Forbes Op/Ed: "Liberal Courts Still Gunning Against 2nd A Rights"

[Paladin]

Worthwhile article, but I think an anti at Forbes chose the picture to go along w/the article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/10/18/liberal-courts-still-gunning-against-second-amendment-rights/

[bballwizard05]

lol i expected a rack of AK's. I'm not even sure I know what that thing is. Unless I'm missing something all I see is the picture at the top.

[nicki]

Interesting article.

This article ties gun rights with the ugly side that gun control was enacted to suppress Blacks.

The revisionist history of the "civil rights" movement is that "non-violence" caused a shift in the public conscience.

If the true history was that "civil rights" happened to avoid violent confrontations between Blacks and Whites, then that changes history.

Nicki

[bballwizard05]

Not even just the Blacks, much of the CA gun laws on the books are for the purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of Asian immigrants at the turn of the 20th century.

[SoCal Bob]

This statement was interesting but lacked a citation:

Law-abiding citizens acting in self-defense actually shoot and kill many more criminals each year than police do, and with a much lower percentage of incidents where an innocent person is mistakenly identified as a criminal.

[1BigPea]

This statement was interesting but lacked a citation:

Law-abiding citizens acting in self-defense actually shoot and kill many more criminals each year than police do, and with a much lower percentage of incidents where an innocent person is mistakenly identified as a criminal.

Yeah I noticed that too, I'd like to know where those statistics came from. If a reliable source and it's true then I'd like to see the Brady's response to that.

[Pixs]

lol i expected a rack of AK's. I'm not even sure I know what that thing is. Unless I'm missing something all I see is the picture at the top.

Furrer submachine gun

[sholling]

This article ties gun rights with the ugly side that gun control was enacted to suppress Blacks.

The revisionist history of the "civil rights" movement is that "non-violence" caused a shift in the public conscience.

If the true history was that "civil rights" happened to avoid violent confrontations between Blacks and Whites, then that changes history.

Nicki

Civil rights has been a primary goal of the Republican Party since before the Civil War. At the same time suppression and oppression of minorities was a primary goal of the democratic party. What the Progressive movement brought to the Democratic Party was strategy of co-opting and then quietly betraying the trust of minorities. Roosevelt did it with promises followed by Davis-Bacon which was intended to lock minorities out of New Deal work programs. Democrats continued supporting Jim Crow laws and segregation right into the late 1960s while republicans supported voting rights acts and civil rights acts. It's only when it became obvious that the civil rights act of 1964 was going to pass with him or without him that LBJ changed his position and threw his support behind the law - and claimed credit as the new great emancipator. He just replaced Jim Crow with a welfare program that required fathers to leave the home. Johnson was so proud of his plan to con black Americans that he famously stated:

"I'll have those *N* (n-word) voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

Hip Hop Republican: Top Racist Democrat Quotes

So yes I agree with the premise that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was intended to disarm minorities just like California's concealed carry law was intended to do.

[k1dude]

This statement was interesting but lacked a citation:

Law-abiding citizens acting in self-defense actually shoot and kill many more criminals each year than police do, and with a much lower percentage of incidents where an innocent person is mistakenly identified as a criminal.

Funny, I also zeroed in on that statement like a laser. I want to know where he got that info. It's a bombshell.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

This statement was interesting but lacked a citation:

Law-abiding citizens acting in self-defense actually shoot and kill many more criminals each year than police do, and with a much lower percentage of incidents where an innocent person is mistakenly identified as a criminal.

I've been seeing that for years. I've always thought it a fact, but now I realize that I've never seen a citation for it either.


Best quote from the article:

Given an abundance of other contentious public poll problems on its plate, the Obama Administration isn’t expected to encourage the Supreme Court to hear the question before 2012 election. In fact the Administration isn’t likely to do so until or unless it’s able to appoint another liberal justice to the bench in order to seal the deal.

Does this give you any ideas of how you might personally help influence whether or not this happens in the voting booth?

The Raisuli

[Patrick-2]

As much as I prefer the tone of the article/op-ed to what we normally see in print, the author makes a number of contrived statements (like the ones you have already pointed out) and a few non-trivial mistakes. The biggest is that Virginia did not arrest Masciandaro, the Federal Government arrested him. Virginia is not a party to the case.

It's more than nit - the author featured the case and talked to his lawyer. Basic facts matter, and suggesting Virginia does not recognize the Second Amendment outside the home due to the arrest of Masciandaro is just sloppy.

We're better than the other side not only because we are on the right side of the Constitution, but because we care enough to be accurate and careful. This piece is a welcome change of tone, but we should view it as a chance to further educate the details.

[mattlevy]

It's more than nit - the author featured the case and talked to his lawyer. Basic facts matter, and suggesting Virginia does not recognize the Second Amendment outside the home due to the arrest of Masciandaro is just sloppy.

The author never talked to us. Any quotes are taken from the petition. So far as I know, the only reporters we've talked to were Robert Barnes of the Washington Post and David Savage of the L.A. Times. And even Savage just quoted from the petition and attributed it to Antigone as a personal quote.

SCOTUSBlog didn't reach out to us, but Lyle Denniston was quite nice when I sent him a copy of the petition so that he could add a link.

Matt

[Fjold]

The link to the article does not work anymore.

[scarville]

I've been seeing that for years. I've always thought it a fact, but now I realize that I've never seen a citation for it either.

A possible reference is "Crime Control Through the Use of Force in the Private Sector" by Gary Kleck. I cannot find a copy but it is referred to in about a dozen other places presenting a similar statistic.

[Librarian]

This statement was interesting but lacked a citation:

Law-abiding citizens acting in self-defense actually shoot and kill many more criminals each year than police do, and with a much lower percentage of incidents where an innocent person is mistakenly identified as a criminal.

Yeah I noticed that too, I'd like to know where those statistics came from. If a reliable source and it's true then I'd like to see the Brady's response to that.

Funny, I also zeroed in on that statement like a laser. I want to know where he got that info. It's a bombshell.

I've been seeing that for years. I've always thought it a fact, but now I realize that I've never seen a citation for it either.

The Raisuli

A possible reference is "Crime Control Through the Use of Force in the Private Sector" by Gary Kleck. I cannot find a copy but it is referred to in about a dozen other places presenting a similar statistic.

I find that stat questionable.

One part is statistics: Uniform Crime Reports for any year you care to look at; here's 2010 - Table 14 says 387 by LEO, table 15 says 278 by non-LEO, so the data say the claim is not correct, with regard to deaths, and has not been correct in the last 5 years.

There is some likelihood that some incidents initially reported as crimes - and initial reports are what UCR uses - later are ruled acceptable self-defense, so the LEO/non-LEO ratio may become somewhat closer.

In 2009, WISQARS reports there were 679 Legal Intervention Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries, but does not distinguish LEO/non-LEO.

The other part is logic; the SD shooter is actually there at the time of the crime - there's no question of mis-identifying the 'bad guy'. But I'm not aware of decent data on either officer-involved shootings (see http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf for some of the issues) or the detailed circumstances around non-LEO non-fatal shootings.


I don't think the data is available to support/refute the claim.