An article is on the cover of CNN.com right now. It discusses how police are having to arm themselves with assault-like rifles to compete with increase weaponry of gangs. At one point, the article suggests that a recent discontinuation of a ban on certain assault rifles is one cause of the trouble. Of course, there are many inaccuracies in this article, and many points can be objected. But, I think it’s important we’re all aware of what’s being said so that we can stay on top of the discussion.

My view: As I’ve suggested in previous posts (see Series on Second Amendment), I can’t seem to wrap my mind around the notion that “The right to bear arms” includes assault rifles. I do understand that some are concerned that if some guns are banned, then eventually all guns are banned. However, I think this argument has serious negative consequences (i.e., assault rifles in the hands of gang members).  I guess what gets me so confused is how both sides want to protect people. The argument is about something good: the welfare of people! Both sides just don’t see eye to eye. I truly wish both sides would compromise a little to meet in the good that is under the bridge between the two.

Enjoy the article, and I look forward to your comments!

assault rifles, guns, Second Amendment

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Earlier this month, I promised a report from Kent State on the Empty Holster Protest. Well, as far as I could have known, the protest didn’t exist. Maybe I missed something, but I searched our school paper and saw nothing. I saw no students wearing empty holsters, and I heard no chatter about it.

If you’re interested in the protest, there’s a pretty good, two-sided article about it on Fox News.

Empty Holster Protest, Students for Concealed Carry

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

As I mentioned in earlier posts, a group that calls themselves “Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC)” organized a nationwide protest. According to the SCCC website, students and faculty from more than 110 colleges and universities are participating. Here’s an excerpt from their site.

During the week of October 22-26, participating students and faculty at over 110 colleges and universities throughout America will wear empty holsters on campus, in protest of state laws and school policies that stack the odds in favor of armed killers by disarming law abiding citizens licensed to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else (movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls, etc).

The symbolic point of the Empty Holster Protest is to represent that students, faculty, and guests on college campuses are left defenseless (with nothing but empty holsters) by state laws and school policies that refuse to afford concealed handgun license holders the same rights on college campuses that they are afforded virtually everywhere else.

The practical point of the Empty Holster Protest is to encourage a dialogue between protesters and individuals who may not know the facts of concealed carry.

The Columbus Dispatch also ran a story about students involved in the protest earlier this week (follow link for entire article):

Students at Ohio State University and at other U.S. schools planned to wear empty gun holsters on their waists this week to protest laws that ban concealed weapons on campuses.

The protest, organized by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, aimed to get students and faculty at more than 110 colleges and universities throughout the U.S. to participate, according to the group’s Web site.

To get a permit to carry a hidden gun in Ohio, applicants must pass a training course and must never have been convicted of a felony or drug offense. The law bans permit holders from carrying their weapons in certain places, including courthouses, various government buildings and universities.

Evan Peck, 21, a student at Ohio State, wore an empty holster to campus Monday. The law is unfair because campus is where he spends most of his time and he should be able to protect himself, he said.

About a dozen students have protested at Miami University in Oxford and at the University of Cincinnati.

The SCCC website also has a list of guidelines for those interested in participating.

Empty Holster Protest, SCCC, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

 On an earlier post about the Empty Holster Protest, someone stopped by and provided some information. I wanted create another post to highlight this information to answer any questions you may have. (Thanks to the commenter!)

 Answers to the most common arguments against concealed carry on college campuses: http://www.angelfire.com/biz/setpa/sccc/press.htm

The official press release for the protest: http://www.angelfire.com/biz/setpa/sccc/arguments.htm

The official T-shirt for the protest: http://shirtmagic.com/shop/concealedcampus

college campus, Empty Holster Protest, Second Amendment

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This post is part of an ongoing series dedicated to understanding the Second Amendment. If you haven’t done so already, I recommend starting with my first post in this series. I also recommend you read two recent discussions on this topic: One took place on the Black Bear Blog, and another took place right here on a recent post.

As I’ve stated before, I try to remain open-minded. I would lie if I said that the comments from this series are not seriously impacting the way I think about these issues. Another source of influence is an author named John R. Lott. I found an article he wrote that rocked my world. Here’s an excert:

My new book, The Bias Against Guns, examines multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 and finds that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent.No other gun control law had any beneficial effect. Indeed, right-to-carry laws were the only policy that consistently reduced these attacks.To the extent attacks still occurred in right-to-carry states, they overwhelmingly happened in the special places within those states where concealed handguns were banned.

Of course, oftentimes statistics can be interpreted a variety of different ways. Just read the following blurb from good ol’ Wikipedia:

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott’s work, and found that “there is no credible evidence that ‘right-to-carry’ laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime.”

It seems to me that the issue is quite complex…and there’s a lot of gray in between what is often treated as a cut and dry (for or against) issue.

concealed carry, gun free zones, gun laws, Safe zones, Second Amendment

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This post is part of an ongoing series dedicated to understanding the Second Amendment. If you haven’t done so already, I recommend starting with my first post in this series.

If you’ve been keeping up with this series, or if you happened to come across a mini-debate I had with Tom Remington over at the Black Bear Blog, then you probably know my stance on college students and guns. That being said, I have to be fair and cover both sides of the issue. There is an interesting protest brewing on university campuses across the country. It’s being referred to as the Empty Holster Protest, and I first read about it on John Lott’s website. According to several sources (see articles here and here), students across the country are planning a protest in which they will walk campuses with empty gun holsters. It appears that the organizing group is Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Dates of the scheduled protest are October 22-26.

