The Second Amendment right extends outside the home. In part one, we examined five lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment as laid out by the supreme Court in the landmark case, D.C. v Heller. Here in part two we take a look at further evidence that demonstrates the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends outside of the home.

In part one, we saw that the Court ruled the D.C. handgun ban violated one of many lawful purposes of the Second Amendment, “such as self-defense within the home” (emphasis added). We see further the Court lists at least five lawful purposes – hunting, militia duty, repelling a foreign invader, suppressing insurrection, and resisting tyranny – that involve or require activity outside of the home. We can conclude from this that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted to simply keeping a gun in the home.

Here in part two, we expand upon the core lawful purpose, which the Court specified in Helleris self-defense: “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” (p.56). If one gets anything from the Heller decision, this must be it. The Court reiterated this finding in McDonald v Chicago in 2010, stating: “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v.Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (Syllabus, p.1).

Self-defense can – and often does – involve a person outside of their home. Skeptics rely onreading into the Courts decision a limitation that the Court itself has not stated, postulating that “self-defense” might mean “self-defense… as long as you’re in your home; but nowhere else” because the Court struck down a law that prohibited guns in the home. But the Court itself did not specify this as the sole legitimate purpose, and this imagined limitation is artificially imposed in the minds of those that wish to limit others right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution.

The Court’s ruling in Heller sheds light on this. To recap, the Court thoroughly examines every word of the Second Amendment, defining it in historical context, legal precedent, and explaining how the right to keep and bear arms was viewed from English law to Colonial law, to the formation of the United States, post-ratification of the U.S. Constitution, through the post-Civil War era. It is clear from the historical documentation the people understood the right to keep and bear arms as part of the “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense” (p.20). “They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury” (p. 21). The Court notes that “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad” (p. 63). This means that understanding how the right to keep and bear arms at the time of ratification is critical to understanding what is protected in the Second Amendment today. There is no logical reason to conclude self-defense is limited solely inside one’s home, or that “self-preservation”, “repelling force with force”, or defending oneself suddenly stops because one is outside of the home.

Relevant to our understanding is the Court’s historical definition of what “keep” and “bear” meant. Keeping arms means to carry or have in one’s possession. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.” (p.9) The Court states: “the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons”” (p.8). “Bear arms” is synonymous with “carry arms”, “possess arms” and “have arms” (p. 14). “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose — confrontation” (p.10). The Court says through examining historical source material, “In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia” (p.11). In Heller, the Court concurs with its prior definition from Muscarello v. United States, “in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person” (p.10).

We can see that within the core lawful purpose of the Second Amendment of self-defense the terminology means to keep arms on one’s person in case of confrontation and the need to defend oneself. To suggest the right to self-preservation or self-defense in the face of confrontation and potential bodily harm is limited solely to the home is absurd. The common person’s understanding of their protected right of self-preservation logically extends outside the home. This is also consistent with the five previously covered lawful protected purposes that involve or require activity outside the home.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication November 26, 2013).

The Second Amendment Right Extends Outside The Home, Pt 2

by Matt MacBradaigh | Nov 26, 2013 | 2nd Amendment Facts | 2 comments

The Second Amendment right extends outside the home. In part one, we examined five lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment as laid out by the supreme Court in the landmark case, D.C. v Heller. Here in part two we take a look at further evidence that demonstrates the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends outside of the home.

In part one, we saw that the Court ruled the D.C. handgun ban violated one of many lawful purposes – plural – of the Second Amendment, “such as self-defense within the home” (emphasis added). We see further the Court lists at least five lawful purposes – hunting, militia duty, repelling a foreign invader, suppressing insurrection, and resisting tyranny – that involve or require activity outside of the home. We can conclude from this that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted to simply keeping a gun in the home.

Here in part two, we expand upon the core lawful purpose, which the Court specified in Heller is self-defense: “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” (p.56). If one gets anything from the Heller decision, this must be it. The Court reiterated this finding in McDonald v Chicago in 2010, stating: “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (Syllabus, p.1).

Self-defense can – and often does – involve a person outside of their home. Skeptics rely on reading into the Courts decision a limitation that the Court itself has not stated, postulating that “self-defense” might mean ‘self-defense… as long as you’re in your home; but nowhere else’ because the Court struck down a law that prohibited guns in the home. But the Court itself did not specify guns for self-defense in the home only as the sole legitimate purpose, and this imagined limitation is artificially imposed in the minds of those that wish to limit others right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution.

