 |
2006 Archive, Oct. 3 through Dec. 31
[David Kopel,
December 29, 2006 at 2:10pm]
0 Trackbacks
/
Possibly More TrackbacksThe Unnoticed Mass Murder in Ethiopia
In a new article on
Tech Central Station, Paul Gallant, Joanne Eisen and I detail the Ethiopian
government's efforts to destroy the Anuak people, who live in southwestern
Ethiopia. As is typical of past and present mass murders in East Africa
(including Sudan, Rwanda, and Uganda), the government has done its best to
ensure that the victims are disarmed.
19 Comments
[David Kopel,
December 16, 2006 at 2:30pm]
0 Trackbacks
/
Possibly More TrackbacksTom Tancredo and Taiwan:
My
latest media column for the Rocky Mountain News/Denver Post criticizes
Colorado media for failing to cover Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo's
exemplary work in support of a strong U.S. policy in defense of Taiwan's
democracy and independence.
14 Comments
[David
Kopel,
December 15, 2006 at 12:51am]
0 Trackbacks
/
Possibly More TrackbacksC-Span Debate on Gun Control:
On Saturday and Monday, C-Span's BookTV will be
broadcasting a gun control debate in which I participated. Here are the
details:
On Saturday, December 16 at 8:00 am and at 2:30 pm and Monday, December
18 at 1:00 am Gun Control Debate with Arnold Grossman, "One Nation Under
Guns" and David Kopel, "Gun Control and Gun Rights"
Description: The Denver Press Club hosts a debate on the issue of gun
control. Arnold Grossman, author of "One Nation Under Guns - An Essay on
An American Epidemic," argues the pro-gun control case while David
Kopel, co-editor of "Gun
Control and Gun Rights: A Reader and Guide" speaks for the opposing
side. The debate is moderated by Cnythia Hessin, executive producer of
Rocky Mountain PBS.
Author Bio: David Kopel is Research Director at the Independence
Institute in Golden, Colorado. Arnold Grossman co-founded SAFE Colorado,
a bipartisan anti-gun violence group, in 2000, following the Columbine
school shootings. Mr. Grossman co-authored "1998" with former Colorado
governor Richard Lamm.
I also wrote a
lengthy review of a book, in which I argued that it was riddled with
factual and legal errors, and that the book unintentionally reveals why
the gun control movement in the United States has become such a failure in
recent years.
27 Comments
[David Kopel,
December 12, 2006 at 4:36pm]
0 Trackbacks
/
Possibly More Trackbacks
Tremendous Victory for the Second
Amendment in Ohio:
A few minutes ago, the Ohio Senate voted 21-12 to override Republican Governor
Bob Taft's veto of a bill to reform Ohio's gun laws. The Ohio House had
previously voted 71-21 to override the veto of
House Bill
347. Because both houses achieved the necessary 3/5 majority, the bill will
become law in 90 days.
Today's vote is the first time that the Ohio legislature has overridden any veto
since 1986, when a line-item budget veto was overridden. It is the
first time
since 1977 that a veto of an ordinary bill has been overridden.
The bill makes a variety of changes to Ohio's Shall Issue law for concealed
handgun licenses. It explicitly prohibits local governments from creating
no-carry zones, except in places where state law already forbids carryings. The
bill also removes the requirement that concealed carry permitees must, when
driving, keep the handgun in plain view in the car, or in a locked container.
Even more significantly, the bill eliminates over 80 anti-gun local ordinances,
including bans on cosmetically-incorrect self-loading firearms (so-called
"assault weapons") in Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati. Like the vast
majority of states, Ohio does not have an "assault weapon" ban, but Ohio has had
more cities with local bans than has any other non-ban state.
As I detailed in a
2003 Issue Backgrounder for the Independence Institute, almost all states
have some form of preemption law which restricts or prohibits local gun laws.
The strong, comprehensive preemption law enacted in Ohio is the model used in
about half of the states with preemption.
Some other features of the bill:
The bill begins: "The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a
fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and
Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of
Ohio..."
The bill bans all local gun control laws which do not duplicate state or federal
law. Litigants who bring a successful suit under the bill are entitled to
attorney's fees.
Localites may still enact zoning laws which: 1. Ban gun stores in residential or
agricultural areas. 2. Impose laws about hours of store operation, as long as
those same laws are imposed on other non-gun stores.
