Gun Nutz in the First Degree

This Stephen Colbert video features Doug Varrieur, a rogue homeowner in Big Pine Key, Florida, whose backyard target practice range is tormenting neighbors.  Every day, neighbors endure the discharge of firearms - living in fear of stray bullets and in fear for their lives. Neighbors consider him “inconsiderate, obnoxious, a wacko” and a menace to the neighborhood.  When asked about the safety of local children or boaters, “I don’t care,” replies the imperturbable Doug Varrieur.

Are there are no laws to prevent Rambo wannabes from menacing our neighborhoods? Doug Varrieur may challenge anyone to stop him, but he should think again.  Most municipalities have "anti-menacing laws" defined as:

‘A crime governed by local or state laws, which vary by region, but typically involve displaying a weapon or a course of conduct that intentionally places another person in reasonable fear of physical injury or death.’

All rights have limits.  Free speech does not confer a right to defame a neighbor or broadcast crazy rants at 100 decibels in the middle of the night.  There are laws that cover slander and disturbing the peace.

Property rights do not mean you can operate a strip joint in a residential neighborhood or within proximity to schools or houses of worship.  Zoning laws prevent rogue operators from despoiling neighborhoods.

Freedom without responsibility is not freedom, and rights without reasonable limits are not rights when any self-styled fanatic turns himself into a public nuisance.

When the NRA pushes gun rights to this extreme, what recourse do you have? Call law enforcement and invoke the laws of your municipality.  You can also vote out lawmakers on the NRA dole who support unconscionably bad bills that turn formerly safe and peaceful communities into a torment. Here is an example of extremism gone too far.  Enough is enough!

Oh my God, not again

 What do we do to protect our schools?  Is this one of those questions that have no real answer or at least not one definite answer? What can we propose that does more than give in to the predictable shouts and demands of the irrational and angry and fearful and uninformed?  What can we do that isn't something that has already failed to have any effect or that we're already doing?  What can we do to calm the irrational, the ill informed, the hysterical and fear ridden?

Certainly none of the solutions we've so passionately offered and instituted and defended against criticism have done anything we can point to as having helped: the three day waiting period, the background checks, the late "assault weapon" ban, the ban on "Saturday Night Specials," the ban on sending guns through the mail without a Federal license, the ban on automatic weapons that's been here since 1937, the restrictions on how many guns you can buy in a year, how much ammunition. . . the need for criminal background checks and fingerprinting -- how short a barrel can be and even whether a sporting  gun can legally be made to look like a military weapon --   Sure, the overall rate of violent crime may continue to decline and perhaps some of that is due to these measures or to more people being in jail, but there will be more incidents as there are in countries with draconian gun control laws. At every one we can be sure there will be calls to make murder even more illegal, to somehow confiscate all guns from the 175 million people who own them -- and the same mouldy arguments will be trotted out again and discussion of whether experience anywhere has given us a reason to be hopeful, will not be heard.  Still I have a good idea what will happen.

The media will chew on this for days striving to raise the discussion to the point of mania, because it's good for ratings. As I watch, the network nitwits are prattling about whether we should go back to that fraudulent "Assault Weapon Ban" which really only banned newly made fake assault weapons made overseas and left millions already in circulation. It made us liberals feel good.  It made nothing better.

People will be afraid to send their kids to school.  When heads begin to cool, there will be a search for heroes and the folk psychoanalysis of perpetrators by the usual hired opinionators.   The same old axes will be ground.

There will be more earnest insistence that banning things make them go away, even if there are 200 million in the country, perhaps much more. More idiocy about making psychotics "just say no" by passing a ban, a restriction, a law.  

What we should be asking is what I asked just now -- how do we protect the innocent, the helpless without increasing helplessness? How do we protect our schools? How do we keep the dangerously insane off the streets and how do we keep them from acquiring bombs, guns, crossbows, knives and yes, airplanes?  How do we do this without harming those people who need guns: farmers, for instance and people who use them to feed their families.  Do we need to argue for weapons with smaller magazines?  Shorter barrels, longer barrels, longer waiting periods, sanity checks?  All I can say is that we'll argue and in a fashion no more or less likely to produce an answer then in the past. There will be all or nothing parties and neither will make any sense.  The NRA will act as though Obama is going to take all our guns,  Fox will imply that he already has.  Bumper stickers will appear on cars and trucks.

Will anyone ask that we calmly assess how much danger must be seen as unavoidable in a free society and how much authoritarian control and how much less liberty we will or can accept in the interests of safety.  One side will say arm the kids and blame Obama, the other will insist that the theoretical saving of one life justifies anything at all.  Anyone in the middle won't be heard and the extremes won't listen.

