SCALIA'S CLOSE

Opinion of the Court
Justice Scalia, writing for the Majority

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.

The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26.

But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

ON MATTERS OF SACRIFICE

Two views:

Success, wealth and celebrity gained and kept for private interest is a small thing. It makes us comfortable, eases the material hardships our children will bear, purchases a fleeting regard for our lives, yet not the self-respect that, in the end, matters most. But sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and you invest your life with the eminence of that cause, your self-respect assured.

John McCain
Address at the Naval Academy
April 2, 2008

...

It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.

Ayn Rand

CRIMINAL DEFICIT

There's no way to rule innocent men.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.

One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone?


But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.

Ayn Rand

NOVEMBER 5

A few months ago, I had a discussion on a forum regarding the nature of politics and how to get involved; how to not merely complain from the sidelines, but how to actively change the political landscape. I considered rewriting my thoughts into some sort of long article, but instead I'll simply copy/paste my original post.

I often wonder how much the average gun owner actually does - in a qualitative way - to keep their rights.

It is one thing for people to preach to each other on web forums and blogs. It is another thing to actually contribute money to candidates and PACs that can measurably affect the future in a beneficial way.

I know that many people here can and do contribute their hard-earned dollars to such causes, as well as send letters and make phone calls when the need arises.

But for those that do not, I challenge you to begin doing it.

The next time you're buying 10 boxes of ammo, consider buying 9 boxes instead - and join the NRA.

Instead of spending 10 hours at the range, spend 8 hours - and join OFCC.

Instead of purchasing your 48th 30-rnd AR15 magazine, consider being satisfied for the moment with having 47 mags - and donate money to a candidate who actually agrees with you.

Support the groups and the leaders who will work to ensure you will continue to be able to purchase ammo, shoot at a range, and own an AR15.

Truly - think about this for a moment:

There are just over 2000 members of this forum. What if every member donated $100 - the average cost of 3 of my Walther mags, for example - all to the same cause or candidate?

Do the math. That's nearly a quarter of a million dollars.

Glocktalk.com has just over 72,000 members. If every one of them sent the cost of ONE GLOCK MAGAZINE to the same candidate or PAC, that's nearly 2 MILLION dollars.

People say they are sick of money in politics... and I agree that it's somewhat sickening that the one with the most dollars is the one most-listened to.

But that's reality. Television ads cost money. Radio ads cost money. Print ads, fliers, stickers, buttons, phone lines, campaign trips to Iowa, gas for the vehicles - it all costs money. Reaching everyone in America enough times to not only draw their vote - but convince them TO vote - costs millions of dollars.

Despise it or wish it to be untrue - but ignore it at your own peril.

Today, on November the 5th, I challenge each of you to stand up and fight.

CLARITY

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.

You will find that one of them is wrong.

Ayn Rand

WINDFALL PROFITS

It is often said that there are two constants in the world: death and taxes. Based on the news of late, I believe we can add yet another constant: than Americans will forever complain about the price of gasoline. I can recall a time when gasoline was relatively cheap, by any measure of economy. When I was in college (1989), I distinctly remember paying .82 cents/gallon for regular unleaded. Here in May 2007, it's nearly quadrupled.

I'm no different than anyone else. I have a monthly budget, based on the salary my employer pays me. The more I have to pay for gasoline, the less money I have for other things... be it necessities, or leisure spending. However, the nonstop drone of people complaining about the price of fuel has reached an all-time high. Today I saw a media poll asking "Should the government regulate gas prices?" The results are either astounding or horrifying, depending on your point of view: 76% of respondents answered "Yes".

Quite frankly, it's time for Americans to stop complaining about the Evil Big Oil Companies and pay more attention to who actually makes the most money from the sale of gasoline. So here are some facts about gasoline and the profits associated with it. In case you're a skeptic and don't care for these numbers, be aware that I've personally researched and sourced each one.

According to AAA, today's national average price of a gallon of gas is $3.087. In Cincinnati, I saw the price hovering around $3.15; it's higher in places like California, where laws requiring special blends of gasoline increase the price.

How much profit does Big Oil make for every gallon sold? According to Conoco-Phillips:

A multitude of factors can affect an individual oil company's profit on gasoline sales. However, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates that when the average price of unleaded regular peaked at about $3 a gallon in the middle of 2006, major companies were making a profit of about 10 cents a gallon on their U.S. refining and marketing operations.

But let's not forget the tax revenue. The national average is 45.8 cents/gallon. New Yorkers pay the highest rate of 60.8 cents/gallon, while Alaskan residents pay quite a bit less of 26.4 cents/gallon.