The Court’s ruling in Heller sheds light on this. To recap, the Court thoroughly examines every word of the Second Amendment, defining it in historical context, legal precedent, and explaining how the right to keep and bear arms was viewed from English law to Colonial law, to the formation of the United States, post-ratification of the U.S. Constitution, through the post-Civil War era. It is clear from the historical documentation the people understood the right to keep and bear arms as part of the “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense” (p.20). “They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury” (p. 21). The Court notes that “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad” (p. 63). This means that understanding how the right to keep and bear arms at the time of ratification is critical to understanding what is protected in the Second Amendment today. There is no logical reason to conclude self-defense is limited solely inside one’s home, or that “self-preservation”, “repelling force with force”, or defending oneself suddenly stops because one is outside of the home.

Relevant to our understanding is the Court’s historical definition of what “keep” and “bear” meant. Keeping arms means to carry or have in one’s possession. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.” (p.9) The Court states: “the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons”” (p.8). “Bear arms” is synonymous with “carry arms”, “possess arms” and “have arms” (p. 14). “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose — confrontation” (p.10). The Court says through examining historical source material, “In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia” (p.11). In Heller, the Court concurs with its prior definition from Muscarello v. United States, “in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person” (p.10).

We can see that within the core lawful purpose of the Second Amendment of self-defense the terminology means to keep arms on one’s person in case of confrontation and the need to defend oneself. To suggest the right to self-preservation or self-defense in the face of confrontation and potential bodily harm is limited solely to the home is absurd. The common person’s understanding of their protected right of self-preservation logically extends outside the home. This is also consistent with the five previously covered lawful protected purposes that involve or require activity outside the home.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Nov 26, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

The Second Amendment right extends outside the home. Some observers speculate that the right to keep and bear arms might mean inside one’s home only. Examination of the landmark Supreme Court case, D.C. v  Heller shows this assumption to be incorrect.

Restricting gun possession outside of the home is clear violation of the Second Amendment and intent of the protected right to keep and bear arms guaranteed in the Constitution at the time of ratification. Constitutional rights are supposed to be understood by common people – not requiring primary education, plus a 4-year college degree, a 3-year law degree and years of professional experience interpreting case-law to understand your pre-existing rights that areprotected by the Constitution. Obtuse lawyers, analysts and so-called ‘pundits’ seem to miss the forest for the trees. There’s a reason for this: they look at what a particular case actually ruled on, and the Supreme Court only ruled on a very specific question – ‘is a law that prohibits gun possession in one’s home constitutional?’. The Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v Heller that it is not constitutional. Ergo, some short-sighted commentators take that to mean that the Court has “been silent” on the question of whether gun possession outside of the home is protected under the Second Amendment.

Not so fast.

The Court provided in-depth reasoning as to why the law was invalid, defining every one of the 27 words that comprise the Second Amendment, explaining the words meaning at the time of ratification, the legal history of the right to keep and bear arm from England to Colonial America, and how it was viewed after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution through the post-Civil War era. From this thorough examination, we can clearly see the absurdity of the supposition that the Second Amendment only means you can keep a gun in your home because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller. At no point in Heller did the Court say the Second Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in the home. Let’s look at what the Court did say:

“Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” (Syllabus, page 1).

Notice it says “for lawful purposes”, plural, and then says “such as self-defense within the home”. This means that self-defense within the home is one of several lawful purposes, not the sole lawful purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms is protected. Further, the Court explicitly mentions several other lawful purposes in Heller.

Though the Court says the Second Amendment is not dependent upon service in a militia or military unit (p.11-12), it is also clear that militia service is a protected lawful purpose. To be clear, this does not mean the National Guard, which didn’t exist as we know it today didn’t until 1903. The Court clearly states in Heller that the militia were (and still are under Federal law) all able-bodied males (p.23). It should be obvious that militia perform its duties outside of the home.

Hunting is a specifically mentioned lawful purpose in Heller: “most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting” (p. 26). Hunting, in virtually all cases, means outside of the home. One could not take seriously the idea that hunting is only lawful inside ones home. There is no suggestion in Heller that the Court implied this, only that D.C.’s unconstitutional law violated one of the Second Amendment’s lawful purposes.

The Court notes an additional three lawful protected purposes in discussing the meaning of the phrase ‘the security of a free state’, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection and resisting tyranny: “it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections… when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny” (p.24-25). All listed lawfully protected purposes logically must involve citizens outside their home; repelling a foreign invader could not be done solely within one’s home, nor could suppressing an insurrection, or resisting government tyranny.

