Snowflakes in Hell

The WaPo has an editorial today decrying Congress’ attempts to force the Washington DC into compliance with the Heller ruling.

Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) is pushing a measure that seeks to usurp efforts by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and the D.C. Council to comply with the Supreme Court ruling overturning the District’s long-standing ban on handguns.

Except that the Mayor and Council are doing everything they can to not comply with the ruling.  The Court ruled that handguns are protected arms under the second amendment, and DC is still enforcing a partial ban on them, and by maintaining their trigger lock provision which the Supreme Court also ruled a violation of the second amendment.

It matters not a whit to Mr. Souder or the NRA that District residents have a right of self-governance. Once again, lawmakers are willing to impose on the District something they wouldn’t contemplate for their home districts. Local officials — not Congress — are the best arbiters of their community’s needs and priorities.

Yes, except that firearms are legal in the areas Mr. Souder represents.  And let’s not forget the constitution:

[Congress shall have the Power To] exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings[.]

This power is expressly granted to Congress, not to the DC City Council.  DC’s entire city government serves at the pleasure of Congress.  It apparently matters not a whit to the WaPo that Congress has plenary authority over the District of Colombia.  That’s not some abstract home rule argument, it’s in The Constitution.

David Codrea has authored a response to the happenings in the gun blogosphere lately.  I do not agree with everything he says, but it’s well done, serious criticism of our branch of the gun rights movement, and something I think folks should read no matter what side of the issue they are on.

The City of Chicago has vowed to fight the lawsuits against their gun ban, and to keep enforcing it while the case is pending:

“Chicago’s gun ordinance was not invalidated by the . . . decision. Three prior Supreme Court decisions have found that the Second Amendment does not apply to states and municipalities,” Georges said. “The decision did not change that case law.”

And all three of those prior cases existed prior to the Supreme Court’s decisions in the early 20th century that apply many provisions in the Bill of Rights to the states.  Fortunately for gun owners in the Chicago area, Wilmette and Morton Grove decided that discretion was the better part of valor, and repealed their bans.  Mayor Daley would obviously not suffer such an indignaty from anyone who dared challenge his authorty in Chicago.  The Daleys own that town.  Hopefully the Supreme Court didn’t get that memo.

And update to the case we talked about last week.  The man shot by a senior citizen homeowner during a home invasion has died from his wounds.

The homeowner has not been charged, Mohel said.

“The investigation is continuing,” he said.

A homeowner, when under the “reasonable belief” that force is immediately necessary to protect himself or others against the use of unlawful force by an intruder, can shoot, said Ronald F. DeLigney, First Assistant Ocean County Prosecutor.

A sixty six year old man, within twenty one feet of a much younger thirty one year old man who had unlawfully entered his home?  In most states, this is the only evidence that would be necessary for prosecutors to rule it justifiable.  Even in Pennsylvania, where technically there is a duty to retreat inside your home (but not from your home), no prosecutor would take this case forward because you won’t find a jury that’ll convict a homeowner of shooting a home invader.  Yet a week later, the Ocean County Prosecutor isn’t sure, even though it’s pretty obvious the man was in the homeowners dwelling unlawfully, and at a distance where he was an immediate threat.

UPDATE: According to this article, he’s retained Evan Nappen as his attorney.

Another one from the thread that just won’t die:

When I was in West Germany,  during My active duty. I had a chance to talk to many of the Older German citizens, at the gast houses.  Many of these wise Old man spoke of the early 30’s etc. And how horrified they were to see what was being done to some people by the Gestapo.  But their Loyalty to their government stopped them,  from speaking out against the abuses.  Even though it put utter shivers down their spine and many said it Infuriated them. To see people( Their own neighbors in some instances/Very good friends) being arrested and taken away without due process of law.  But it happens everyday in America Now!  Not in such a gross context as Germany was then. But it is getting there.  And it will continue too! Because abuse by government does not get the proper scrutiny by the People, it deserves.  Or held to account for such abuses, by Law.

Get that?  Every day in America the Gestapo head out to snatch up political undesirables, and the Olofson case is proof of it!  Olofson, on whom the government served a lawfully obtained search warrant, gathered evidence against, permitted the assistance of counsel, and tried by a jury of his peers.  Yet this apparently means we’re precariously close to 1930s Germany.  It’s a shame you can’t order a sense of perspective on Amazon.

I have said before that I am no fan of the tactics the ATF used to convict Olofson, and I am certainly no fan of the laws that he was convicted of violating.  If the jury had walked him, I would have considered that justice done.  That a man like Olofson, who harmed no one, is rotting in a federal prison right now is exactly why these laws are wrong.

But because I advocate reigning in the ATF through legislation rather than gunfire, I am not an ally, but an enemy.  Because I propose we ought to repeal, or at the very least reform the regulations on automatic weapons in this country, rather than shooting any federal bastard who gets tasked with enforcing them, I am a coward, and sullying the cause.

Any “revolution” prosecuted by folks like this will not be one I will join.  Call me a coward, call me what you will, but I don’t see any good place it can possibly go.  An anonymous commenter made a very cogent point:

The point of revolt should be to win. And you won’t win… you CAN’T win, unless you have won the hearts and minds of a significant amount of We the People. This is, after all, your goal… right? The restoration of the Republic? Do you propose to “impose liberty” on a majority who don’t agree with your definition? Sounds more Che Guevara than George Washington to me.

“Leave me alone or I’m going to shoot” isn’t an argument. It’s a threat. It doesn’t win converts to your side, because it ultimately doesn’t offer any answers. If we’re to take you seriously, that you believe a Revolution can and will happen, then you should be able to answer this question: what would your post-Revolution society be like? If you can’t articulate a vision for this country other than “leave me alone”, then you’re not a believer in Locke (who saw a need for government), you’re just a garden variety anarchist.

The restoration of a constitutional republic isn’t going to happen when the same people who elected the government before the revolution will be electing it after.  After and during the first American revolution, things were made quite uncomfortable for loyalists.  By uncomfortable, I mean more than a few of them were dragged out of their homes, tarred, feathered, hung in some cases, shot in others.  Some of them were merely disarmed.  About ten to fifteen percent of loyalists emigrated.  In today’s terms, that would be about 45 million refugees.  Where are they all going to go?  Are we going to pass laws denying them citizenship?  Are we going to take their property?  If the answer is no, then the same people will elect another government that will look a lot like this one.  If the answer is yes, then you can count me out of that nonsense unless there’s absolutely, positively no other choice.  Revolution is nasty business.  It should not be undertaken or threatened lightly.  Many of these people do not speak like people who really, truly think that violence is an absolute last resort.