So how much money are we talking about? The Energy Information Administration lists U.S. Motor Gasoline Consumption for March 2007 at 384,700,000 gallons per day. Yes, that's 11.9 Billion gallons used in that month.

We'll do some quick math for March 2007, using the national tax average of .458/gallon and the average oil company profit of .10/gallon.

Big Oil's Profit: $1,192,570,000
Local, State, & Federal Profit: $5,461,970,600

No, that isn't a typo. In March 2007, the government's profits on gasoline were 4.58 time greater than that of the oil companies - or, 4.2 Billion dollars more. And by the way, we're only talking about gasoline. Diesel fuel and heating oil also come from crude, and of course those are taxed as well.

You'll note that I've consistently referred to the government's tax revenue as "profit"... because that's exactly what it is: profit. The government doesn't spend money to search for the oil, drill for it, extract it, ship it to a facility to refine it, and finally ship it to consumers. Oil companies spend billions of dollars on research, drilling, shipping, and marketing... the IRS simply collects a check.

The naysayers will speak of "federal oil subsidies". My answer to you: do some research of your own, and you'll find that the amount of subsidies awarded by Congress is hysterically minuscule compared to the tax revenues received.

Oil companies make quite a lot of money... I've no argument with that. But the facts are crystal clear - it's not Exxon-Mobil earning windfall profits.

It's Washington.

FREEDOM UNDER SIEGE

One of the most notable turning points in my life came about when one of my closest friends gave me a copy of "The Fountainhead", by Ayn Rand. I still recall the day. It was a late afternoon in early December of 1996. We were sitting in the cafe area of Barnes & Noble on Apalachee Pkwy in Tallahassee, FL having some coffee. I was preparing to move to Cincinnati, and this was to be one of our last long chats together.

Right before it was time for us to depart, he excused himself for a moment and walked back into the store area. Within a few minutes, he returned with a newly purchased book: a parting gift, and gave it to me saying "This is my bible."

Michael Chiang changed my outlook on life that day.

It wasn't a matter of developing a new way of thinking, exactly... more accurately, it was an experience in which you find yourself reading things that echo your own thoughts. Thoughts and opinions I'd held in a very disorganized internal fashion were explored and defined. Rand's philosophy of reason, rationality, and the innate truth that man has the intrinsic right to exist and live for his own well-being are beliefs which drive every day of my life.

I've experienced a similar feeling recently, upon reading this: the first chapter of Freedom Under Siege, by Ron Paul. Find a few spare minutes this weekend. Pour yourself a cup of coffee or open a bottle of your favorite beverage, and read 27 pages of brilliance.

In previous posts, I've focused on the shortcomings of some of the Republican candidates for President. Now I present to you something different: the views and opinions of a man who does not say things to acquire votes, but instead says what he believes.

Stay tuned.

WHO IS TO BLAME?

While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen: the enunciation of truth.

Fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words.

They are perspectives.

THE TRUTH ABOUT REGISTRATION

Gun control advocates have a lot of areas from which to begin legislation. Their attack method varies, depending on the demographic of people they're attempting to disarm.

In the inner-cities, they try to ban inexpensive firearms. The "Saturday Night Special" is a favorite target, and often mentioned by name in their list of banned guns. Some cities have placed limits on magazine capacity or ban combat rifles like the AR15. Lately, a few legislators have come up with a rather unique solution to the problem of banning guns without having to deal with 2nd Amendment issues: requiring a license to purchase ammunition.

Some states pass laws requiring a citizen to register their firearms, and other states have limits on how many firearms you are allowed to purchase in a given time frame - you may only purchase 1 firearm/month.

If one path of attack isn't successful, the anti's simply change to a different plan. If asking the state to maintain a NICS database isn't successful, a city will simply deny a business license to entrepreneurs who wish to open a gun store.

As with any proposed law, supporters of gun rights tend to have a list of standard responses which they'll use to debate the issue.

For example, we continue to fight against registration of firearms.

Many times I've read something like this:

"Registration will not work, because criminals will not register their guns. Only law-abiding citizens will comply. Therefore, crime will not be reduced."

This is certainly true. However, it's missing the point. To adequately fight this battle, you have to understand the goal of the anti-gunner.

Once again, I need you to think.

The goal of the hardcore anti is not to reduce crime. Reducing crime is merely a hopeful afterthought. The goal of the anti is to get rid of guns. Most don't believe they'll ever be rid of all the guns... and they're not bothered by that. So long as they collect and destroy as many guns as possible, they'll believe it's a worthy cause.

Think about this for a moment, and then think about why the standard response above doesn't remove their desire to take away your gun.

