RKBA

An alarmist minority gets uncritical media attention:

Washington DC – The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is beginning a public education effort to educate Florida tourists and potential Florida tourists that effective October 1, they face a greater risk of bodily harm within the state of Florida.

That is the date that the state’s new “Shoot First” law also known as the “Stand Your Ground” law, goes into effect.

Individuals who are unfamiliar with Florida’s roads, traffic regulations and customs, or who speak foreign languages, or look different than Florida residents, may face a higher risk of danger – because they may be more likely to be perceived as threatening by Floridians, and because they are unaware of Florida’s new law that says individual who feel their safety is threatened or their possessions are at risk are legally authorized to use deadly force.

“We think people visiting Florida should be aware of this law, and act accordingly,” said Sarah Brady, Chair of the Brady Campaign. “Visitors should be very careful about getting into an aggressive argument with anyone during their stay.”

[. . . ]

Yeah, that’s it. Everbody knows Florida is a racially and ethnically homogeneous place where no one speaks English with an accent or looks like he comes from somewhere else. And everybody knows those Floridians will shoot you if you even look at them cross-eyed. Because unlike us they are subject to hysteria and irrational prejudices. And this new law makes the situation even worse! Because now all those hot-headed Floridians who were ready to murder you over a parking spot will get really mad or something! And by the way, please send a check to the Brady Campaign which has only your best interests at heart.

Jerks.

I like the response from these guys better:

CHICAGO, Oct. 5 /U.S. Newswire/ — The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):

The ISRA is encouraging Illinois citizens to acquire Florida Concealed Weapons Licenses before visiting the Sunshine State. This bit of advice comes only days after Florida reformed the state’s deadly force laws to eliminate “retreat” provisions found under the former statute.

[. . .]

“Florida is a wonderful vacation destination for the entire family,” said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. “The Florida vacation experience is made even better when the law- abiding tourist knows that he or she can carry a defensive firearm as a means of protecting the family against robbers, rapists and murderers. Florida’s progressive views on the right of self defense are reflected in the state law that allows qualified persons from outside the state to obtain a Concealed Weapons License.”

(Related post: Here)

Glenn Reynolds reviews the proposed legislation on its merits. He is mildly positive but points out that a talk-radio discussion of the bill “illustrates how quick people are, even on the right, to constitutionalize all sorts of arguments that aren’t really about the Constitution at all.” Hey, it’s the American way.

I don’t have a strong opinion about the Florida bill. IMO people have a right to defend themselves, our society should tolerate individual self-defense efforts, and our laws should reflect that tolerance by not putting gratuitous barriers in the way of people who want to exercise their rights. But I also think it’s important to respect people’s rights to property and contract, and one of the ways to do that is to avoid passing laws that increase the State’s authority over the terms of employer/employee relationships. I think employers are foolish to forbid employees from having guns in their cars, but resolving such issues should be a matter for private negotiation rather than legislation.

However (and here comes the central point of this post), the proposed Florida law isn’t really about Constitutional rights except in a symbolic sense. What it is really about is limiting the power of officials — mayors, police chiefs, prosecutors, etc. — who have a history of abusing their discretionary authority. The current Florida proposal follows enactment of Florida’s new (and much demagogued) “Stand Your Ground” law, which is intended to make it difficult for prosecutors to victimize citizens who defend themselves in their homes, and of Florida’s 1987 concealed-carry law, which substituted a nondiscretionary state-administered permitting regime for the much-abused discretion of local governments.

I have some sympathy for people who complain that the big bad State government is riding roughshod over their local autonomy. Sometimes it’s true. But in other cases the legislature would not have gotten involved if local officials and State’s attorneys had exercised more restraint in applying their considerable discretionary authority. What goes around comes around (at least in politically competitive States like Florida). Officials who treat citizens capriciously should not be surprised when citizens use the legislature to put the officials on a shorter leash.

(Related post: Here)

I started to put a comment on this post, which asserts that 2006 will be the GOP’s 1994. My response to that suggestion follows.

The Republicans have the weaknesses inherent in being a majority party — the ideologically committed people in it all feel short-changed. That is nothing new. The libertarian type GOPers don’t like the religious people and think Bush gives them too much. But, I know from my own email inbox, the religious right is hopping mad at Bush for not doing enough for them. The small government GOPers are mad at all the spending. Everybody is getting at most a tiny bit of what they want, and they want a lot more. But they all know the Donks would be worse, or they should know that. Look back at your political history, at how liberals felt about Franklin Roosevelt — they constantly thought he was selling out to the other factions in the party. Maintaining a majority political coalition is hard to do. Usually, you cannot give everybody something at the same time. So you do things one at a time and you even sometimes do inconsistent things one at a time.

So Bush is not disintegrating, he is holding a coalition together. Does this mean the Democrats are in a position to pull off a big upset? How? To do that they’d need to break up the majority coalition. Specifically, the Democrats would have to offer some element of the GOP coalition something it really wanted, that Bush can’t or won’t give them, and be more credible than the GOP is on that issue. The Democrats are no longer a coalition, but an ideology with a few interest groups attached. It is difficult for them to run to the center these days, let alone run to the right of the GOP on some issue or issues. It will be hard for them to come up with an appealing issue that would allow them to nationalized the election the way Gingrich did in 1994 and break off a chunk of the GOP coalition.

Conclusion: Unless we see (1) surprisingly strong and clever leadership on the D side, and (2) some new and powerful ideas or proposals, barring some outright disaster for Bush, then 2006 will be a typical midterm election, and the GOP may lose seats. But the total change will be small. So I fearlessly predict. We’ll check back in November ’06.

What follows is simplified, but based on the true facts, i.e. the responses to the posts linked to here. I am really trying to be fair. Really.

1. The simple, random ChicagoBoyz reader is asked this question: “Should Jane Q. Public be allowed to carry a concealed TV-B-Gone?”

His answer would go something like this: “Are you mad, sir? Why, think for a moment of what you are suggesting. She could use such a device irresponsibly and without express permission! In fact, I can imagine a hideous scenario that should give you pause. She might walk into a crowded sports bar full of cheerful and unsuspecting patron, and when no one was looking at her, at a key moment in The Big Game, reach into her purse, take out the infernal object and turn off the TV! That is the kind of atrocity I am contemplating! Do you grasp that, you irresponsible maniac? No private citizen can possibly be trusted with such awesome power!”

2. The simple, random ChicagoBoyz reader is then asked this question: “Should Jane Q. Public be allowed to carry a concealed Glock?”

His answer would go something like this: “Are you mad, sir, to ask such a question in this venue, this haven of Second Amendment absolutism? I will have you know that the right to keep and bear arms is one of our most precious freedoms! How dare you suggest that Jane Q. Public, a law-abiding citizen, might be denied her natural right, in fact her Constitutionally enshrined right, to possess a concealed firearm, so that she may have instantly at her disposal such lethal force as she alone shall deem necessary for the defense of herself and her loved ones in any contingency. I resent, sir, the merest suggestion that any citizen or our great nation shall not be presumed to be able to carry and use a firearm responsibly and sensibly.”

I agree with 2, by the way.

I just got sucked into watching part of one of the Lord of the Rings movies on TV. Lots of mysterious blue light, long scraggly hair, portentous music and swordplay. Good and evil with a deal of Hollywood bullshit thrown in.

Swords, spears, bows and arrows — all well and good. But, I kept thinking, this is America. We can do better. What the good guys really needed was a few of these.

Of course, I have the same reaction to most stories of good vs. evil.