In practical effect, the Ohio bill is the most significant roll-back of gun
control that has ever been enacted by a state. Preemption laws swept the country
in the 1980s, after Morton Grove, Illinois, banned handguns. In most state
legislatures, the bills were intended to prevent future local gun bans, since
there were few local bans that were in effect. I am not aware of any other state
where a preemption law has wiped out so many local ordinances which were already
on the books.
Among the Senators voting for the override was Democrat Marc Dann, the
Attorney General-elect of Ohio. I knew Marc when he ran that Gary Hart campaign
in Michigan in 1983-84, for which I was a volunteer. He is a good man with
limitless energy.
[David Kopel,
December 4, 2006 at 4:26pm]
0 Trackbacks
/
Possibly More Trackbacks
Albion Tourgee and
the Second Amendment:
A post by Eugene notes the publication of a new biography of the great 19th
century civil rights lawyer
Albion Tourgee. Undoubtedly, some VC readers are waiting for the secondary
conspirators to explain what Tourgee thought of gays, guns, and Israel. So I
will do my part, on the second topic.
Tourgee's book about the Ku Klux Klan explained that during the 1870s, in
Southern areas where the black militias lost and the Klan or other white groups
took control, "[A]lmost universally the first thing done was to disarm the
negroes and leave them defenseless." Albion Winegar Tourgee, The Invisible
Empire (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989)(1st ed. 1880),
pp. 54-55. Of course the Klan's objective in disarming the blacks was to leave
them unable to defend their rights. Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy vol. 5
(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1872), p. 1672 (reprint of Testimony
Taken by the Joint Select Committee into the Condition of Affairs in the Late
Insurrectionary States (South Carolina, vol. 3), 42d Congress, 2d Session),
cited in Kermit L. Hall, Political Power and Constitutional Legitimacy: The
South Carolina Ku Klux Klan Trials, 1871-72, 33 Emory Law Journal 921, 945
(1984).Related Posts (on
one page):
- Albion Tourgee and the Second Amendment:
-
Albion Tourgee:
13 Comments
[David Kopel,
November 18, 2006 at 1:29pm]
0 Trackbacks
/
Possibly More TrackbacksWhen is it
legitimate for the Media to help "out" a gay person?
Almost never, I argue in my
latest media column in the Rocky Mountain News. The column
begins with the outing of minister Ted Haggard, and analyzes the history
of outing -- from German government officials in the early 20th century,
up to the present.
116 Comments
David Kopel,
November 13, 2006 at 1:03am]
0 Trackbacks
/
Possibly More TrackbacksEven More Bad News for Anti-Gun Lobby:
1. Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi has endorsed John Murtha for Majority Leader,
according to The Hill. Murtha is a a southwestern Pennsylvania
Democrat with a long-standing A rating from the National Rifle Association.
Hoyer is a Maryland Democrat, with a long-standing and well-deserved F rating,
although he has sometimes worked to procure federal military contracts for
Beretta USA, a firearms manufacturer in his district.
Murtha is, of course, known as a prime advocate of cut-and-run in Iraq
strategic redeployment to Okinawa, whereas Hoyer is merely a supporter of
cut-and-run a rapid exit from Iraq, but not necessarily to Okinawa. And it
is even more obvious that Pelosi's preference for Murtha has much to do with her
desire to take revenge on Hoyer (a rival Democratic leader) and absolutely
nothing to do with Murtha's pro-gun voting record.
Nevertheless, it the odds have increased that the Senate (with usually pro-gun
Harry Reid) and the House (with inflexibly pro-gun John Murtha) will both have
Majority Leaders who will be receptive to the argument that the gun control
issue is a loser for the Democratic party.
2. The Rocky Mountain News (Nov. 11) chalks up the winners and losers of
the 2006 election. First on the list of losers is "Gun control advocates.
Democrats see this as a radioactive issue for them, have to wait for now."
3. In The New Republic, Thomas Edsall suggests that pro-gun "pragmatic,
culturally conservative, libertarian" Democrats from the Rocky Mountains hold
the key to the party's salvation.
4. During election-night blogging on this site, and in a follow-up on
National Review Online, I suggested that about half the R to D shifts in the
House had involved the election of pro-gun, Blue Dog Democrats, while the other
half had involved the replacement of pro-gun Republicans with anti-gun
Democrats. Gun Owners of America
points out that several seats in which one Republican replaced another
Republican (in Michigan, Nebraska, and Ohio), which I had not written about,
resulted in a strongly pro-Second Amendment Republican replacing a mediocre
Republican. Accordingly, my
estimate that the pro-gun side lost a total of 14 votes in the House should
be revised to a loss of 12.5.