An objector may reason that these purposes aren’t necessities in the way they may have been at the time ratification. This is irrelevant, as the Court states: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad” (p.63). At the time of adoption, this is how the right was understood and all are lawful purposes regardless of whether future generations would exercise the lawful purpose later. The fact remains they are lawful purposes, require the people to be outside of their homes, and therefore demonstrate the idea that the Second Amendment’s lawfully protects guns outside of the home by necessity.

We see from Heller itself that the Court lists multiple lawful purposes in plurality, not restricting the Second Amendment to a singular lawful purpose. The Court explicitly details at least five purposes that involve or require activity outside of the home. Therefore we can easily conclude the suggestion that the Court has – or could – rule that the only lawful purpose is gun possession for self-defense within a home is absurd, defying logic and reason as well as the explicitly written letter of the ruling.

Be sure to check out part two of this series as we continue to look at why the Second Amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms outside of the home.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication November 22, 2013).

The Second Amendment Right Extends Outside The Home, Pt 1

by Matt MacBradaigh | Nov 22, 2013 | 2nd Amendment Facts | 5 comments

The Second Amendment right is not limited to one’s home. Some observers speculate that the right to keep and bear arms might mean inside one’s home only. However the landmark Supreme Court case, D.C. v  Heller clearly demonstrates this assumption is incorrect and the Second Amendment extends out of the home.

Restricting gun possession outside of the home is clear violation of the Second Amendment and intent of the protected right to keep and bear arms guaranteed in the Constitution at the time of ratification. Constitutional rights are supposed to be understood by common people – not requiring primary education, plus a 4-year college degree, a 3-year law degree, and years of professional experience interpreting case-law to understand your pre-existing rights that are protected by the Constitution. Obtuse lawyers, analysts and so-called ‘pundits’ seem to miss the forest for the trees. There’s a reason for this: they look at what a particular case actually ruled on, and the Supreme Court only ruled on a very specific question – ‘is a law that prohibits gun possession in one’s home constitutional?’. The Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v Heller that it is not constitutional. Ergo, some short-sighted commentators take that to mean that the Court has “been silent” on the question of whether gun possession outside of the home is protected under the Second Amendment.

Not so fast.

The Court provided in-depth reasoning as to why the law was invalid, defining every one of the 27 words that comprise the Second Amendment, explaining the words meaning at the time of ratification, the legal history of the right to keep and bear arm from England to Colonial America, and how it was viewed after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution through the post-Civil War era. From this thorough examination, we can clearly see the absurdity of the supposition that the Second Amendment only means you can keep a gun in your home because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller. At no point in Heller did the Court say the Second Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in the home. Let’s look at what the Court did say:

“Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” (Syllabus, page 1).

Notice it says “for lawful purposes” – plural – and then says “such as self-defense within the home”. This means that self-defense within the home is one of several lawful purposes, not the sole lawful purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms is protected. Further, the Court explicitly mentions several other lawful purposes in Heller.

Though the Court says the Second Amendment is not dependent upon service in a militia or military unit (p.11-12), it is also clear that militia service is a protected lawful purpose. To be clear, this does not mean the National Guard, which didn’t exist as we know it today didn’t until 1903. The Court clearly states in Heller that the militia were (and still are under Federal law) all able-bodied males (p.23). It should be obvious that militia perform its duties outside of the home.

Hunting is a specifically mentioned lawful purpose in Heller: “most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting” (p. 26). Hunting, in virtually all cases, means outside of the home. One could not take seriously the idea that hunting is only lawful inside ones home. There is no suggestion in Heller that the Court implied this, only that D.C.’s unconstitutional law violated one of the Second Amendment’s lawful purposes.

The Court notes an additional three lawful protected purposes in discussing the meaning of the phrase ‘the security of a free state’, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection and resisting tyranny: “it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections… when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny” (p.24-25). All listed lawfully protected purposes logically must involve citizens outside their home; repelling a foreign invader could not be done solely within one’s home, nor could suppressing an insurrection, or resisting government tyranny.

An objector may reason that these purposes aren’t necessities in the way they may have been at the time ratification. This is irrelevant, as the Court states: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad” (p.63). At the time of adoption, this is how the right was understood and all are lawful purposes regardless of whether future generations would exercise the lawful purpose later. The fact remains they are lawful purposes, require the people to be outside of their homes, and therefore demonstrate the idea that the Second Amendment’s lawfully protects guns outside of the home by necessity.