I’ll let you know if I see anything on Kent State’s campus…

college students, Empty Holster Protest, gun laws, Second Amendment

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This post is part of an ongoing series dedicated to understanding the Second Amendment. If you haven’t done so already, I recommend starting with my first post in this series. (information from NRA’s website):

I suppose I can’t do a series on the Second Amendment without mentioning the NRA. So, without further ado, here is the NRA in its own words.

While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America’s foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world.

First, a little history on the NRA

Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis,” according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

In 1872, with financial help from New York state, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range.

…in 1903 when NRA Secretary Albert S. Jones urged the establishment of rifle clubs at all major colleges, universities and military academies.

Here’s something from my good friend Wikipedia:

[the NRA] asserts that any attempt to regulate arms conflicts with the second clause of the amendment; the “right to keep and bear arms.” The NRA has supported gun rights on other grounds as well—they opposed the Brady Bill in the courts on Tenth Amendment grounds, not Second Amendment.

Just in case you’re not aware, the Brady Bill is what requires a five day waiting period for handgun sales. The original purpose of the waiting period was to conduct a background test.

All sounds great so far, but I’ve always had one question. How did the NRA transition from an association dedicated to rifles to one the supports public ownership of other forms of firearms?

With that question in mind, I’m wondering where the line is (or should be) drawn. That is, what type of firearm goes past the Second Amendment? To illustrate my question, think of it like this…do citizens have the right to bear ‘nuclear weapons’…if not, then what about missals, or bazookas, or grenades, or pistols, or rifles. At what point is ownership of a firearm no longer protected by the Second Amendment?

firearms, NRA, Second Amendment

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This post is part of an ongoing series dedicated to understanding the Second Amendment. If you haven’t done so already, I recommend starting with my first post in this series.

First off, it is only fair that my readers know my sources, and I love wikipedia.com! It’s at my fingertips, and it’s easy to use. Most importantly, several external sources have reported on the wiki’s validity (see USA Today article). That being said, I will not rely solely on one source during this series. Appropriately, I will reveal my sources as I obtain information.

So what is a bill of rights? According to my good friend Wikipedia,

A bill of rights is a list or summary of rights that are considered important and essential by a group of people. The purpose of these bills is to protect those rights against infringement of people. The term “bill of rights” originates from Britain, and it refers to the fact that the English Bill of Rights was literally a bill, which is a proposed law, that was passed by Parliament in 1689.

Popular bills of rights over the years include: Hammurabi’s code (e.g., ‘eye for an eye’), Canadian Bill of Rights, Fundamental Rights of Indian Citizens, and the United States Bill of Rights (1789, ratified in 1791).

Context of the Second Amendment:

Most people know very well that the Bill of Rights include the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which is considered the “supreme law” of the United States (quoted from Wikipedia). To understand the context of the Second Amendment, it is only fitting that we take at least a brief look at all ten amendments (can you name all ten)?

1. Thou shalt have no gods before Me
2. Thou shalt not use My name in vain

Woops…wrong list of 10…here’s the correct 10 in plain English (not original text):

1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, etc…
2. Right to keep and bear arms
3. Protection from putting up troops (quartering) in your house
4. Protection from unreasonable search/seizure
5. Due process & private property
6. Right to a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury” (referring to criminal trials)
7. Civil trial by jury (note: the value in controversy between parties has to be greater than $20)
8. Excessive bail is prohibited
9. Rights not mentioned in the Constitution/Bill of Rights remain protected
10. Power of the state & people (powers not controlled by the US government by the Constitution are reserved to states and/or people

It is this backdrop upon which many hunters (including myself) cite the Second Amendment. I am ashamed that I did not know most others, because if I’m going to be so adamant about one right that is protected (right to bear arms), then I should at least know what the others are.

A closing though unrelated to the present issue: Imagine what our founding fathers would think if they saw that their first Amendment has been transformed into blogging!!! Yeah Freedom of Speech!!!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment is no stranger to controversy. Proponents purport that this amendment solidifies the ownership of firearms as a right of citizens of the United States. Opponents suggest that the amendment is outdated, with no relavence to our current society.

I have to admit that I know far less than I should on such an important topic, so I want to explore the history and implications of this amendment. So, over then next few weeks/months, I will add posts to this new series (once or twice a week) that will document my investigation of this subject. I hope others will join me on my journey.

I suppose I should start with the origins of this series. I started thinking about the series a few days ago during a conversation with Tom from the Black Bear Blog (read the post/comments if you would like specifics). Prior to Tom’s post, I’ve usually thought about the Second Amendment as it applies to hunting. I have never carried a weapon for the purpose of self-defense. In fact, I keep my firearms locked in such a way that it would be rather cumbersome to use them for the purpose of self-defense. But as I understood it, my favorite hobby (hunting) is protected by the Second Amendment. That being said, I find it interesting that there is no mention of hunting (or recreation of any form) in this Amendment.

So, I’m on a mission to uncover history, to learn the purpose of the Amendment, to read and report different perspectives, and to consider implications of this amendment for several purposes (including self-defense and recreation). Again, I hope you’ll join me on my journey…I’m not sure where I’ll end up, but I hope you’re with me!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!