Rounding up

I think you have probably heard that St. Louis lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey became a viral sensation when they displayed firearms to fend off a large, violent crowd of trespassers. No shots fired.

I immediately thought of Joe Biden’s advice on home defense:

“[If] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.

It’s only my opinion, but I don’t think you should get too fixated on shooting through a door at something you can’t see. Maybe that’s how Corn Pop did it, but “C’mon Man!

Two rounds of 00 would open up your field of view (so you can see who you’ve shot) a bit more than would a .223 or 9mm round, but there’s no chance you’ll be able to patch that door.

In this case, the Biden surprise-your-neighbor method of home defense was inapplicable, since Mark & Patricia were not behind a door. They were already outside on their porch when the mob smashed down an iron gate.

The former Vice President had that covered, too:

“[I]f there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.

He made these suggestions in support of his contention that semi-automatic rifles with standard magazine capacity should be banned from civilian ownership. They aren’t needed for self defense because we have 2 round shotguns.

I thought adding “outside the house” was a nice touch. It was the only sensible thing he said.

The McCloskeys, fortunately, ignored Joe’s preferred weapon, blasted no entryways, and didn’t inflict random collateral damage on the neighborhood. Nor were they forced to perform a reload under the mob’s gimlet eye.

Mark McCloskey had an AR-15. Which he didn’t have to fire.

Had he followed Joe’s advice, I’m thinking he might have died. Two rounds from the shotgun and you’re obviously dry. The crowd either completely panics and runs, or they come for you. They have to run 40 feet. You have to get 2 rounds loaded with your fine motor control in shambles. Even if you make that reload, you won’t make the next.

So, in one sense Joe’s right, you don’t need 30 rounds. Or even 2. But you’ll appreciate the deterrent effect of larger capacity when several dozen Biden supporters show up and threaten to burn down your house with you and your dog in it.

In the snippets of the confrontation I watched, I thought Patricia was, let’s just say, inadequately trained. She stood by her husband in a desperate time, even though he was in nearly as much danger from her handgun as the mob.

She must have been very frightened. Needs must, training or no. She shouldn’t be criticized for ignorance of something she never thought she’d have to know. I would criticize her if she doesn’t now get some training. She knows now.

Reflecting on that, I wonder if her ignorance of muzzle control and trigger discipline actually helped disperse the crowd. Some of them discovered prudence.

“Oodles,” he estimated.

Bernie Sander’s mouthpiece, below, must be including in his stats the 150 million Americans Joe Biden says were killed by guns since 2007. That would push US population to around 480 million.

So, if everyone went bankrupt every year, this would just be a rounding error: Bernie’s Press Secretary Says 500 Million Americans Go Bankrupt Each Year

Still, in a population of 480 million, and even in an economy on a par with Venezuela or North Korea: Some people would have to declare bankruptcy at least semi-annually. And, for practical purposes, none of them could have student loans.

Or, since he’s a Democratic-Socialist spin doctor, maybe he meant voters – who needn’t be among the quick (nor even the dead, now that I think about it) for propaganda purposes.

In any case, ending this running-dog-capitalist bankruptcy conspiracy is why Mike Bloomberg should have given every American a million dollars. I know he could have, because MSNBC anchor Brian Williams and sidekickette Mara Gay said so.

One thing that puzzles me is how our birthrate has kept up with the gun-death rate. I don’t see all that many pregnant women wandering about. It’s a stretch, even if you assume triplets.

I do now understand how Bernie thinks he can pay for his plans, though. He thinks there are oodles more taxpayers than we actually have.

