August 16, 2011

A year in jail for guns in car

Filed under: law & crime,personal liberty by Victoria Liberty @ 10:55 pm

Clint Cornelius, 33, was sentenced to a year in jail today. His crime? Parking his car, with guns and ammunition inside, at Mount Holyoke College.

He was initially charged in 2007 with three counts of possession of a firearm without a license, six counts of possession of a large-capacity firearm, and possession of ammunition without a license. A student had seen the guns in the car and, even though they were not hurting anyone and are supposed to be protected by the Second Amendment, decided to alert campus police. The officers then searched his car. He and his lawyer challenged the search and sought the dismissal of the charges because Cornelius,who had recently moved to Massachusetts from Georgia, should have had 60 days to obtain firearms permits, but the Supreme Judicial Court rejected these arguments.

He agreed to plead guilty to the ammunition charge, and his lawyer and the prosecutor agreed to a sentence of one year in jail. The judge said that the sentence “causes me some pain,” and I agree with him. In fact, I would go so far as to say that sentencing Cornelius to jail is an injustice. Nothing that he did was the least bit immoral or violated anyone’s rights. There was no evidence that he planned to use the guns to cause anyone harm. To investigate, prosecute, and imprison him for having guns in his car is an utter waste of law enforcement resources, causes suffering to an innocent man, and benefits no one. Clint Cornelius did nothing wrong and deserves to be free.

July 31, 2011

What’s wrong with the world today…

Filed under: personal liberty by Victoria Liberty @ 2:04 pm

…is opinions like those expressed in this letter to the editor, which appeared in today’s Boston Globe:

“GREGORY BARISON’S letter suggesting that a responsible civilian gunner might have halted the slaughter in Norway is exactly, totally the wrong answer…Norwegian police are not normally armed; they should be to protect the public. Norwegian civilians are not armed and should not be. American civilians should not be armed, either. The credo we should seek to adopt is ‘arm the police, not the public;’ the irresponsible armed public is where the thousands of annual gun deaths in the US come from. Let’s grow up.”

Every statement in this letter is completely wrong. A state where the police are armed and the people are not is a state where the people are powerless to fight back if the government attempts to violate their rights, which, if this hypothetical government is anything like a typical government in today’s world, is a certainty. Additionally, it does not violate the rights of anyone for a person to be armed; therefore, no one has the right to say that other people “should not be armed.” It is each person’s decision whether to be armed or not. Personally, the more civilians that are armed, the safer and more free I would feel.

Also, I dislike when people write or say things like “let’s grow up,” because a person’s beliefs have nothing to do with their age. But if being grown up means calling for one’s own means of self-defense against government aggression to be taken away, I am proud to be childish and immature.

April 11, 2011

Ward Bird is free

Filed under: law & crime by Victoria Liberty @ 8:47 pm

This good news is very late, but better late than never: Ward Bird, the New Hampshire man who was sentenced to three years in jail for waving a gun at a trespasser on his property, is free! On February 2, after 77 days in jail, Governor John Lynch commuted his sentence (the executive council voted to pardon him outright), and he walked out of jail. A party to celebrate his release took place on Saturday.

Read more about his story and ultimate triumph at FreeWardBird.org.

January 19, 2011

Charges dropped in Uzi death

Filed under: law & crime by Victoria Liberty @ 9:38 pm

In case you missed it, involuntary manslaughter charges were dropped against two defendants in the death of an 8-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself with an Uzi at a gun show. Domenico Spano and Carl Giuffre were only involved in the death to the extent that they brought the machine guns to the show. The organizer of the gun show, Edward Fleury, was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter on Friday for the same incident.

“‘As a result, the Commonwealth does not believe further prosecution is in the interests of justice,’ Bennett wrote in the two motions. He said that Spano and Giuffre’s conduct was similar to Fleury’s.”

I’m glad that these three guys won’t have to suffer any more than they already have for something that truly wasn’t their fault.

Read the rest at the Globe.

January 14, 2011

Gun show organizer not guilty of manslaughter

Filed under: law & crime by Victoria Liberty @ 10:47 pm

Former police chief Edward Fleury was found not guilty in the death of an 8-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself with an Uzi machine gun. Fleury’s role in the death? He was the organizer of the gun show where the tragic accident took place.

Fleury was charged with involuntary manslaughter and three counts of furnishing a machine gun to a minor and was on trial the past few weeks in Hampden Superior Court in Springfield, Massachusetts. He was acquitted of everything.

I think this is the right verdict. Fleury owned the firearms training company that co-sponsored the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo. At the event, some children were allowed to fire machine guns under the supervision of a 15-year-old firing range officer who did not have a gun license. But Fleury did not personally give any guns to the boy, Christopher Bizilj. I’m not even sure if he personally decided that kids would be allowed to use Uzis at the show. Of course, it’s tragic that Christopher died, but it isn’t right to search for someone – anyone – to blame when it is truly not anyone’s fault. Firing a machine gun always has risks – as do basically all actions – and it is impossible to completely eliminate the possibility of deaths like Christopher’s. Nor, if we want a free society, should we try to.

The two people who brought machine guns to the show are also facing manslaughter charges, but there is a chance the charges will be dropped.