We see from Heller itself that the Court lists multiple lawful purposes in plurality, not restricting the Second Amendment to a singular lawful purpose. The Court explicitly details at least five purposes that involve or require activity outside of the home. Therefore we can easily conclude the suggestion that the Court has ruled – or could rule – that the only lawful purpose is gun possession for self-defense within a home, is absurd, defying logic and reason as well as the explicit written letter of the ruling.

Be sure to check out part two of this series as we continue to look at why the Second Amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms outside of the home.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Nov 22, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Guns and Starbucks: Why The Sort-Of Updated Policy Is A Loser

Guns and Starbucks: Starbucks unwillingly finds itself in the midst of the gun control debate, sort-of, kinda changes its corporate mind, and everyone comes out a loser. Why the half-hearted change is a bad idea.

Starbucks unwillingly finds itself in the midst of the gun control debate. Anti-gun groups (like Moms Demand Action (MDA) most recently) have been petitioning Starbucks for years to change their official policy. These anti-gun organizations initially targeted Starbucks for “refusing” to change their policy to suit their demands and hosting “Skip Starbucks” days. In response, gun rights advocates have rallied to Starbucks, sensing – perhaps incorrectly – an ally of sorts for not changing their policy. Gun rights advocates held “Starbucks Appreciation Days” in contrast to ant-gunners boycott days. These have included activists in the open carry movement. Starbucks has now sort-of shifted, however.

CEO Howard Schultz’s recent announcement amounts to a sort-of change. Previously, Starbucks official position is to abide by the laws in each state operate stores – so whether a state allows or prohibits open carry of firearms, Starbucks abides by that. The updated announcement is only arequest: openly carrying guns is not wanted. But here’s where Starbucks wimps out: the letter states it’s not a ban, and they indicate employees (called “partners”) will not ask customers to leave. The company doesn’t want to potentially put partners in harm’s way. A new employee memo states to dial 911 if someone is “disruptive”, but to otherwise serve all customers normally, even if openly carrying a gun. The end result is unclear in terms of policy, while politically they’ve pandered and caved based on bullying, and ultimately Starbucks decision is a mistake. Heres why:

The Political CalculusStarbucks half-hearted change doesn’t really satisfy anyone. MDA is, of course, claiming a victory. They are a very new player as an official organization (but well-funded by old players, and by no means a honest-to-goodness “grassroots” movement). It makes them seem more legitimate if they make it seem they’ve won. But they aren’t getting what they petitioned for. They wanted a complete gun banand they didn’t get it; only a request to not openly carry firearms. The vast majority of gun owners carry concealed via a carry concealed weapons permit (CCW) through their state of residence. Starbucks new memo doesn’t target CCW, and by nature of concealed carrying, it couldn’t feasibly do so. So while MDA members may gloat to themselves the next time they deign to visit Starbucks (presuming they are no longer boycotting), they may well be sitting next to a gun-toting person legally carrying a concealed firearm.

But it is a partial victory, of sorts. MDA bullied Starbucks, including harassing their partners and customers, and sort-of got some of what they wanted. The open carry activists felt they supported a company who they saw as supporting them, and now feel betrayed. But the open carry movement is a relatively small percentage of gun owners, and even those that carry handguns in public. So gun rights activists can also claim partial victory – though pressured, Starbucks still hasn’t actually banned guns.

Why the Policy is a MistakeThere are at least three major reasons why the change is a safety mistake. First, most mass shootings occur in designated “gun-free” zones – or areas where guns are prohibited. This was the case for Virginia Tech, Columbine, the Aurora Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook elementary, and most recently at the Washington Naval Yard. Consider also that there have already been shootings in other coffee shops, including the murder of four police officers in a Seattle metro area coffee shop. Starbucks may have just inadvertently advertised to future mass shooters that their location is a good choice for unarmed, defenseless victims.

Second, the law-abiding as a rule, are never the problem. So ordinary, non-criminal, law-abiding adults frequenting Starbucks with a handgun are not a safety threat. This is considered an axiom by criminologists as 90% of adult murderers have adult criminal records and multiple previous contacts with the justice system. Professors Kates and Mauser examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations as well as the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy published study “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide.” They conclude that higher gun restrictions are consistently associated with higher levels of violent crime and homicide and low gun restrictions are associated with lower levels of violent crime and less murder, noting “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long-term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673). They further state that policy intended to people safe by preventing gun possession is useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so.

