Today the Supreme Court affirmed an individual’s right to bear arms.

The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.

…

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

Here is a link to reactions from some politicians.  Party lines were blurred with Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold calling it “a long overdue decision.”  However, other Democrats, such as Dianne Feinstein who said that she was “profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito,” toed the standard liberal line.  John McCain hailed the decision as “a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom.” Barack Obama was a bit more measured in his words, choosing to offer up a neutral quote probably out of recognition that revealing his true thoughts on gun laws would not serve him well politically.

“While it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling … will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.” - Sen. Barack Obama

The 5-4 decision underscores the tenuous balance of the court - something all conservatives should keep in mind when debating whether or not McCain is “conservative enough.”  Is it worth casting a ceremonial objection ballot and risk letting Barack Obama select Supreme Court justices?  I think not.

I wrote a post yesterday about a local peacenik named Lynda Haynes who is protesting Columbia High School’s JROTC rifle team. I had the opportunity to listen to Ms. Haynes this afternoon on a local talk show. She said, and I kid you not, that high school JROTC programs lead to gangs and violence.

Ms. Haynes, member of the North Alabama Military Hating Peace Network, cited as evidence a website that seeks to undermine our armed forces by encouraging people to go AWOL. The site has a page dedicated to JROTC programs, which includes a link at the top for finding out “if a JROTC unit is coming to your community” as though it a JROTC program is analogous to a posse of child molesters. The site was obviously authored by someone with no real knowledge of JROTC programs and says that “JROTC is the only program in our schools which can be expected to cause deaths and severe casualties among its graduates.” Well, not really Ms. Haynes.

Virtually every high school sport has had a history of students dying while participating. Deaths related to high school football tend to register about five to fifteen per year and 36 died in 1968 alone. And while relatively few high school athletes go on to compete on the college gridiron, and fewer still in the NFL, we still hear about such deaths. One could even argue that Sean Taylor’s murder was the result of the fortune he derived from pro football and therefore the sport played a role in his death. Maybe we should ban football.

The anti-military site given by Ms. Haynes goes on to list a number of unsourced incidents involving individuals affiliated with JROTC. The list includes a “JROTC enthusiast,” which translates into a kid who was not actually in the JROTC program but wore military fatigues. It also includes the terrifying story about how some kids fainted while standing in formation in the hot sun (again, note the football parallel). It even mentions a JROTC instructor who sexually abused female cadets. By that logic maybe we should ban all reading teachers too.

I mentioned that the list of crimes on the anti military site were unsourced. I tried to Google the first one, which was about a gang called the “Fenkell Mafia Killers,” and got no valid hits other than a book that used the anti-military site as a source. But, lets give the kooks the benefit of the doubt and assume all the details are accurate. So what if there are documented cases of kids affiliated with JROTC committing crimes, hazing other cadets, or fainting from heat exhaustion? A very cursory Google search found multiple stories about high school football players committing sexual assaults and even murders. Hazing has long been prevalent in social fraternities (and sports teams). Heat related “injuries” are common in high school sports. Does that mean all these activities are evil and should be banned? NO! Furthermore, the fact that some of the kids involved in the listed crimes participated in JROTC may be ancillary to the crime, not a contributing factor as the military haters would lead you to believe.

I was the battalion commander of my high school’s JROTC program many years ago. I don’t recall any teaching of violence. I do recall leadership instruction and training. I remember performing acts of service. I remember professional instructors who emphasized safety and genuinely cared for the cadets. Most of all I remember seeing the program turn kids - many of whom I might have categorized as “wayward” - into focused, mature individuals eager to make something of themselves. When we trained in hot weather we took great pains to tell cadets to speak up if they felt ill. The extent of our “hazing” was limited to messy activities in which senior and junior cadets equally participated, a mutually enjoyable event that did not involve any intimindation or demeaning actions.

