The Market Reacts More Swiftly Than Legislation

I was fascinated by this Indy Star report on the sales at Don's Guns in the aftermath of the awful shootings in Arizona.

Since Saturday's deadly shooting in Arizona, Don's Guns in Indianapolis has run out of a magazine that enables Glock pistols to fire extra rounds.

"We sold out, just since that happened," owner Don Davis said. He has ordered more and expects the resupply to sell quickly. The rush to buy the accessories, he said, probably is motivated by fears that lawmakers will try to limit magazine capacity in the wake of the shootings.

The thing the article didn't do was talk to customers. I would be interested to know why they rushed to buy. I suspect that many are buying because they see an investment opportunity of sorts, as if the clips are banned, they become more scarce, and therefore sometimes more valuable. But the other buyers?

Business Property Owners Lose More Ground

The Indiana legislature has ended its' short session so the members can go campaign for re-election in November. The one item that struck me more than any other points to the further assertion of government that business property owners will continue to have less and less to say about what goes on on their land, and that those who show up on it will have increasingly more the say.

This trend started in great earnest with the discussion of smoking bans on business property. Governments at all levels are increasingly saying that business owners cannot set policy on their property, because even though private property, they are places of public accommodation.

So, it certainly does follow that the Indiana legislature approved a law permitting employees to bring guns onto business property, regardless of whether the business owner approves. From the Indy Star:

The legislature passed House Enrolled Act 1065, which lets most employees take their guns with them as they drive to work and park in a company-owned lot, as long as the weapons stay out of sight in a locked vehicle. And it passed House Enrolled Act 1068, already signed into law by Daniels, that will keep gun permit information secret.

The losers here? The media and businesses.

Business groups argue that companies should be able to set their own policies on handguns to safeguard their property and employees. They point to workplace incidents where disgruntled employees have retrieved a weapon from their cars and opened fire.

The Star got it right on business as loser here. I'm all for the right to self-defense and the right to bear arms. However, the rights or property come first for me. If I don't want your gun on my property, that should be my call. Alas, in today's America, if you own business property, you can go to hell. Someone else gets primacy on what is now only nominally 'your land'.

Update: One day, I'll learn never to use my Mac for these posts. It's not really the fault of the Mac so much as Blogger. If I cut something from a source when using the Mac, Blogger preserves the font type and size. try to make it uniform? Forget it. Blogger freaks out and makes it worse. Doing the same operation on the PC leaves everything uniform. I like uniformity.

Gun Owners & Sex Offenders

Sex offenders have their home address information made public thanks to Megan's Law, with the idea being that people who have children have a right to know. That idea is controversial for some people, on the grounds that those who have served their time should not have to wear the Scarlet Letter after completion of sentence.

Along comes the Bloomington Herald-Times, with this announcement:

"This week, HeraldTimesOnline.com will launch its new gun permit database. You'll be able to search gun permit records by county, city or town and street."

Why should gun owners be treated on par with sex offenders? What compelling interest does the public have in knowing who has legally registered a firearm? Who is it that the Herald-Times hopes to help?

One who might benefit from such info? A would-be robber. "Not going to Kole's house, but I see that on his street there is a string of five houses in a row without firearms. Hmm. Think I'll hit the middle one, as far from armed residents as possible."

Maybe if we're publishing the names and addresses of people who legally enjoy the 2nd Amendment, we can publish the names and addresses of people who enjoy the 1st, such as newspaper journalists. Well, no. That's just a knee-jerk reaction towards serving one a dose of his own medicine. It would serve them right, but wouldn't serve liberty too well. *sigh*

(h/t Libertarian Party of Indiana, Duncan Adams, Sean Shepard, Andy Horning)

Heller Decision In - Pretty Good!

Neither the 2nd Amendment, nor the Bill of Rights, were particularly trashed by the Supreme Court today. That's about as uplifting as 'good news' gets these days. The Washington Post report's first paragraph says a lot:

The Supreme Court, splitting along ideological lines, today declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns for self-defense, striking down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun ownership as unconstitutional.

Well, thank goodness for the affirmation of the 2nd Amendment! As I stated earlier today, my understanding of the Constitution is that it is a document that limits government and affirms individual rights. So, gun laws such as DC's should be smacked down.

I'm tired of splits along ideological lines. Interpreting the Constitution shouldn't come down to ideology. Either the document conveys a right or it does not. Either it limits government or it does not. Don't get me wrong- I'm glad the 2nd Amendment was affirmed. This kind of affirmation, and this kind of Supreme Court, simply is going to return results based on the whim of nine robed individuals, which means, the process of nominating new Justices will be just as political and stupid as it has been for the past 25 years or so.

Now, this is only pretty good news, though, because within the majority decision, this concession could be found:

Scalia wrote that the Constitution leaves the District a number of options for combating the problem of handgun violence, "including some measures regulating handguns."

So, DC only 'went too far'. You can bet that DC will write a new law banning handguns, with language that 'goes far enough'.

I can see that in certain states, where language isn't strongly in affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms, that bans that only 'go far enough', will be deemed Constitutional. Indiana could easily enough be one such state. Here's the language on firearms, as such- Article 12:

Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.(History: As Amended November 3, 1936; November 5, 1974).
Section 2. The Governor is Commander-in-Chief of the militia and other military forces of this state.(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).
Section 3. There shall be an Adjutant General, who shall be appointed by the Governor.(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).
Section 4. No person, conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, shall be compelled to do so in the militia.(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).

That's it. Nothing clear at all. Militia? What militia?

Ohio's language is exceptionally crisp, and therefore, better. Article 1, Section 4:

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

On the practical side, there were people in DC, including Mayor Adrien Fenty, gathered in protest of the decision, some holding signs suggesting that firearm bans make for safer streets. Talk about being guided by blind dogmatism. The DC law was passed in 1976. Has DC been anyone's idea of a safe place, where gun violence is unheard of, in the last 32 years? Bwaahahaha.

Update: How come I couldn't find Article 1, Section 32 when looking up the Indiana Constitution on the Indiana Gov't website? Seems curious, no? When you search the Indiana gov't website and type "Indiana Constitution" into the search window, you get a link to Article 1, Sections 1-16 only.

Thanks, Roberta X, for the link to IU's site with the full text!

The Decline of Marion County, and The Want of a Gun

I was just listening to "Abdul in the Morning" on 1430-am WXNT in Indianapolis, when a female caller and apparently a personal friend of host Abdul, related her tale of being mugged in Indianapolis the other day.

According to the caller, it happened downtown, at 3:30 in the afternoon- broad daylight. A man on a bicycle cornered her and demanded her purse. She was using her cell phone, and she told the man that she was going to call 9-1-1.

The man laughed at her and told her, 'go ahead. Call 9-1-1.'

She related how frustrated and defeated she felt by this reaction. She expected the man to be worried. She said that she figured he knew he would be long gone before any police officer arrived.

Then she said, "it's not like I had a gun or some mace".

This incident as described by the caller illustrates that police protection is a great thing when you have several minutes to spare. When you don't, self-reliance is your only option, and a gun or a can of mace is a very handy tool.

Indeed, your threat of using a gun by simply showing it is more powerful than following through on a call to 9-1-1.