Understanding "Gun Buybacks"

When gun prohibitionists use the term "gun buyback," gun rights advocates laugh. "Pfft, you can't buy back something you never owned." The enemy knows this, but the use of the phrase belies their world view.

Statists think the State owns everything, and no one does anything without their permission. All rights are property rights; for the State to control everyone and everything, they must own everyone and everything. Therefore, they are not being sloppy when they say "gun buyback," it just reflects a world view where our guns belong to them anyway, and they're just letting us use them.

A Terrorist By Any Other Name

     Obama has recently ordered that Muslim terrorist records be destroyed. This is consistent with his willful failure to take the Islamic threat seriously. By doing so, he is fomenting the rise of Islamic fascism and violence in this country, and sewing seeds of fear among its people.
       
     By not taking terrorism seriously,and at the same time villifying American patriots as "domestic extremists," political elites and bureaucrats can justify applying counter-terrorism measures to American citizens. Our government is actively associating ISIS with liberty activists.

     There are those in the liberty movement who see nothing wrong with giving the
government unlimited power to pursue terrorists, not realizing that same power can and will be turned against them. It is foolish to try to fight one threat by giving a more powerful and just as evil threat unlimited resources.

H562 Now Law; What's Next?

Now that Governor Pat McCrory has signed H562 into law, it's time to start on RKBA legislation for next year. Now, the only law I truly support is one that fines and imprisons anyone who attempts to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Having said that, I realize that I should accept what is realistic. To that end, I think the next steps in reclaiming gun rights are:

1. Remove the force of law from gun free zones; refusing to leave when asked will be simple trespassing. The current "infraction" takes a property rights issue that places a value of $500 on my life and turns it into a fund raiser for the state that doesn't benefit the property owner. If I can afford "up to" $500 for the ticket (rest assured it will be no less,) what's to keep me from carrying over the objection of the property owner?

2.  Recoupment of court and attorney fees when successfully challenging a Sheriff's denial of pistol permits. This was in an earlier version of H562, but was removed.

3. Revoke authority of Commissioner of Agriculture to regulate guns at the State Fair, or at least add a "move weapon to and from concealment" provision like that of the section covering campus carry.

4. Since local government property is publicly owned, more scrutiny should be required of local government officials when seeking to ban firearms. Proposals should provide a compelling reason for a ban or restriction, and not be automatically valid "just because we can." An elected official doesn't have license to do whatever he wants with the blessing of the voters.

Interesting Choice of Words

"Gun-control law overcomes amendments to pass legislature" read the headline on wsoctv.com after the NC Senate passed a gutted version of H562, which actually loosens some gun laws in North Carolina. They're just spinning it, I thought. If so, they may have inadvertently swerved into something here: any legislation that targets law-abiding citizens, such as pistol permit requirements, restrictions on places to carry, and special privileges for politicians is gun control, even if it is intended to "grant" more rights.

The very fact that politicians think that they're doing citizens a favor by "allowing" them to exercise a God-given right indicates that they are in office for the wrong reasons.

What Part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" Do You Not Understand?

I recently received my North Carolina concealed handgun permit. Ready and authorized to carry a concealed handgun, I am nevertheless flummoxed by those who would seek to deny me a right I am already guaranteed under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

There seem to be more places in North Carolina that one cannot carry than where it is permitted. Schools, banks, Federal and State buildings and offices, plus “public gatherings” are all off-limits. In other words, the places criminals would logically seek out, since there is no one to stop them.

“But, we can’t have people packing guns everywhere! There would be anarchy!” Actually, studies show more crimes are prevented by responsible gun owners than are committed by criminals.

Besides the fact that one should be allowed to arm themselves (again, a right already granted, or, more correctly, not to be infringed upon,) one must be armed to provide a measure of self-defense.

In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens do not have a constitutional right to protection by law enforcement, even in the presence of a restraining order. This decision ignited a firestorm of controversy, but the facts in question miss the point.

The point is that if law enforcement (i.e. the government) has no legal obligation to protect you, then you should be allowed to protect yourself.

Please don’t misunderstand. My problem is not with law enforcement, since to require protection of the citizenry would open public safety agencies up to so much litigation as to severely restrict (or outright prevent) them from doing what they are sworn to do. They do an excellent job with the resources they have. Nevertheless, the job of the criminal justice system is justice, not defense. That is the job of the citizens.

My problem is with a government that doesn’t trust me to do the right thing (or to spend my own money either, but I digress;) yet at the same time thinks that criminals care whether a business or public building has a little sticker that tells them they can’t have a weapon on the premises. The very places that prohibit possession of firearms would benefit the most from a responsible, armed citizenry.

For the business owner who prohibits weapons, the concern is liability. My question is, in which lies the greater liability: the discharge of a firearm by a responsible, law-abiding citizen; or a firearm injury inflicted during the commission of a crime by the perpetrator?

Responsible gun owners should boycott businesses that (rightfully) refuse firearm possession. We should also remind our elected officials that, by denying us the right to defend ourselves on public property, that government agency assumes responsibility for our safety. Yes, we usually have a choice whether to enter the building or property, but no one can dispute the fact that such a policy denies the citizen his or her right to self-defense.

The position that criminals should be denied access to guns, while noble on its face, is nevertheless only half the argument. It ignores the need of potential victims to protect themselves and their families. Why are guns always the problem and not part of the solution? The need of the individual is sacrificed for some lofty social goal.

Trust is a two-way street. A government and society that doesn’t trust me to do the right thing does not earn my trust.