The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [2ndAmendment]
2014-07-27 11:31 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 214 references

So much for the thugs in Washington DC (the government ones, not the gangs.  Oh wait; that's just another faction of the gangs.  Nevermind.)

A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists.

Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. wrote in his ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, therefore gun-control laws in the nation’s capital are “unconstitutional.”

Aside: I'm an "activist" if I believe that all persons have the right to life, and that if someone desires to criminally take that from me I have a fundamental right to defend myself with the only device ever invented for personal protection that makes all persons equal irrespective of size, gender or physical prowess?  What planet are these writers from?

And so we see yet another of the places where unconstitutional "laws" (which in fact are no law at all, but the people seem to put up with it instead of doing something about it) is struck.  Incidentally, Washington DC is one of the places where you are most-likely to get shot by a goon, and the obvious reason why is that the goons know damn well that law-abiding citizens are supposed to all be targets, since they are (by dictatorial decree) unarmed.

Both Heller and Chicago, of course, are binding precedents.  One decision is now six years old, the other four.  You would think that DC would have folded by now, six years in, but of course they did not -- until they were forced to.

There is only one "law" that needs to be enforced in this regard, and it's the Second Amendment.  Law-abiding citizens have no need for permission to exercise a fundamental liberty interest.  

It is already unlawful to possess or use a firearm to further an illegal act, such as robbery, rape, murder and similar.  It is also explicitly lawful under our Constitution to defend one's own life in the gravest extreme, as The Constitution is the highest law of the land, but even it bows before your rights, which can only be recognized by government, never granted (since the government never had them in the first instance.)

To Vincent Gray and the City Council: Repeal your laws in their entirety on the carry, both openly and concealed, of firearms.  If and when someone uses a weapon (no matter what sort) to commit a crime that stands alone then prosecute them for the actual offense.

Do that and your violent crime rate will plummet like a stone.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

It appears that at least one doctor has had enough of people trying to argue that "the only people who should have guns are government agencies."  Good thing too, or he'd be dead.

Authorities are attempting to determine why a patient fatally shot a caseworker at a suburban Philadelphia hospital complex and whether a psychiatrist who pulled out his own gun and wounded the patient had concerns about him.

The psychiatrist, Dr. Lee Silverman, was grazed in the temple during the gunfight in his office Thursday afternoon with patient Richard Plotts, Delaware County  District Attorney Jack Whelan said.

The patient apparently entered the facility and shot a caseworker.  The psychiatrist drew his own weapon (which policy at the hospital prohibited him from having) and put a stop to the assault.

In doing so he almost-certainly saved lives, although he was hit (but not seriously) in the exchange of gunfire.

Indeed, had he been unarmed the patient could have simply wandered through the facility shooting people until he ran out of ammunition of the police arrived. He would have run out of ammunition first, of course.

Enough with the BS "gun control" garbage.  As I have repeatedly noted people with criminal intent don't give a damn what the law is, including the laws related to firearms.  

The only thing that stops a murderous bastard with a gun is a good guy with gun, and the closer the good guy is, no matter who he is, the better the chance of minimizing or preventing the loss of innocent life.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

I saw this coming when I lived in Chicago -- the first pieces of it were evident then.  What had been a "bad area" problem was starting to bleed into other parts of the city, including where I lived.  It was infrequent, but the statistical pattern was clear -- and convincing.

So was the usual leftist horsecrap in response -- "there are too many guns!" (never mind that it was flatly unlawful to possess a weapon useful for personal defense in Chicago -- and had been for 30 some years at the time), primarily.

The murder spree continues, as do the political polemics:

On Saturday, gunfire upended their plans. Lewis was standing in the 1300 block of West Devon Avenue about 3:20 p.m. when a gunman approached on foot and shot him in the back, Chicago Police said. He was pronounced dead less than 40 minutes later.

“He was looking to start a family. He was talking about having children,” said Warren Rader, a close friend and fellow photographer. “Everything was going right for him.”

Lewis’ wife, an art director with the advertising firm Leo Burnett, called Rader on Sunday morning.

As near as anyone can tell this man was not an "intended" target -- he just happened to be where a thug pulled a gun and started shooting.  Police believe the shooting was related to some sort of gang dispute.

The usual polemics are again being trotted out, specifically "there are too many guns."

Ignored is the fact that it's still illegal for a criminal to possess a weapon, say much less use one.  Further ignored is that by definition if you are about to commit a criminal act you have already declared your refusal to follow the law.  One more law will not change a thing, particularly in this case; once you decide to commit murder all the other laws you violate in the process are "free" in that it is not possible to imprison someone for life more than once, or execute them more than once.

Those are facts by the way, not opinions.

What might change things is more guns -- in the hands of law-abiding citizens.  Raising the risk of the gang-banger confronting someone who can stop him immediately and permanently just might get through his thick skull.  Quite possibly not, but irrespective of that I would argue that it is better to die resisting someone's attempt to murder you than to be a target in a shooting gallery.  The answer here is to simply respect the Second Amendment: Anyone who is an adult and wishes to carry, openly or concealed, may do so -- period.  Now the bad guys have absolutely no idea whether their "shooting gallery" might turn into a two-way firing range.  It won't have to happen to them often before the gang-bangers decide that if they want to shoot each other they better do it where those who are not their intended targets can't see and stop them.