Ms. Haynes thinks that the schools should replace JROTC with “conflict resolution” classes. Let’s be a bit more frank about what Ms. Haynes wants. She loathes our military, she probably views them as baby killers, and would like to weaken it by eliminating a fine source of identifying young, eager, and talented soldiers. I’m an open minded guy and I would like to see if there is some merit to Ms. Haynes’ “conflict resolution” solution. If she is willing, I would like to take up a collection to buy her a ticket to Sudan. Once there she can spearhead efforts to put an end to the genocide there using her conflict resolution skills. When a gang of Janjaweed thugs attepmts to rape her we’ll see how effective her conflict resolution approach is at diffusing that situation.

We live in a dangerous world. We should make every effort to avoid violence as a solution (which by the way is taught in JROTC), but we cannot be so foolish as to rely on passivity as the means of protecting our persons and our property. People like Ms. Haynes should step back and reflect on the fact that people have had to use violence to secure and defend the freedom that allows her to condemn them for their efforts. There are other countries that aren’t so tolerant.

From AL.com:

Harry Hobbs at Columbia High School said he’s heard concern about the school’s new shooting range for student cadets in the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps.

But don’t worry, said Hobbs, a retired Army chief warrant officer and the school’s JROTC chief. Safety is paramount at school shooting ranges, he said.

…

First, to dispel one possible fear, local JROTC programs use single-shot, .177-caliber air rifles, not high-powered rifles. Students use flat-headed pellets, not bullets.

Linda Haynes of the North Alabama Peace Network isn’t convinced school ranges are safe.

“We need to be teaching conflict resolution skills rather than teaching (students) a violent skill, giving them something to commit violence,” Haynes said.

For Haynes, whose group campaigns against war and violence, it’s the idea of teens using guns that’s bothersome. “I’m floored that they’re doing that at that age.”

I wish the school officials would have the stones to just tell Ms. Haynes and her ilk to take a long walk off a short pier. I’d bet a box of doughnuts that she is one of those people who would vote to ban Marines from the area, protest veterans talking to kids, or just look like a general Code Pink idiot.

First of all, how ignorant is she that teenagers might use guns? THIS IS ALABAMA! Many young hunters have made their first kill by the time they get to high school.

Really, the kids are learning conflict resolution. Some of them might join the armed forces one day, refine the skills they learn at Columbia, and resolve a military conflict by killing some bad guys.

I was in JROTC at my high school and was friends with everyone on our rifle team. It was a great extra curricular activity for them and they all took safety (as well as success) very seriously.

From CNN:

On Tuesday, The Supreme Court will decide whether Washington’s sweeping ban on handgun ownership violates an individual’s constitutional right to “keep and bear arms,” setting the stage for a potentially monumental legal and social battle, just in time for the 2008 elections.

More later…

Update: Actually they only heard arguments yesterday.  The final decision should come in June.  It doesn’t look good for the pro-gun ban folks.

The Gadsden Times chimed in on Alabama Senator Hank Erwin’s bill to allow trained, screened ROTC students carry weapons on campus with an editorial titled: Sponsoring potential shootouts.

With the memory of the Virginia Tech shootings still on people’s minds, Sen. Hank Erwin, R-Montgomery, pre-filed a bill for the next legislative session that would let college students meeting certain conditions carry guns for self-protection on campus.

Or that’s the theory, at least. Once a student has a gun on campus, the reality is, he or she could use it for anything he or she wanted - and so could anyone else who gets access to it.

Just stop right there.  We are talking about adults who are soon going to be officers in our military.  They are old enough to own a gun, have a concealed carry license, and take said gun virtually anywhere.  I suppose the Gadsden Times, as well as other editorial boards across the state, feels they shouldn’t be allowed to carry anywhere since they clearly aren’t able to exercise proper judgment.

Perhaps an armed student or instructor could have stopped the mentally disturbed [Virginia Tech] student before he claimed so many lives. But having another gun in the scenario could have led to more bullets flying and someone feeling pressed to risk their life rather than trying to seek shelter, with no positive change in the body count.

