shared and strong conviction that parents, not politics, should decide when their children are mature enough for hunting." Insurance, Life Expectancy and the Cost of Firearm Deaths in the U.S.
While the U.S. operates the most expensive health care system in the
world, its citizens are neither healthier nor live longer than citizens in
other countries. Jean Lemaire, professor of insurance and actuarial
science at Wharton, argues that the elimination of firearms deaths in the
United States would add more to overall male life expectancy than the
elimination of prostate cancer. Lemaire is uncertain as to what to do with
his data. Al Qaeda delenda est! |