What would change things is two-fold -- destroy the funding base for these gang-bangers and keep the violent ones locked up until they're not dangerous any more -- which might mean "forever."

Destroying the funding base for the gang-bangers is not complicated: Stop the War on Drugs.  Legalize and tax them all.  Yes, all of them.  Test and label for purity then sell 'em in the drug store over the counter.  Yes, I said all of them.

Guns are ammunition are expensive.  Gang fights are, for the most part, fundamentally over money.  Destroy the funding base and most of the problem will go away.

But here's the base problem: Politicians don't want to break up the gangs as they're useful for running their polemics on both the left and right.  Rahm doesn't have any desire to stop this crap in Chicago and neither does anyone else.  The cops know who the gang members and leaders are, and there are already extremely nasty laws that bear on this conduct - specifically, Racketeering. 

If Rahm did care and so did the prosecutors they could go out and arrest all of the gang-bangers right here and now, charging them all with 20 year felonies.  Convict 'em and sentence them on an "every day to be served" basis.

The problem with doing that today is that there's no room in the prisons.  But if we legalized drugs and got rid of the laws that criminalized non-violent possession and trade among adults in same we could release half of the people in our prisons.  The rest are there for violent felonies and serious financial crimes, and should stay.

We can break the back of the gangs in Chicago -- or anywhere else in this country -- in a literal afternoon.  RICO is a very simple law; you only need a predicate felony and two or more co-conspirators.  In this case there are lots of felonies and dozens of gang members in a given area.  Arrest them all and charge them all -- no roll-overs, no pleas, no nothing -- and release all the non-violent people who are doing nothing worse than what people do every day when they go to the corner liquor store and buy, then consume a bottle of booze.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Leave your guns at home, they say.

Well, the good guys did.  The bad guys?  Not so much.

Police in Gainesville, Georgia, arrested three men this week in connection with an attempted armed robbery that occurred July 2 in the parking lot of a local Target store, according to the Gainesville Times.

Tuesday, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported a woman was beaten and her car was stolen July 5 in the parking garage of an Atlanta-area Target. Police said the woman’s attacker hit her over the head, forcing her to the ground. The suspect took her purse and car keys and reportedly told her “stay on the ground or I will … kill you” before speeding off in the woman’s car. 

And again we have an object lesson (two, in fact) that the bad guys simply look at these statements "asking" people to leave their guns at home (or proclaiming that the location is a "gun-free zone") as a declaration that everyone there who is a law-abiding citizen is unarmed and thus a Target.

You want to know why I won't shop at Target any more and urge people to boycott the company?

It's simple: I find it incredibly offensive when any organization asks me to wear a "ROB,******OR MURDER ME; I'M UNARMED!" shirt in the name of political correctness as they are fully aware that the reason we call law-breakers criminals is that they don't give a damn about signs, laws or policies and in fact look at these sorts of "signs" and "statements" as a declaration of an open range for them to go hunting upon.

Yes, I understand that the actual odds of being "the one" that is targeted for such an assault are extremely low.  However, that does not change the fact that I am being told that for political purposes I am expected to accept a higher risk of that happening than would otherwise be the case.

I decline and you should too.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Logic is the first sacrifice to zealotry -- and lieberal thought.

As you’ve likely seen in the media, there has been a debate about whether guests in communities that permit “open carry” should be allowed to bring firearms into Target stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

We’ve listened carefully to the nuances of this debate and respect the protected rights of everyone involved. In return, we are asking for help in fulfilling our goal to create an atmosphere that is safe and inviting for our guests and team members.

This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.

It't not a complicated issue at all; in fact, it's a very simple issue.

Criminals do not pay attention to signs or corporate "requests"; further, paper does not stop bullets.

You therefore "request" that patrons become the target, unable to defend themselves, if a would-be felon enters your store with mayhem and murder on his or her mind, as you have "requested" that your patrons willingly forego the only known means of effectively attempting to thwart such an attack if the need arises.

What's worse is that Target management will, of course (as will anyone else) call people with guns if an unfortunate need does arise.  They will respond (the police) and, if said murderous thug refuses to immediately cease his or her assault, attempt to shoot said person -- that is, use a gun to stop them.

But in the interim period between the initiation of that murderous assault and the arrival of said law enforcement officers, for the simple purpose of political correctness, Target as a corporation requests that their patrons submit to death rather than retain the right to attempt to terminate that assault before the police can arrive.

That, my friends, is the bottom line.

I have and will respect Target's private-property rights.

But since Target refuses to respect the right to life of its patrons and instead chooses to put forward a security theater game I will choose to shop somewhere else and strongly urge others to do so as well -- as I'm doing right here.

From my point of view the issue is in fact very simple: A person's right to life, which inherently must include their right (but not obligation) to defend that life should the unfortunate need arise, trumps a corporation's expressed willingness to play politics and put forward falsehoods that are intended to make people feel safe instead of promoting the state of being safe.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.