Some people just don’t understand.  The point of having designated people carrying on campus is not for them to engage in shootouts.  The point is to let any would be assailants know that they will not necessarily be walking into a gun free zone.  These individuals, mentally stable or not, are cowards.  They brazenly enter an environment where they assume there will be unarmed people and feign strength and courage as they shoot at hapless students from close range.  But as soon as law enforcement (or an unexpected gun owner in the crowd) begins to engage them they almost always turn the gun on themselves demonstrating their ultimate cowardice.  I don’t recall hearing about too many crazies charging into police stations or NRA meetings to cause carnage.  No, they pick the low hanging fruit: the gun free zones.

There are many things that go on at college campuses beside shooting rampages that make us leery of the idea of encouraging guns there: Students get despondent over grades, or breakups with a girlfriend or boyfriend.

In other words, they’re ready to ship off within a year or so to fight in a war zone, but they aren’t rational enough today to cope with bad grades without turning the classroom into the OK Corral.

There is often drinking to excess at college parties, and sometimes college students don’t exercise the safest judgments.

The vast majority of those drinking parties (in my day at least) happened off campus where the individuals in question, as well as every other legal adult, could presumably carry.  The bill has nothing to do with parties.

The Montgomery Advertiser featured a similar editorial.

On the all-time list of really bad ideas, this one belongs near the top: An Alabama state senator has proposed legislation to allow certain college students to carry guns on campus.

Ponder that for a moment. It is a recipe for disaster.

…

There is so much wrong with Erwin’s bill that one hardly knows where to begin addressing it. For one thing, it’s important to be realistic about the threat he seeks to thwart. As unspeakably awful as the Virginia Tech assault was, it was an isolated action by a seriously deranged individual.

Such acts are exceedingly rare. A statistical study conducted by the Department of Justice found that the overwhelming majority of violent acts involving college students — 93 percent — took place off campus.

Based on the Advertiser’s logic we shouldn’t entertain Erwin’s proposal, or any other proposal to prevent such violence, since such acts are “exceedingly rare.”

A gun skills course, required as part of Erwin’s bill, is a useful exercise. The safe operation of firearms can be taught in that way. However, a one-time training course cannot be expected to give those who take it a great deal of judgment in the use of firearms.

More calling our future military officers a bunch of dumb-dumbs.

It certainly cannot be expected to prepare an individual for the use of firearms in a tense situation.

Good point.  Let’s call the pentagon and tell them to release all of those ROTC students from their service commitments.  They aren’t going to be able to handle walking the streets of Baghdad.  They can’t even be expected to protect a classroom here in Alabama!

While we’re on the topic, here’s a video worth watching.

Related:

• Erwin seeks to arm responsible, trained college students

From a Tuscaloos News editorial:

… Sen. Hank Irwin, R-Montevallo, says he will try again next year to persuade his colleagues to pass a bill allowing students who meet certain requirements to bring firearms to the campuses of state colleges and universities.

Irwin tried to pass a similar bill in the closing days of this year’s abortive legislative session. It was a direct response to the Virginia Tech shooting, where a student with a history of mental problems killed 32 people and wounded many others before turning the gun on himself.

Like many other pieces of 2007 legislation, Irwin’s bill died. But he says it’s needed to help ensure student safety.

The bill, which he has prefiled for the 2008 session, would allow any student with no prior felony or misdemeanor convictions to bring a gun to campus if he or she secures a gun license, belongs to an ROTC program and completes a gun skills course.

You could guess what the paper’s position is …

Most state campuses ban firearms except for use in ROTC activities - and for good reason. Encouraging more students to pack a gun ups the ante for danger. Not only does it heighten the possibility of an accidental shooting, but it also raises the risk that a person with mental or emotional problems would use a gun.

Irwin, you will recall, made national headlines when he wrote in his column that he believes the hurricanes that hit New Orleans were sent by God to punish people for sin, gambling and wickedness. Lawmakers considering his misguided guns-on-campus bill ought to keep that in mind, as well.

That last part is what I lake to call ad hominem.  The editorial uses a piece of information that is outside the scope of the current discussion as a way of prejudicing the readers against Erwin’s proposal.  Classy.