Tucson shootings: stupid laws alert

Filed under: personal liberty by Victoria Liberty @ 11:13 am

As happens with most tragedies, many people are scrambling, in the wake of the Tucson shooting, to pass laws that violate everyone’s rights with the aim of preventing a similar tragedy from ever happening again.

Here’s a rundown of some of the stupid, wrong laws that people are trying to pass (or already have):

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is planning to introduce a bill banning anyone from carrying a gun within 1000 feet of the president, vice-president, Congressmen, or federal judges. Hopefully the real Republicans in the newly Republican-dominated Congress will dispose of this bill as it deserves.

Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA) will introduce a bill banning people from using “language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.” This would include Sarah Palin’s graphic “targeting” the districts of 20 members of Congress to focus on in the election. Ken Paulson of the First Amendment Center explains why this is wrong (not that it needs any explanation).

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) are trying to ban high-capacity ammo clips.

Arizona’s state legislature passed, and Governor Jan Brewer singed, a bill banning protests within 300 feet of a funeral. This, of course, was a response to the Westboro Baptist’s Church plan to protest at the funeral of 9-year-old shooting victim Christina Green. Although this law isn’t as wrong as the previous three, and I am no fan of the WBC, I think that people should have the legal right to protest no matter how wrong their opinions are.

But there is one good bill that has been drafted as a result of the shootings. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is working to allow members of Congress to carry guns in the Capitol and on the House floor. I am completely in favor of this. Since having a gun, in itself, does not hurt anyone or violate anyone’s rights, people, including Congressmen, should be allowed to have guns wherever they want.

January 13, 2011

Gun control and the Tucson shootings

Filed under: personal liberty by Victoria Liberty @ 8:05 am

Flingues-p1030097
Not surprisingly, many people have been calling for increased gun restrictions since Jared Lee Loughner allegedly used a Glock to kill 6 people and attempt to kill Representative Gabby Giffords on Saturday. Sadly, lots of people seem to have the philosophy that whenever something bad happens, everything whose existence enabled the bad thing to happen should subsequently be banned. I completely disagree with this philosophy, and I will address some of its proponents point by point.

Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

Harold Evans at the Daily Beast calls this a “routine bromide…chanted by ditto heads” and “a cowardly way of evading responsibility.” He claims that “Guns kill people. A single gun can kill a lot of them in seconds.”

Really, Mr. Evans? Have you ever seen a gun get up and decide to kill someone?

Evans writes that if Loughner had not been able to acquire a gun and a large magazine, he would not have been able to kill 6 people and wound 13. Gail Collins at the New York Times criticizes Arizona for allowing people to carry guns in a holster under their armpit and points out that if Loughner had had a pistol and not a Glock, he may have shot Rep. Giffords but not so many bystanders. And Drew Western at the Huffington Post calls it “surreal and shameful” that people are allowed to have guns near elected officials (and calls such people “gun-toting bullies”).

I’ll admit, for the purpose of this argument, that if guns were banned (or Glocks, or high-capacity clips, or guns near elected officials), shootings like Saturday’s would be less likely to occur. But that is no reason to ban guns (or Glocks, or high-capacity clips, or guns near elected officials). It is simply wrong to claim that if a tragedy wouldn’t have happened but for X, then X should be banned. What should be banned are all and only the things that violate people’s rights. Carrying a gun under your armpit doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. Neither does owning a Glock or a high-capacity clip or bringing a gun near a public official. Shooting innocent people, however, does violate their rights. And that is rightfully banned.

In an editorial, the New York Times writes that high-capacity clips “serve absolutely no legitimate purpose outside of military or law enforcement use.”  And Sam Stein at HuffPo begins his article with the question, “Is there a good reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun?”

This mentality is simply wrong. People should not have to provide a good reason in order to be able to do something. As I’ve written numerous times, people have a right to do anything that does not violate the rights of others, no matter how pointless it may seem. The government should have to provide a good reason to ban something, not the other way around.

“Having won a Supreme Court ruling establishing a right to keep a firearm in the home,” writes the Times, “the gun lobby is striving for new heights of lunacy, waging a campaign to legalize the possession of a gun in schools, bars, parks, offices, and churches, even by teenagers.”

Allowing people to do things that, in themselves, hurt no one and violate no one’s rights - what lunacy!

And a final point: Evans thinks that politicians have refrained from banning assault weapons merely because they are “scared of the NRA.” Collins writes that Congress “did not have the guts” and are “afraid of the NRA.” And Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) is quoted as saying, “Everybody is petrified of the NRA.”

Notice a theme here? Please do not assume that people who disagree with you are motivated solely by fear. You might disagree with Congress’s failure to ban assault weapons, but at least admit the possibility that they just might, well, think that assault weapons shouldn’t be banned.

Harold Evans dares his opponents to “tell the Arizona shooting victims that guns don’t kill.” Well, to Rep. Giffords and the other 12 people who were wounded, and to the souls of Judge John Roll, Christina Green, Gabe Zimmerman, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwin Stoddard, and Dorothy Morris, I say, guns don’t kill. People have a fundamental right to purchase any kind of gun or ammunition they want, and carry it anywhere they want. It was unjust and tragic that you were wounded or lost your life. The blame for that rests solely on the person who decided to shoot you. The answer to this tragedy is to punish that person, not to punish everyone by taking our freedom away.

Previous PageNext Page