I'm going to make up some numbers for the sake of illustration. Let us assume there are 10 million guns in America. Let us also assume that 1 out of 10 guns is owned by a criminal. I suspect I'm being very liberal, and the number of guns owned by criminals is a far lower percentage. But for the moment, let's go with 1 out of every 10 guns.

Now, let's say that all the law-abiding citizens registered their guns. And after the registration, somehow the anti's were able to confiscate and destroy all of the registered guns.

Are the dots beginning to connect?

Given our fictional numbers above, the anti's have destroyed 9 million guns.

The criminals still own 1 million guns, but that is not important to the anti. Their goal was not to disarm the criminal... their goal was to confiscate and destroy as many guns as possible, and using that logic - registration was a HUGE success!

I'm not testing the limits of reality. Consider this quote from Tom Gresham's site:

When Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, was on Gun Talk, I forced him to admit that he would like to ban all guns. What about the police, I asked. Once we get all the other guns, he said, the police won't need their guns, either.

They want to be rid of all the guns, end of story.

Let's ponder a secondary point, which expands on my earlier article on the 2nd Amendment:

What a criminal will or will not do with his illegal gun has no bearing on my right to own one. To state it a different way: if all the criminals alive today were to give up their guns, would YOU give your gun up as well?

I certainly wouldn't.

When anti's are told this:

"Registration will not work, because criminals will not register their guns. Only law-abiding citizens will comply. Therefore, crime will not be reduced."

...they are also being inadvertently told that your reason for owning a gun is because criminals own guns. And if the lawmakers could remove the guns from criminal hands, you'd be happy to consider it.

There will always be criminals. Many haven't even been born yet. It's a fact that anti's are loathe to admit, but a fact nonetheless. Some of them illegally wield guns; others wield knives and some carry steel pipes. Others need no weapon at all, and rely on their physical size, strength, and the element of surprise.

A gun can be a resource with which to protect your life.

My life, and the worth of my life, is not defined by whether or not a criminal decides to carry a gun. My right to own a gun and protect myself is not dependent on a criminal's preferred method of assault.

Remember the anti's true goal.

It's not about reducing crime. It's about reducing the number of guns.

THE LIE OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT

I need you to think.

Gun owners have been defending their rights for quite awhile. Long before Carolyn McCarty's current bill. Long before Bill Clinton's 1994 ban. Some believe that United States vs Miller (1939) was the birth of modern gun control.

All of that legislation has certainly impacted gun owners, though of course there have been other laws passed. There are literally thousands of laws in America at the federal, state, and local level which affect your right to own and carry a firearm.

But for the moment, let's put the legislation aside. Let's forget about House Bill 10-22 and focus on something we all hold dear - the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

Like many of you, I read a lot of blogs and participate in various web forums. And over the years, I have heard many people argue about their right to own a firearm. Unfortunately, many of the arguments I've heard aren't correct.

Let's examine a couple of them.

1. "The 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a gun."

...and a slightly reworded version...

2. "The 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to own a gun."

Both arguments are completely wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion, and it's not a matter of semantics. Every time someone tells an anti-gun activist or politician that the Constitution gives them a right to own a firearm, they're wrong. That is not what the Constitution says, and using those two statements in debate actually weakens your argument.

I need you to think.

Let's look at what the 2nd Amendment actually says. Many people can quote it, but far too many people don't understand it.

"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."

I can hear someone in the back of the room muttering "What's your point, thorn? It's the same damned thing."

Here's the point. And it's very important one: the 2nd Amendment does not GIVE you the right to own a firearm. It forbids the government from taking that right away from you.

Semantics? Splitting Hairs?

No.

Words mean something. And here's what the words of the 2nd Amendment mean:

You intrinsically have the right to own a firearm. For whatever reason you choose. Perhaps you enjoy owning a gun because of it's historical nature. Perhaps you enjoy the mechanical aspects and work on them as a hobby. Or perhaps you own a gun to defend your life.

It really doesn't matter why you own a gun. The Constitution does not require you to justify it. It doesn't give you a right to own it. What it does do is specifically forbid the government from taking that right away.

I need you to think.

Your mere existence gives you the right to own a firearm, just as your existence gives you the right to breathe. The right to think, and the right to speak.

The Constitution doesn't give you any rights. Rather, it specifically lists the rights that you have which the government is not allowed to take away from you.

Here's the point - stop telling people that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to own a gun. Stating that is also stating that the government has the "right" to take it away.

Instead, tell the anti-gun activists, the politicians, the friend, and the co-worker that your right to own a firearm is guaranteed by the fact that you exist.