Their argument is of course absurd.  The school shooting they mentioned (along with every other one I can think of) was perpetrated on a campus that did not allow responsible individuals to carry firearms.  Gun bans do nothing to prevent individuals with criminal intent, regardless of their psychological state, from carrying out acts of considerable violence.  What gun bans do accomplish is that they put law abiding gun owners (and everyone else) in a vulnerable situation where they cannot defend themselves against an attacker.  They can only cower behind thin desks or be lined up against a wall waiting to be executed while waiting for law enforcement officers to arrive - and even then the officers have to enter the area in a deliberate manner.

The weekend’s shootings in Colorado by a young man who violently expressed his disdain for Christianity highlighted how having armed, responsible people on the scene can save lives in an assault situation.  Possibly 100 lives.

Erwin’s bill deserves careful consideration instead of reflexive demagoguery.  His bill only allows for properly trained ROTC students with a clean criminal background to carry on campus.  Think about that.  These are the men and women who, in less than four years, will be in control of far more firepower than any civilian in this country can ever get their hands on.  These are the men and women who will be thrust into high pressure life and death situations in foreign countries.  These are future officers in the world’s most advanced military.  Is the Tuscaloosa News really suggesting that these individuals can’t be trusted to carry around their own privately owned weapons in public for fear of them succumbing to their own incompetence, malice, or emotional fragility?  Give me a break.  Their well oiled, standard response to Erwin’s bill shows that they either didn’t think about how it applies to this specific situation or that they hold the men and women in our military in extremely low regard.  I hope it is the former.

Note: The Tuscaloosa News article misspelled Sen. Hank Erwin’s last name.  I originally did the same (not the first time).  Since corrected.

Jonathan Turley, prominent constitutional law scholar and self avowed liberal, recently wrote a nice little piece about what he calls the Voldemort Amendment.  Regular viewers of Keith Olbermann’s show should recognize Turley, who is a regular guest.  That alone is a testament to just how far left he is.  Anyhow, Turley admits, with a great deal of displeasure, that the Second Amendment actually means what it says - namely that owning firearms is a right.  Who’d a thunk it?

Some citizens have alerted the NRA to signs posted by the city of Huntsville barring firearms in certain public areas.  According to the NRA this may violate state law.

Recently, several members have brought to our attention a matter of concern in the City of Huntsville, Alabama.  They have indicated the presence of several signs, which read in part that it is unlawful to “possess firearms” on most of the major greenways including, the Aldridge Creek Greenway and the Big Cove Creek Greenway.  According to state law, the regulation of firearms is entirely reserved to the Alabama State Legislature.  These signs not only violate state law, but are a blatant attack on your Second Amendment rights.  According to the City of Huntsville, it would be illegal for you to posess [sic] a firearm in your vehicle while on these greenways.

Note to the NRA: always spell check your official statements. 

Maybe if I get a spare minute I’ll take a picture of one of the signs.  Please don’t hold your breath.

Update (7/16/07): Here are pictures of one of the signs in question, which is actually one of the signs that have been up for years.

From AL.com:

The Alabama House gave final approval Tuesday to a bill that would allow gun and ammunition dealers in Alabama to sell to residents of any state where gun sales are legal.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. David Grimes, R-Montgomery, was approved by the House on a 90-3 vote. With the regular session of the Legislature more than half over, the measure was only the fourth bill to receive final passage this session because of a dispute over rules that has stalled most action in the Senate.

The bill now goes to Gov. Bob Riley for his signature.

Not only did they pass a bill, but they actually passed a bill that extends the rights of citizens rather than contract them.

From the Montgomery Advertiser:

A 4-year-old boy playing with a handgun shot himself in the hand and the bullet struck his 5-year-old sister in the chest.

Mobile police spokesman officer John Young said the children were taken to the University of South Alabama Medical Center Friday.

Three adults, including the children’s father and his girlfriend, were charged with endangering the welfare of a child, a misdemeanor that could bring a year in jail.

The adults told police the shooting occurred in a vehicle, but police were still investigating that claim.

The adults were with the children at the time of the shooting and brought them to the hospital about 4:30 p.m. Friday, Young said.