The Knox Update

From the Firearms Coalition

Training, Yes - Mandatory, No 

By Jeff Knox 

(October 9, 2009) At the recent Gun Rights Policy Conference in Saint Louis, Missouri I had the privilege of introducing a couple of resolutions that were adopted by the assembly.  The first dealt with the recent attempt by Customs and Border Protection to classify certain "easy open" pocket knives as "switchblades," and subsequent efforts to amend the Federal Switchblade Act.  My resolution suggested that since the problem of switchblades and switchblade crime was primarily a figment of Hollywood and Broadway, and since regulating tools is never a reasonable response to bad behavior, that the rights community should support the outright repeal of the Federal Switchblade Act and any other such laws which are intended to modify behavior by restricting tools.  This resolution passed resoundingly with no real discussion.

My second resolution was a bit more controversial.  In it I suggested that, while training in the safe, legal, and appropriate use of firearms is strongly supported and should continue to be encouraged, government mandated training is anathema to liberty.  I pointed out that there is no statistical evidence that firearms accidents, mistakes, or abuses are any more likely in states requiring little or no training than they are in states with extensive training requirements.  The resolution put on the record the GRPC delegates' opposition to government-mandated firearms training and their support for rolling back existing requirements where feasible.

Supremes Take a Second Look

By Jeff Knox

(October 2, 2009) On September 30, the Supreme Court announced that they were going to review the Second Amendment case McDonald v. City of Chicago and decide whether the Second Amendment applies at the state and local level.  Application of the Bill of Rights to the states has been a long and convoluted battle with the Second Amendment being the last major article left out in the cold.

As originally proposed and applied, the Bill of Rights was an expression of universal, natural rights, but was considered directly enforceable only on the federal government - except that it was a statement of principles to which all of the states in the union agreed.  Over the years there has been wrangling between states and the federal government regarding recognition of these rights, particularly in the years surrounding the Civil War as debates raged over the definition of a citizen and the rights such citizens enjoyed.  Chief Justice Taney presents these rights of citizenship - privileges and immunities - in a clear and unequivocal fashion in his infamous decision in Dredd Scott v. Sanford.  Part of the debate was over whether a person recognized as a citizen by one state was automatically a citizen of the United States and fully possessed of the privileges and immunities of such citizenship.  Justice Taney described these privileges and immunities to include, "the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."