Third, “disarming [ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults] becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added). According to the professors, widespread gun possession in the U.S. actually decreases crime. Therefore, possession of guns at Starbucks may well reduce potential for violent crime there. Adopting a policy that limits the law-abiding from bringing guns into stores won’t improve anyone’s safety, but instead only limits honest people from being able to exercise their natural right to self-defense. This is backed by criminologist research as well as historical, empirical data that shootings tend to occur in areas where guns are prohibited. Having a sign or written policy simply doesn’t prevent a criminal or madman bent on inflicting harm.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication October 3, 2013).

Guns and Starbucks: Everyone Loses… Kind of

by Matt MacBradaigh | Oct 3, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

Guns and Starbucks: Starbucks unwillingly finds itself in the midst of the gun control debate, sort-of, kinda changes its corporate mind, and everyone comes out a loser. Why the half-hearted change is a bad idea.

Starbucks unwillingly finds itself in the midst of the gun control debate. Anti-gun groups – like Moms Demand Action (MDA) most recently – have been petitioning Starbucks for years to change their official policy. These anti-gun organizations initially targeted Starbucks for “refusing” to change their policy to suit their demands and hosting “Skip Starbucks” days. In response, gun rights advocates have rallied to Starbucks, sensing – perhaps incorrectly – an ally of sorts for not changing their policy. Gun rights advocates held “Starbucks Appreciation Days” in contrast to ant-gunners boycott days. These have included activists in the open carry movement. Starbucks has now sort-of shifted, however.

CEO Howard Schultz’s recent announcement amounts to a pretty-please request. Previously, Starbucks official position is to abide by the laws in each state operate stores – so whether a state allows or prohibits open carry of firearms, Starbucks abides by that. The updated announcement is only a request: pretty-please don’t openly carrying guns in our stores. But here’s where Starbucks wimps out: the letter clearly states it’s not a ban. Starbucks  employees (called “partners”) will not even ask customers to leave. The company doesn’t want to potentially put partners in harm’s way. A new employee memo states to dial 911 if someone is “disruptive”, but to otherwise serve all customers normally, even if openly carrying a gun. The end result is no change in terms of official policy.

The political calculus
Moms Demand Action is, of course, claiming a victory. They are a very new player as an official organization (but well-funded by old players, and by no means a honest-to-goodness “grassroots” movement). It makes them seem more legitimate if they make it seem they’ve won. But they patently aren’t getting what they petitioned for. They wanted a complete gun ban – and they didn’t get it; only a request to not openly carry firearms. The vast majority of gun owners carry concealed via a carry concealed weapons permit (CCW) through their state of residence. Starbucks new memo doesn’t target CCW, and by nature of concealed carrying, it couldn’t feasibly do so. So while MDA members may gloat to themselves the next time they deign to visit Starbucks (presuming they are no longer boycotting), they may well be sitting next to a gun-toting person legally carrying a concealed firearm.

But the open carry community didn’t win either. Starbucks did cry uncle because of  MDA’s bully tactics, including harassing Starbucks partners and customers. The open carry activists felt they supported a company who they saw as supporting them, and now feel betrayed. But the open carry movement is a relatively small percentage of gun owners, and even those that carry handguns in public. So everyone kind of loses even though Starbucks still hasn’t actually banned guns.

Why a ban policy is a mistake
There are at least three major reasons why the change is a safety mistake. First, most mass shootings occur in designated “gun-free” zones – or areas where guns are prohibited. This was the case for Virginia Tech, Columbine, the Aurora Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook elementary, and most recently at the Washington Naval Yard. Consider also that there have already been shootings in other coffee shops, including the murder of four police officers in a Seattle metro area coffee shop. Starbucks may have just inadvertently advertised to future mass shooters that their location is a good choice for unarmed, defenseless victims.

Second, the law-abiding as a rule, are never the problem. So ordinary, non-criminal, law-abiding adults frequenting Starbucks with a handgun are not a safety threat. This is considered an axiom by criminologists as 90% of adult murderers have adult criminal records and multiple previous contacts with the justice system. Professors Kates and Mauser examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations as well as the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policystudy. They conclude that higher gun restrictions are consistently associated with higher levels of violent crime and homicide and low gun restrictions are associated with lower levels of violent crime and less murder, noting “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long-term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673). They further state that policy intended to people safe by preventing gun possession is useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so.

