[clue-talk] Heller

[Angelo Bertolli]

Jed S. Baer wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:28:16 -0400
> Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>
>   
>> In this case, they found these guys with a bunch of weapons and armor
>> in their trunk some days before the incident took place, but because of
>> the politicized nature of the whole "right to bear arms" issue and how 
>> aggressive the NRA is in trying to give people the ability to use any 
>> kind of armament they want, they couldn't stop these guys.  They 
>> actually caught them and had to let them go with a slap on the wrist.  
>> Not even any jail time.
>>
>> Whereas if you have some weed in your trunk instead, they say "intent
>> to distribute" and you're in the slammer.
>>
>> I'm not advocating a ban on guns, and this has nothing to do with the 
>> specific case in DC.  I'm just saying that there is a balance.  We
>> don't need wild west style laws.  For example, does having
>> armor-piercing bullets really make the "average citizen" safer?
>> Because if you think that citizens should be having shootouts with that
>> level of criminal, then we already have a societal problem that goes
>> way beyond the issue of gun control.
>>     
>
> There's a major philosophical problem with your argument. We have the
> legal doctrine here of "innocent until proven guilty". The state has no
> power (or shouldn't, but it's been creeping up on us for years) to take
> action against someone without probable cause. That's why we have the
> search warrant processes we do.

Yes, there is a conflict between preventing crime and assuming 
innocence.  It's in every aspect of our law.  If they can let these guys 
off so easily, then you also have to get rid of "intent distribute" 
assumption just because someone has more than a bag of weed.  The truth 
of our society is that there are different degrees of "innocent until 
proven guilty" already in place and it's inconsistent.  I actually don't 
smoke pot, but it still bothers me that you can lock someone up for 
having some weed because you can assume they were going to sell it even 
when you didn't catch them selling it, while they find a trunk full of 
assault weapons and can't do anything about it.


>  Possession of firearms is not, by itself,
> cause for suspicion. I don't know the details of the "illegally modified
> assualt rifles", because in California, that can be something which
> would considered quite inocuous in other jurisdictions. That is, it's
> just fear factor over cosmetics. What you're also not mentioning is that
> these guys were arrested. If the state failed to keep them in
> confinement, you can't blame guns, or this so-called politicized nature
> of RKBA.

No, I don't blame inanimate objects for decisions made by government.  
But that's what we're talking about really anyway.

> In California, it ain't like that, it's much more the other
> direction, where guns are demonized in the media regularly, and more
> highly regulated than most other states. I'll also note that "two
> semi-automatic rifles, two handguns, over 1,600 rounds of 7.62 mm rifle
> ammunition, over 1,200 rounds of 9 mm and .45 caliber handgun ammunition"
> could easily be a good haul from the gun show. Don't scoff at that.
> People who are avid target shooter go through a lot of ammo in the course
> of a year. It ain't at all unusual to by 1000 rounds at a time or more.
> You get a better price when you buy in bulk. And if I carpool with 2 other
> friends on a range trip, we'll easily exceed that number of guns in the
> car, and could have a quantity of ammo approaching 1000 rounds. In truth,
> people who aren't exposed to the community of gun ownership and shooting
> sports have a very skewed notion of what constitutes "a lot" when it
> comes to numbers of guns owned, and ammo kept on hand.
>   

I thought about that, but the way the story was presented and the fact 
that there are armor-piercing bullets made me think they must have known 
these guys were up to no good.  There has to be a way to come up with 
some criteria to prevent people from performing these kinds of crimes 
when they're caught beforehand, while still allowing reasonable people 
to maintain a gun in their home, don't you think?

> The "wild west" argument has been debunked time and again. It comes from
> the movies and TV, which like to portray the "wild west" with lots of
> shootouts because that's exciting.
>   

No, it's not really about the shootouts.  Sorry if I inadvertently gave 
people that impression.  It's more about the frontier attitude, fending 
for yourself, and not having the government around.

> Moving on to your next straw man, well, first, there are documented cases
> of criminals wearing body armor. Armor-piercing bullets have nothing to
> do with this, because most body armor is designed to stop only pistol
> caliber cartridges. There are multiple levels of body armor. There are
> also insert plates, either ceramic or metal, which can stop projectiles
> fired from more powerful cartridges. The thing is, the more effective the
> body armor, the heavier it is. So those who wear it -- mostly cops, tend
> towards the lower level stuff, because otherwise it's too restrictive.
> However, the "entry level" vests (note these are "bullet resistant", not
> "bullet-proof") will not stop most rifle cartidge bullets. (The .22 LR,
> is, after all, a rifle cartridge). I'm talking about typical hunting
> cartridges such as the .270, .30-06, 7mm Rem. Magnum, etc. Again, none of
> these are "armor piercing" bullets. Though it's possible to get steel
> core bullets and load them, most people don't do that. True military type
> armor piercing bullets are not common.
>   

But if you find a bunch of folks carrying around steel core bullets, 
don't you think at least that could be restricted?  I'm only advocating 
reasonable restrictions, and I think at least some gun rights activists 
go too far.  But I do have to say that they and the NRA are pretty 
smart:  don't give an inch and you won't let anyone take a mile.

> The unfortunate truth is that the citizen could very well find himself
> needing to deal with that type of criminal. As the saying goes, "when
> seconds count, help is only minutes away", which refers to the response
> time for a 911 call. You can't count on agents of the state to protect
> you, or to respond in time when armed thugs are already in your house.
> That's the reality of it. Yes, we do have this problem in our society.
> Saying "people don't need armor-piercing bullets" doesn't make it go
> away. (And as I already mentioned, AP ammo isn't an issue anyways.) It's
> being armed that makes the difference, and there many many news items to
> back this up. See, for example:
> http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
>   
Is there any limit that you think is "appropriate" for bearing weapons?  
Your philosophy seems to indicate that the government should make no 
judgment whatsoever in deciding how much "armament" a person can have.  
I could pretty much just replace "armor-piercing bullets" with 
"grenades" in your argument (here and in general) and it would remain 
consistent.  I won't be able to really argue with your philosophy if 
this is the case, because it's hard to argue with someone who has a 
consistent philosophy but a difference of opinion.  But, there is a 
reality to whether or not the average citizen needs steel core bullets 
or not.

A friend of mine told me recently that guns should be allowed in the 
country and banned in the city.  I don't know if that's realistic.  We 
don't exactly control the borders to cities.  Sometimes laws have to be 
made with a realization of what's enforceable.

Personally, I do think the government should play a role in judging what 
level of armament a person can own, and under what conditions.  The 
purpose of government is to provide safety and order.  This might be an 
unpopular statement that will make you completely disregard everything I 
say, but government by it's nature is at least some level of Marxism.



Angelo