The loss still leaves intact the pro-Second Amendment majority in the House.
More significantly, the fact that fervent gun control advocates Charles Schumer
and Rahm Emanuel won a Democratic congressional majority by deliberately
recruiting so many pro-gun Democrats suggests that the party has outgrown the
mistakes of the Clinton/Columbine era, when party leaders lost the Congress
(1994) and then the Presidency (2000) on the mistaken belief that gun control
was a popular issue.
UPDATE: Here's the opening of the Monday issue of National Journal's
Hotline, which was delivered to subscribers at approximately 12:30 p.m. Eastern
Time:
"What signal is Pelosi sending by backing Murtha over Hoyer? It depends
on how you choose to view the maj. leader's race. -- Viewed through the
prism of Iraq, Pelosi is embracing her party's lefty protest crowd. But
on many other issues, from abortion rights to gun control to ANWR,
Murtha is decidedly to the right of Hoyer (check out their Nat'l Journal
ratings ). Pelosi's move could endear her to the Heath Shulers and Brad
Ellsworths of the 110th, who are leery of backing the liberal Speaker.
It could also help Hoyer among those Blue Dogs, who are itching to say
they're bucking Pelosi.
A few commenters on this post, and on some of my previous posts, continue
to push that the Democrats' new-found respect for the Second Amendment had
nothing to do with their wins on Tuesday, or on their governing plans.
National Journal, a well-respected source of the conventional wisdom
of Washington, obviously disagrees.
60 Comments
[David Kopel,
October 17, 2006 at 5:45pm]
0
Trackbacks /
Possibly More Trackbacks
Global Gun
Prohibition Lobby: Ban Arms Sales to Israel
This summer, the United Nations review conference for the 2001 Programme of
Action on Small Arms failed to reach an agreement for new global gun control
rules. Although stymied on one front, the gun prohibition movement is moving
forward elsewhere, pushing for a binding Arms Trade Treaty. The proposed treaty
is currently being discussed at the United Nations by the First Committee
(Disarmament and International Security) of the General Assembly.
The leading NGO lobbying for the Arms Trade Treaty is
Control Arms, an organization created
and directed by IANSA, Amnesty International, and Oxfam. Earlier this month,
Control Arms released a major new report,
Arms without Borders, which makes the case for the Arms Trade Treaty.
The report offers examples of arms transfers which, according to Control Arms,
would be stopped by a global Arms Trade Treaty. Among the examples cited is the
sale of Apache AH-64 helicopters to Israel (page 12). Control Arms notes an
incident in which an Apache helicopter shot an automobile in Tyre, and that,
according to Human Rights Watch, there was no evidence of Hezbollah activity in
the vicinity. In response, Prof. Gerald Steinberg of Bar-Ilan University
states that
the HRW/Control Arms claims "contradict clear evidence of heavy Hizbullah
presence and use of vehicles for transporting missiles and armed personnel."
Page 25 of the Control Arms report states:
Helicopters, combat aircraft and air-to-surface missiles supplied to
Israel primarily by the USA, but often incorporating components supplied
by other countries, have been used in the Occupied Territories resulting
in hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries, in apparent violation
of international humanitarian law. According to Amnesty International,
many of the 190 Palestinians killed in 2005 were 'killed unlawfully',
including as a result of deliberate and reckless shooting, or attacks in
densely populated residential areas. At the same time, Palestinian armed
groups have used rockets, explosive belts and other bombs to kill and
injure hundreds of Israelis.
Page 4 of the report includes a half-sentence criticizing Hezbollah for
firing rockets at civilian targets in Israel. The Control Arms paper does
not mention any problem about the international flow of arms to Syria.
Iran is criticized for its arms sales to Sudan, but not for its supplying
of arms to Hezbollah and to terrorist organizations in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
The Control Arms paper presents, at best, a moral equivalence between
Israel, Hezbollah, and Palestinian terrorists--all three of whom would,
under the Arms Trade Treaty, theoretically be prevented from acquiring
arms.
In future discussions of the Arms Trade Treaty, everyone should
acknowledge that the Treaty is intended, according to its leading NGO
sponsor, to create an arms embargo against Israel. A person who wants arms
sales to Israel to remain legal under international law would be foolish
to support the Arms Trade Treaty.