A simile is like a metaphor

Massachusetts Ban on Most Self-Defense Firearms Violates Second Amendment | Cato @ Liberty

The trial judge followed the lead of the Maryland case of Kolbe v. Hogan (in which Cato filed a brief supporting a petition to the Supreme Court), misconstruing from a shred of the landmark 2008 Supreme Court opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller that the test for whether a class of weapons could be banned was whether it was “like an M-16.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in which Cato also filed a brief), conjured up a complex interest-balancing test that boiled down to a much simpler question: is it like a handgun? If not, the weapon is not sufficiently “well-suited” to self-defense in the home and can be banned. Both tests contravene the core holding of Heller that all weapons in common civilian use are constitutionally protected…

Although the courts have uniformly looked to statistical data of some form in establishing common use, they have been unable to agree on what the relevant statistic is. The total number of the banned weapons owned, the percentage the banned weapons constitute of the total national arms stock, and the number of jurisdictions in which the banned weapons are lawful have all been used to determine the breadth of constitutional protection. By any metric, however, the weapons banned by the Massachusetts law are clearly in “common use.”

We all need to do our part for “common use” by buying a variety of firearms, making it easier for the leftwing legal clerisy to recognize “common use.”* Creating gun bans by simile is overtaxing their imaginations and stamina.

SCOTUS’ District of Columbia v. Heller decision opened the simile door a bit more in this infelicitous bit:

[T]he sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned.

Ratification of the Second Amendment was in 1791. The small arms possessed at home in 1791 were identical to those “most useful in military service.” In fact, a large proportion of those small arms possessed at home were in military service. The term ‘militia’ comes to mind.

The “lawfully possessed at home” in 1791 interpretation doesn’t plausibly cover the mechanism of the vast majority of firearms in use today. Percussion caps were just being prototyped by 1807. And, if that’s how a judge chooses to interpret District of Columbia v. Heller, you can grab your flintlock.

The left has argued exactly this: “The Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks.” That they are disingenuous in this is shown by the fact they won’t accept the corollary argument that “The Press” means hand operated printing presses based on moving bits of lead around, and that the internet should be shut down despite the First Amendment. Well, OK, they are arguing speech on the internet can be banned. But not because it’s technology invented since 1791.

Still, potential for banning modern firearm technology is not the most egregious part of that snippet. That distinction belongs to the phrase “and the like.” We’ll look at why that is momentarily. First we need to note some characteristics of an M-16.

An M-16 is a magazine fed automatic weapon (of which civilian possession has been severely restricted since 1934). It is rifled, breech loading, and uses brass cased ammunition with a primer ignited by a firing pin. Those are characteristics you could use for saying it’s ‘like’ something else. Just about any semi-automatic firearm, if we’re honest about it.

If the Progressives knew anything about how guns work they could have a field day banning technologies invented after 1800. Rifling (1498) and breech loading (16th century) are safe. Not much else is.

Under “common use”-1791, firearms capable of holding more than one cartridge (Magazine – 1860) could be banned. Firing pins (1840) could be banned. Primer fired brass cased ammo (18xx) could be banned. Oh, revolvers (1836) could be eliminated entirely. Forget your 1911.

There’s more, but we don’t need it to make the point: “And the like” bans based on 1791 technology would eliminate 95% of guns commonly in civilian use today. That’s actually how they approach it. I know it’s said that gun bans are often based on cosmetics, like adjustable stocks, pistol grips, and flash hiders. Mostly true, but the cosmetics would be much different without, for example, that scary normal capacity detachable magazine. This is a way to attack the technology using appearance.

Yet even that’s less nonsensical than California’s attempt to specify nonexistent technology as a means of banning firearms – microstamping casings.

The state argued that a law should not be struck down simply because it is impossible to implement.

“Like, impossible Dude.”

Consider the word ‘like.’ It doesn’t mean ‘identical,’ and it depends on what you select to compare. An apple is like an orange; if you focus on shape, size, nutritional profile, and even which end of the spectrum skin color tends toward. A whale is biologically more like a dog than it is a frog. ‘Like,’ lets you cherry pick the comparators fitting your desired outcome.

A frog is like a Granny Smith if you consider internal temperature, skin color, and dependence on insects.