I've always thought that the outcomes of a policy are the necessary test of it's effectiveness, but we're talking about America the hysterical and ill informed.  It's about believing in a policy and if it doesn't work, it's because you didn't believe or didn't make it authoritarian or even Draconian enough.  And so I have to ask again -- what can we do to protect the weak, the helpless, the innocent that works and doesn't unnecessarily tread on the rights of all?  I fear, given the way we are, that the answer is nothing.

Lawful self defense in Florida

When one receives a license to carry a concealed weapon in Florida, one must swear an oath affirming that they have read the gun laws and understand them. One is given a summary and again when the 7 year license is renewed. Amongst the statements made in the summary are:

A License to Carry a Concealed Weapon is not a License to use it.

Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

• Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
• Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

The courts have created an exception to the duty to retreat called the “castle doctrine.” Under the castle doctrine, you need not retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force against an assailant. The castle doctrine applies if you are attacked in your own home by an intruder. The castle doctrine also applies when you are in your place of business. If you are in danger of death or great bodily harm or you are trying to prevent a forcible felony, you do not have to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.

Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.

If you see someone who is being attacked, you can use deadly force to defend him/her if the circumstances would justify that person's use of deadly force in his/her own defense. In other words, you "stand in the shoes" of the person being attacked.

A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.

*Italics mine

You can read the whole thing here. and I suggest that you do.

_____________________

Trayvon Martin's parents and family attorney are expected to attend a forum on racial profiling, hate crimes and "stand your ground" deadly force laws, sponsored by Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee. I hope, but do not expect that committee to stress that despite the misrepresentation of the law, no law protects Zimmerman's actions and only the Sanford Police have done so.

So did Martin knock Zimmerman to the ground, bloodying his nose -- and if so is that justification for shooting him? Does the fact that Zimmerman initiated the conflict matter? Did shooting constitute the only hope Zimmerman had of survival? Does the Castle Doctrine apply here. My answer to all these questions is an emphatic no and I think we have to stop marching in the street and stifle the lemming-like group think and take this matter to court. You don't accomplish anything by trying someone by the laws of mob rule.

It may be difficult at this point to convict Zimmerman, but perhaps not so difficult to find that the Sanford Police violated the victim's civil rights by denying him the protection of the law, which after all, side with the party being pursued.

But no matter what happens, Liberals are going to be suspicious of what I see as a basic human right and an affirmation that the small and weak and young and disadvantaged should not be subject to the size and strength and aggression of the strong and numerous. Media businesses like CNN are going to continue to sneak in insinuations like:

Florida's "stand your ground" deadly force law prohibited them from making an arrest.

The law allows the use of deadly force anywhere a person feels a reasonable fear of death or serious injury, and has been cited in a rising number of justifiable homicide cases in Florida.

even if Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground and any fear he had wasn't reasonable and the law requires that there be a real threat, not the feeling of angst. He was chasing someone, someone who had a right to be where he was and without any right to do so and those "justifiable homicides" include a large number of homeowners that otherwise would be dead and without benefit of public rallies and rhetoric damning the law that saved their lives.

Whose side is this guy on? (+ video is back!)

The man in the video is ex-American Adam Yahiye Gadahn (formerly Adam Pearlman - go figure), spokesmodel and operative for al Qaeda. If the sound is a little muddy, I suspect they had to keep editing out the sounds of NRA members spontaneously combusting.

The NRA has always opposed keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists, and closing the gun-show loophole.

Why does the NRA hate America? Why are they working with terrorists to destroy our country?
_________________

Update: Apparently, Youtube took down the video for violating their terms of service. (And, really, I suppose that telling people to go to gun shows and buy guns to wage jihad should be a violation of their TOS...) Fortunately, it's hosted elsewhere. Crooks and Liars, for instance.

GUN RIGHTS AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

(Your mischievous cephalopod is sneaking in this post before our good Captain returns – shhshh, don’t tell him, please!)

"A well regulated indicia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Please forgive. An octopus has little need for law because it is hard for us to read, interpret, and understand the “shall nots” of living in a human society. We live as solitary creatures with little social skill. Yet, the language of the Second Amendment seems clear to me. If you intend to keep and bear arms (and I have at least 8 of these), you need to bring your well regulated indicia with you.

Perhaps well regulated indicia imprinted on tee-shirts will suffice (TAO, we should discuss licensing rights). Ones that read:

This armed robbery brought to you by Walmart.

This Post Office massacre is sponsored by UPS.

This gang killing is backed by Smith & Wesson.

… or …

This political assassination is a
public service message of Koch Industries.

Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it! After all, these indicia are timestamps that let you know when you have expired.

Many thanks to Sheria who inspired this post. Any more t-shirt ideas?