The General Assembly's First Committee meeting also covered other issues.
Several delegates urged the First Committee to "stop the arms race in
space," which is tantamount to asking for a ban on America's Strategic
Defense Initiative.
UPDATE: Several commentators make the point that Israel has a robust
domestic military industry, and therefore could survive an arms import
embargo. The Control Arms folks are one step ahead; their paper emphasizes
that the Arms Trade Treaty must include control of components as well as
finished products. Control Arms is also very clear on requiring that the
trade in dual-use materials (e.g., titanium which could be used for
civilian products, or for arms) be banned, unless there are strong
safeguards that the material will not be used for human rights violations
(such as, in the view of Control Arms, Israel's current tactics in its
wars against Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al Aqsa, etc.).
The Control Arms report notes that Israel, like India, South Korea, and
South Africa, among others, is an emerging arms exporter. The report
offers no evidence that Israel has exported arms to any human rights
violator. However, the report suggests that Israel and EU should both
exert greater controls of the ultimate sale of Israeli or EU arms which
are co-produced in India.
[David Kopel,
October 16, 2006 at 3:47pm]
0 Trackbacks
/
Possibly More Trackbacks
French Public
Ready to Crack Down on Criminals:
A pair of articles from the Sept. 30-Oct. 6 issue of France-Amerique (Le
Figaro's American weekly) offer some cause for hope that France is getting
ready to pull itself out of its downward spiral. Last November, Interior
Minister Nicolas Sarkozy referred to the young rioters in the French housing
projects as "racaille" ("scum" or "rabble"). At time, the chattering classes
were outraged, in part because the racaille that Sarkozy was talking
about were almost all immigrants (or children of immigrants) from North Africa
or West Africa. But the racaille remark turned out not to be a
mega-gaffe, as the intelligentsia had predicted. To the contrary, Sarkozy's
tough talk about youthful criminals has proved to be enormously popular. A new
poll shows that 77% of the French public (including 74% of persons aged 18-24)
agree that the French system is too lenient on juvenile delinquents. The
agreements cuts across all demographics and party lines.
Le Figaro suggests that the racaille comment was a brilliant,
deliberate political move by Sarkozy: while many French citizens realize that
France's statist economic system needs to liberalize, they are reluctant to
confront the issue publicly. By proposing crack-downs on young criminals,
Sarkozy has made himself the leader on a topic of national near-consensus, and
thereby shifted the focus away from his economic ideas. Le Figaro credits
Sarkozy for realizing that if the French want a their next president to be a
mommy who will protect them from the outside world, Sarkozy will never be able
to out-mommy Segolene Royal, the leading Socialist candidate (who, within the
French Socialist Party context, leans to the right). Accordingly, Sarkozy is
running as the daddy candidate, who will take control of the housing projects
and suburbs which have been turned into criminal havens, beyond the reach of
French law.
Sources: Alexis Brezet, "Sarkozy: le pari du peuple" & Judith Waintraub, "La
justice n'est pas assez severe selon 77% des Francais."
28 Comments
[David Kopel,
October 13, 2006 at 4:12pm]
0 Trackbacks
/
Possibly More Trackbacks
St. George Tucker versus Saul Cornell on the Second Amendment:
Ohio State history professor Saul Cornell is the author of the new book
A
Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in
America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), and of the law review
article “St. George Tucker and the Second Amendment: Original Understandings and
Modern Misunderstandings,” 47 W. & M. L. Rev. 1123 (Feb. 2006). Cornell is a
talented writer and researcher, but his treatment of some topics is extremely
misleading. In a new draft article, "St.
George Tucker’s Second Amendment: Deconstructing 'The True Palladium of Liberty',"
Stephen P. Halbrook takes the reader step-by-step through Tucker's monumentally
influential annotated American Blackstone, the most important legal treatise of
the Early Republic. Analyzing Tucker's Blackstone, and other writings by Tucker,
Halbrook shows that Tucker explicitly recognized the Second Amendment as an
individual right, including the right to posses firearms for personal
self-defense, unrelated to militia duty. As Halbrook proves, Cornell has built
has argument through highly selective quotations and the omission of portions of
the treatise which directly contradict Cornell's thesis.