The differences between a handgun and a rifle have nothing to do with the irrelevant criteria the Massachusetts court must necessarily have applied. Which outside of those various cosmetic features and size (having excluded automatic weapons – 1883), boils down to the capability of using a detachable magazine and/or with a capacity higher than 10 rounds. Modern firearms are all like each other.

And tell that bit about “is it like a handgun” to the pregnant woman who used an AR-15 to defend her family last week – that it wasn’t “well suited” to self defense. An AR is more accurate, easier to use than a handgun, and can hold more rounds – rounds you might need in a one on many firefight. The only question is, “Can it be used for self defense?” Not relevant is, “The court would like you not to have a gun for home defense, but if you do, use a handgun we won’t let you carry outside the home.”

Looks ‘like’ an M-16 does not compute. ‘Like’ a handgun includes machine pistols.

The Progressives have been struggling to define “assault weapon” for decades. The fact they focus on cosmetics is reason enough for the jurisprudent to discard this ‘like’ business.

*”Common use” is ‘like’ everyone else has, so it’s a collectivist standard for an individual civil liberty. And I think it might prohibit rail guns, as one example. Not that we have any man-portable rail guns yet, but we will.

Self-Defense Free Zones


Gun control groups take aim at Michigan deadly force bills

Brought to you by the same people who predicted that there would be blood in the streets when Michigan eliminated its entirely arbitrary rules for issuance of concealed carry permits.

Now, they want to ensure that if someone breaks into your home, and if you defend yourself rather than retreat, then you will remain subject to civil suit by the criminal or his family.

Shikha Hamilton, head of the state’s Million Mom March chapter.

“The scariest part is that you’re removing the duty to retreat. That’s really there to preserve life,” said Hamilton, of Grosse Pointe. “And if you take someone’s life you should have to answer to the police. … No one is in jail right now for protecting their family.”

First, Michigan law already includes the provision that I don’t have “the duty to retreat” in my own house.

Second, whose life are we concerned about?

Third, Ms. Hamilton doesn’t mean the Dozen Mom Marchers don’t want to put you in jail if you have the effrontery to defend yourself. What they do want is a British-style gun ban, where, as Cato reports, this is the reality:

A homeowner who discovered two robbers in his home held them with a toy gun while he telephoned the police. When the police arrived they arrested the two men, and also the homeowner, who was charged with putting someone in fear with a toy gun.

An elderly woman who scared off a gang of youths by firing a cap pistol was charged with the same offense. The government is now planning to make toy guns illegal.

…In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old farmer living alone in a dilapidated house, woke to the sound of shattering glass as two burglars broke in. Martin had been robbed six times before, but like 70 percent of rural English villages, his had no police presence. He crept downstairs in the dark and shot at the burglars, killing one and wounding the second. Both had numerous prior convictions. Martin was sentenced to life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and 12 months for owning an unregistered shotgun. The prosecutor claimed Martin had lain in wait, then caught the burglars “like rats in a trap.”

The wounded burglar was released after serving 18 months of a three-year sentence. He then sued Martin for injury to his leg, claiming it prevented him from working and interfered with his martial arts training and sex life. He was awarded £5,000 of taxpayer money to prosecute the suit.

Martin’s sentence was reduced to five years on a finding that he had had an abusive childhood, but he was denied parole because he had expressed no remorse for killing “one so young” and posed a danger to other burglars. As the Independent newspaper reported, “Government lawyers say burglars ‘need protection.’” “It cannot possibly be suggested,” the attorneys argued, “that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences, and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury.” The Law Commission advised the government: “Even a criminal who had committed a serious offence must be allowed to exercise his civil rights

The Brady Bunch and the Dozen Mom Marchers agree on the criminal’s civil rights. They just don’t think you have any right to protect your life.

Fourth, this bill is mainly about civil suits – for example, by a criminal convicted of home invasion who is shot in self-defense by the homeowner. The real question would be whether anyone can be bankrupted by a civil judgment. The answer to that is yes.

Finally, you already do have to answer to the police, but if it is determined that you acted in self defense, that should be the end of it.