Third, “disarming [ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults] becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added). According to the professors, widespread gun possession in the U.S. actually decreases crime. Therefore, possession of guns at Starbucks may well reduce potential for violent crime there. Adopting a policy that limits the law-abiding from bringing guns into stores won’t improve anyone’s safety, but instead only limits honest people from being able to exercise their natural right to self-defense. This is backed by criminologist research as well as historical, empirical data that shootings tend to occur in areas where guns are prohibited. Having a sign or written policy simply doesn’t prevent a criminal or madman bent on inflicting harm.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Oct 3, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Obama’s False Tears For Gun Violence Victims – Betrayed By Innocent Civilians And Children Killed In Drone Strikes

Obama’s false tears for gun violence victims is predictably exploited to push his agenda, which are non-solutions for gun violence; his 400th ordered drone strike – which causes the murder of innocents, including children, betrays their falsehood.

President Obama’s biographer magnanimously says Obama is showing his “soft side”. Conjuring false tears to exploit others in order to push agenda is the less gracious way of putting it. He cried during the Press conference addressing the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. He lent his shoulder to cry on forthe families who lost loved ones at Benghazi. He reprised the role most recently following the Navy Yard shooting. He’s outwardly shows emotion when it suits him.

Obama’s obsession for gun control is also palpably evident, despite the policy proposals being shown to not be actual solutions. He was “visibly angry” when speaking about the failure of background checks earlier this year. Referencing Chicago gun violence over the weekend in which 20 have been shot and five killed since Friday, he urged the Congressional Black Caucus to “keep marching” for gun control. Addressing the families of the Naval Yard shooting, he said gun control “ought to obsess us.” Nevermind that Chicago already has some of the strictest gun controls in the nation – or that that Washington Navy Yard is a gun-free zone as a military installation, located within Washington D.C., effectively a gun-free zone, and the shooter used a shotgun that would have been exempted on the failed so-called “assault weapons ban” Democrats proposed. Ironically, these “solutions” would not solve gun violence. Yet is “saving even one life” really the objective?

 

The same President Obama has ordered an exponential increase in drone strikes; strikes which kill inordinate numbers of civilians over actual terrorists – this includes innocent children. He has just ordered his 400th drone strike. Bush ordered about 50 strikes. Obama has authorized 193 drone strikes in Pakistan alone. According to Global Research, over the past 4 years Obama has authorized attacks in Pakistan which have killed more than 800 innocent civilians and just 22 Al-Qaeda officers, or roughly 36 civilians per terrorist target. A new study fromBureau of Investigative Journalism shows how many children have died in these attacks. In just two countries, Pakistan and Yemen (neither of which the U.S. is at war with), there have been 45 children killed  by drone strikes. In Pakistan, the total children killed, ages 12 and under numbers 27 (2 girls and 25 boys; as young as age 3).  In Yemen, the total children killed, ages 12 and under numbers 18 (13 girls and 5 boys; as young as age 1). Note: Excluded from this number are teenagers, aged 13-19; the Bureau of Investigative Journalism also lists this number.

 The U.S. wasn’t specifically targeting these children for the most part.  The vast majority of these children were killed tragically, as accidental “collateral damage”. How many tears has President Obama shed over this tragedy?

 

Addressing the Navy Yard shooting families he said once again, “Our tears are not enough… If we really want to honor these 12 men and women, if we really want to be a country where we can go to work and go to school and walk our streets free from senseless violence without so many lives being stolen by a bullet from a gun, then we’re going to have to change.” Nothing was mentioned about mental illness, though the shooter “heard voices”, thought he was being followed, and contacted police who, in turn, advised him to steer clear of these imaginary people instead of taking him in for mental health screening.

Addressing the people of Newtown, Obama said:

We gather here in memory of 20 beautiful children…

I am very mindful that mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts…

I can only hope it helps for you to know that you’re not alone in your grief, that our world, too, has been torn apart … we have wept with you. We’ve pulled our children tight… Newtown, you are not alone…

 Imagine if instead of “Newtown”, he had substituted it with “Pakistan”; ‘Pakistan, you are not alone’. Perhaps this line is telling from his address to the parents who lost children at Sandy Hook: Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose? Maybe the qualifier is “this country”.

Like the murder of innocents at the Navy Yard, and the children at Sandy Hook Elementary, the murder of civilian adults and children in drone strikes is illegal. Washington-based human rights and international lawyer, Paul Wolf, states that there is no legal or moral argument to justify drone attacks, since the U.S. isn’t at war with Yemen or Pakistan. The children have not been declared enemy combatants. One wonders how a one-year old could be rightly declared an enemy combatant?  No, it must be concluded that  President Obama sheds tears (or pretends to; seriously, who flicks tears away from the outside of their eyes?) when it is politically expedient to, when he has an agenda (not solutions) to push, and when he doesn’t get what he wants.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication September 24, 2013).