David Kopel,
October 6, 2006 at 2:36am]
5 Trackbacks
/
Possibly More Trackbacks
Make Schools Safe for
Kids, not Criminals:
In a
new podcast
for the Independence Institute's
iVoices.org, I offer a shorter version of an argument I made in
detail in a
cover story of The Weekly Standard: the only realistic gun
control policy which would stop school shootings would be to completely
prohibit firearms, and confiscate the entire existing supply of more
than 200 million firearms. Lesser policies (e.g., one-gun-a-month, gun
registration) would, whatever their other merits, be unlikely to have a
significant effect on school shootings. There are no substitutes for
firearms (in both offensive and defensive situations), because firearms
are fairly easy to use, and can project force at a distance.
Constitutional problems aside, it seems completely implausible to
believe the gun prohibition could be successful, given the ability of
the black market to supply drugs (which have been illegal for almost a
century) to a wide variety of consumers, including high-school students.
The second-best--and much more realistic approach--would be to allow
licensed, trained teachers and administrators to possess concealed
handguns on school property. I agree that having police officers on
school grounds would be very helpful, but it seems that there are not
sufficient police resources to cover all schools all the time.
In 2004, I
detailed how Israel (which has a well-established Swiss-style [civic
duty] gun culture) and Thailand (whose government is very anti-gun) have armed teachers in order to protect schools against
terrorists.
Today, Wisconsin State Represenative Frank Lasee stated: "To make our
schools safe for our students to learn, all options should be on the
table." (USA
Today). "Israel and Thailand have well-trained teachers carrying
weapons and keeping their children safe from harm. It can work in
Wisconsin." (The USA Today article said that Israel has armed
security guards, but not armed teachers; however, the sources cited in
my Israel/Thailand article, supra, state that Israel has both.)
The left-side column of my home page has more links to
articles by Independence Institute authors arguing that the false
promise of "gun-free school zones" has made schools into one of the very
few places in the United States where would-be killers are guaranteed
not to face the risk of armed victims who can fight back and save lives.
Generally speaking, I have heard very few serious arguments against an
armed teachers policy (for the minority of teachers who would want to
carry, and would undertake the serious training which many thousands of
certified firearms instructors would gladly provide for free).
Some critics state that schools are, statistically, still relatively
safe, mass murders notwithstanding. This is true, but it would still be
beneficial to reduce the number of children and teachers who are
murdered.
Other people worry that a student might steal a teacher's gun. Putting
aside the fact that it's not that difficult for a determined person to
get a gun somewhere else (e.g., stealing from someone's home), the risk
could be addressed through policies requiring that the gun always be
carried on the teacher's body, or through similar policies.
Some persons are fearful that an angry teacher might shoot a student.
But if you think that the your children's teachers might kill your
child, if they had a weapon, then you ought to get your child out of
that school as soon as possible. There might be too many mediocre
teachers in some schools, but I don't that American teachers are
borderline killers.
Finally, there are arguments that are really nothing more than
generalized objections of armed self-defense, as well as to armed
police. E.g., "What if the teacher aimed at the killer, but missed and
hit a student?" This is always a risk--but it's a far smaller risk than
allowing a killer to aim at his victims methodically. Police officers
sometimes miss too, but that's not a reason to disarm the police.
"But the police are highly trained." Fine. Set the teacher training
standard high too. A teacher does not need every component of police
training -- such as how to react if a driver in a traffic stop tries to
kill the police officer. If you want teachers trained to the relevant
police levels of skill in Close Quarters Combat, go ahead. Personally, I
think we would be better off with a larger number of teachers who had at
least a moderate level of training, rather than a small number with
expert training. But even a small quantity of teachers with the tools to
protect their students would be a good first step.
There are plenty of teachers who would not want to carry a firearm; of
that group, some would, however, be interested in training with and
carrying defensive sprays, or in learning some basic techniques of
unarmed combat--particularly, how to disarm someone when his attention
is distracted. I wouldn't advise anyone to bring Mace to a gunfight, but
I do think that any form of skilled, practiced resistance is better than
passively allowing students to be lined up against a blackboard and
murdered.
If you interested in the topic, you may also be interested in my
media column which will appear in the Saturday Rocky Mountain
News, which explores the terrible problem of how media coverage of
school shootings leads to more school shootings. One prong of the
problem is sensational coverage which publicizes the perpetrator (e.g.,
newsmagazines putting perpetrators on the cover). But the larger problem
is that even sober, responsible coverage seems to play a role in causing
copycats. For the latter problem, I have no solution, but I hope that
starting the discussion might lead to other people suggesting solutions.
|