Guns and Vegas

October 10, 2017

Why, after Vegas, Sandy Hook and other mass killings of decent men, women and children, is it so hard to get real gun control?

The NRA was  an association of hunters and sportsman, reasonable and trustworthy neighbors. Now the NRA, its leaders and vocal supporters argue Americans should have the right to buy any kind of firearm from tanks and machine guns to silencers. Where did that come from?

A good bet might be manufacturers. Despite the praise Republicans like to lavish on the free market, too many businesses look at profits before safety, honor or humanity. That can make life miserable without

But part of their audience is quite radical, some of which goes back to the Civil War. President Andrew Johnson sent General Carl Schurz to report on conditions in the South following the War. Schurz reported that southern slave-owners continued riding patrol to force the former slaves back to their plantations. Those informal groups gradually coalesced into organizations that fought, killed and intimidated African-Americans and their white supporters in order to regain white control of the former Confederate States. In such notorious events as the Colfax Massacre, many were killed in order to return Colfax County to white slaveowner control. Those groups eventually became the KKK and similar organizations which terrorized African-Americans in the former Confederacy and border states for a century. The Klan never really disappeared despite passage of the Civil Rights Laws. The connection between the battle to keep the South white, the flag of the Confederacy and the sight of guns is no accident. Trump’s campaign and victory re-invigorated these white supremacists, and the Alt-Wrong.

They want tanks, machine guns and other massively destructive weapons to prevent tyranny, by which they mean federal tyranny, so they need the capacity to fight the federal government.[1] One problem of course is that’s another civil war. Another is that their definition of tyranny isn’t one most of us would accept. Many believe that tyranny is here.

That radical segment of gun-owners are not patriots. They are not supporters of government of, by and for the people that we created in 1787 and improved by Amendment after the Civil War. Their ideal is government by white supremacists to the exclusion of everyone else. And that’s aimed at most of us – those of us whose views are more welcoming, and those who don’t satisfy the supremacists’ view of Christianity. They’re also aimed at resolving political disputes by taking the law into their own hands.[2] Politically, if we don’t protect each other, who will protect those of us who remain? This political and cultural crisis is existential. The America most of us admire and care about is an America they despise and want to conquer. That’s what tanks and machine guns are for.

The radicals’ resistance to sharing America with the rest of us leads to armed rebellions, like those of Cliven Bundy and his supporters, or self-styled “sovereign citizens” who routinely refuse to respect the law. There is nothing peace-loving or law-abiding about the radicals.

The mood of the country has been changing, witness the removal of many Confederate flags and monuments. But that stimulates the haters. They’re losing control and they hate that, and us. Reasonable and trustworthy gun owners would do better to distance themselves from the radicals who have taken a prominent and threatening role in the debate over weapons.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, October 10, 2017.

[1] One NRA member from Texas told an NPR reporter, “As far as I’m concerned, if you can afford to buy a tank, you should be able to buy a tank.” He explained: “the Second Amendment was put in not to hunt, not to go plink at cans, not to shoot at targets. If and when tyranny tries to take over our country, we can fight it.” A recent NRA President, Jim Porter wanted people to be “ready to fight tyranny.” When he was NRA vice-president, Porter told an audience that “We got the pads put on, we got our helmets strapped on, we’re cinched up, we’re ready to fight, we’re out there fighting every day.”

[2] NPR’s Wade Goodwyn reported that speakers at a recent NRA convention “emphasized their belief that there are two Americas: the righteousness of the right and the decadence of the left.” In other words, one of the strands of fanaticism behind the NRA is political – not just that gun rights are political, but that the purpose of having gun rights is political, to change the society from one they dislike to one they like.

Texas License Plates

June 23, 2015

What really matters about the decision about Texas license plates?[1] The conversation is all about the plates. That’s a part of what lawsuits do. They get us talking about the specific example, the thing that the plaintiff wanted to do.

Yet surely the plates themselves are no big deal. The Sons of Confederate Veterans could have advertised their treasonous admiration for the Confederacy on a bumper sticker and other signs. Their rebellion has hardly been scotched because they can’t get it on their plates.

One larger issue is the justification, the reasoning of the decision. Breyer says they can’t put it on their plates because the plates aren’t theirs at all. They are the plates of the great state of Texas. And Texas won’t put its confederate past on its license plates.

That actually is troubling. We decide lots of issues of free speech by deciding whether the speech belongs to government. That troubles me because it doesn’t ask what the free marketplace of ideas needs. Not that the decision about the plates should have been any different but the explanation is different, and in law, explanations matter. They tell you about many cases.

Free speech doctrine is driven by the needs of the system of free speech. But the distinction between our speech and government speech is all about property. I get very suspicious when the boundaries of freedom are decided by rules and discussions unrelated to free speech, and instead about what belongs to the government.

If the clinic belongs to the government it can tell the doctor what to say.[2] If the legal aid society belongs to the government, can government tell the lawyers what to say?[3] Justice Stevens tweaked Justice Souter in the middle of the argument about legal aid lawyers over Souter’s position in the decision about doctors and whether they could say anything about abortion. And if the government likes the speech of one group more than another, can government decide to make it their speech and subsidize it while penalizing the other? Well actually the Court said yes even though it also says government has the obligation to treat everyone equally.[4] So that comes out as just as equally as the government wants. That’s some equality. But that’s how government, courts and law can speak out of two sides of their mouths.

So the Court claims a big blow for free speech – a blow so hard it’s no more than a joke. Why is it worth anyone’s while to bring a case like that to the Supreme Court? That’s very expensive, especially the time it takes of a team of attorneys to put the papers together and prepare for the argument. It costs a lot more than the paltry sum for the vanity plates or even the $8000 for a new plate design. People sometimes bring suits like that for the impact it will have on the law if they win. And people sometimes bring suits like that for the publicity. Now everyone knows the Texas secessionists are fighting mad. The goal isn’t the plates. It’s the PR. You win by losing as much, maybe more, than by winning.

But now there’s another brick in the insidious doctrine about how government owns the opportunities for private speech. How about corralling demonstrators in pens where they can’t be seen during a political party’s convention? After all, the streets are public.[5] And how about throwing citizens into the same pasture with giant corporations to see if they can be heard?[6] After all, if corporations are people, then they have minds, mouths and rights. That’s what happens when important decisions are based on irrelevancies.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, June 22, 2015.

[1] Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4063 (U.S. June 18, 2015).

[2] Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991).

[3] Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001).

[4] Regan v. Taxation with Representation, 461 U.S. 540 (1983).

[5] Cf. United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (U.S. 1990).

[6] Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

%d bloggers like this: