Originally posted from 04-25-04 to 05-02-04
Damned if You Do, Dead if You Don't
by Lady Liberty

Last week, an Illinois state legislator almost single-handedly put the brakes on legislation that would have allowed Illinois residents to defend themselves with a firearm without fear of punishment, even if that firearm were prohibited by local ordinance. Never mind that any law that disallows self-defense in the first place is both unconstitutional and immoral. At least there was some effort to right an obvious wrong in Illinois. But this legislator, claiming he feared the ubiquitous "loophole," has demanded more study before the matter can be considered.

The bill was originally written in response to a Wilmette, Illinois incident in which a local man defended himself and his young family with a handgun against a burglar who had repeatedly broken into his home. But because his firearms registration card had expired, and because handguns are verboten in Wilmette, he was charged with crimes himself. Although Cook County eventually dropped the registration charges, the city of Wilmette refused to drop its own case. Wilmette's police chief put his nose in the air and sniffed that people should lock the door of the room they're in and dial 9-1-1 instead of taking matters into their own hands. He can afford to talk like that; he's allowed to have a gun in his home.

In another recent incident in Illinois, a man is being charged in connection with a fatal shooting there. But he's not being charged with murder, or even manslaughter. No, the police have ruled that he shot in self defense. But they're charging him with weapons violations, anyway.

An April 9 report from WXYZ-TV in Detroit, Michigan (which has already been removed from the station's web site) detailed the matter of a homeowner who, after his daughter and entire family was repeatedly threatened, finally shot and killed the harasser as he attempted to gain entry to the family home. I grant you that the police can't arrest the real criminal here seeing as how he's dead and all, but that's no excuse for them to have arrested the homeowner - which, of course, is just what they did.

Some proved sympathetic last year when a New Yorker - a law-abiding ex-Navy man and young father - shot a burglar with a legally owned handgun. But because that handgun was not yet registered in New York (the man had only recently relocated there and was actually in the process of getting the registration handled), he was charged with a crime and prosecutors were adamant he serve actual jail time accordingly. A magazine article published at the time said that New York was effectively outlawing self defense, and that reporter wasn't wrong with his assessment.

That various and sundry government entities work to make self defense illegal - or legal only under extremely constrained circumstances - is not a real surprise. It seems that, along with keeping the potholes filled (does government actually do that successfully anywhere?) and the military in $600 toilet seats (which probably need regular replacement after being smashed by accidentally dropped $200 hammers), the government has also come to consider it an obligation to infringe on liberty. Unfortunately, the latter is one of the few things that politicians and bureaucrats seem very good at indeed.

No, the real surprise is found in the utter lack of public outcry against incidents in which the guilty are handed their rights on a silver platter (to be fair, they do have rights and they should get them), while the innocent are actually stripped of rights by virtue of the very charges against them. Although some local citizens did offer support to the man at the center of the Wilmette, Illinois case, the vast majority did not. And while there was even a brief Internet campaign to raise defense funds for the young New Yorker (he eventually pleaded his case for minimal jail time and no felony record), few spoke out against the zealous prosecutor or the bad law he insisted on enforcing to its fullest.

Worst of all, it seems more and more obvious that none of these cases are really isolated. Authorities far beyond the borders of New York City, and on a truly appalling scale, are working to make realistic self defense all but impossible by making the most effective means of self-defense illegal. Consider:

Most states do permit residents to carry a firearm, but only if they jump through precisely the right hoops and register their personal data - including fingerprints - with authorities. Criminals are treated no differently when they're processed through the system and data - including fingerprints - are taken and entered into databases. But those criminals have already proved they can't be trusted. What did law abiding citizens do to earn such distrust from officialdom?

Merely being trained and licensed isn't enough if you're found to have a firearm in some other state. A New Hampshire man - Jeffrey Jordan - is facing felony charges in the state of Ohio for having a loaded handgun on his person, discovered during a traffic stop. Jordan, who is highly trained and licensed to carry concealed in more than one state, was alone on a long road trip where some caution on his part was justified (remember, too, that an Ohio freeway shooter was yet at large at the time). Yet Jordan has now lost his job (firearms are so unpopular that apparently one can now be fired prior to any conviction merely because the charges involve guns), and he stands to lose his freedom.

Even if you own a legal firearm and shoot an intruder in your own home, there's no guarantee that, despite the fact your actions were justified and your conscience clear, the authorities won't charge you with a crime anyway. And woe to you if you own a gun and are forced to use it in one of those places where even mere ownership itself is forbidden!

The only way to be safe from the regulatory predators is, of course, to divest yourself of all firearms. But then you've made yourself easy prey for those to whom regulations mean nothing and who will, regardless of the law, arm themselves to attack you or someone just like you. You've also quite handily put yourself into the government's hands because only it and its representatives can protect you. It's an unpleasant catch 22, and with none of these alternatives are you offered the least modicum of genuine security.

Perhaps, like some of the men I've mentioned here, you'll choose to risk jail over death (or grievous harm).After all, you've probably heard the saying, "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six." But prison time is only better than death because you'll eventually get out of prison. And in truth, even getting out may not be all that great a deal when you'll have a felony conviction on your record and are thus prohibited from owning a firearm or voting for the rest of your life. And try to get a good job with that mark against you! Consider, too, the plight of poor Tony Martin - the British farmer jailed for murder after protecting himself and his property from a couple of career criminals with his firearm - who has served almost all of his prison time but now faces release under a cloud of threats to his life. And now remember that "carried by six" may be definitive, but that "judged by twelve" offers no guarantees things will work out substantially better for the man or woman in such an unfortunate position

You're not going to believe what I'm going to say next because I'm a firm believer that the Second Amendment is both an unalienable and an individual right, but here it is: Forget the Second Amendment. Consider instead the very foundations of the American Revolution itself wherein the Founding Fathers wrote that we each and every one of us have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And then ask yourself: How can we have a right to our own lives if we're prohibited from any defense? How can we be free if we're imprisoned, either through the unconstitutional and immoral firearms laws that forbid self defense, or because we're barricading ourselves in our homes out of fear for all those things we're not permitted to defend ourselves against? And with fear for our lives and fear of the capricious law, how can any of us be happy?

Once men and women fought for those things - for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's time we stood up and fought for those things again. We must work to repeal each and every law that would interfere with our basic right to protect ourselves. We must protest loudly and en masse when a law abiding citizen is charged under these anti-self defense statutes. We must refuse to convict those American citizens who stand trial in matters like those of the men in Wilmette, Detroit, New York, and Ohio. We need to join a firearms rights group to add our voices to theirs (you don't need to own a firearm to be a member or an activist). Exercise your own Second Amendment rights. Campaign on behalf of those politicians with the respect for humanity that understands self defense is the most basic of human rights. Vote. Work to educate others.

Yes, we may still be damned if we do, particularly if we garner too much attention. It's much easier to make laws than to repeal them, and the powers that be typically aren't fond of seeing their hard work undone. But we will surely be damned - or yes, even dead - if we don't.

Originally posted from 01-11-04 to 01-18-04
Hunter for Justice
by Lady Liberty

Sometimes, big bad things happen that have a profound affect on our civil liberties. The USA PATRIOT Act is an example of such a big bad thing. Other times, little things happen (albeit big to those directly involved) that could also prove to have a significant affect on our rights in the near term. One such small thing is the year-end arrest of Jeffrey Jordan.

Jeff (a longtime freedom advocate known as "The Hunter" to many fellow libertarian-leaning friends and acquaintances) was returning back to his New Hampshire home from a holiday visit to his family in Kansas when Ohio State Troopers pulled him over for speeding. Newspaper reports say that, when a trooper noticed that Jeff had a couple of ammo magazines in a belt holder, he proceeded to conduct a search (despite the fact that those things are perfectly legal, even in the firearms-unfriendly state of Ohio).

It should be noted that Jeff is a concealed carry permit holder in several states. He's knowledgeable and well-trained where firearms are concerned. And he's a staunch advocate of the Second Amendment as well as holding a firm belief that we're all responsible for our own self defense. As a result, Jeff was carrying a pair of loaded guns. While he was well within his rights to do so, he found himself up against Ohio's longtime reluctance to legalize concealed carry in that state. As a result, while merely exercising a basic Constitutional right, he found himself the object of felony weapons charges.

To add insult to injury, the troopers - who, having discovered the handguns, were now most unhappy with Mr. Jordan - got themselves a search warrant for the vehicle Jeff was driving at the time of the traffic stop. They subsequently uncovered what a local television station called an "arsenal" that included knives, swords, a rifle, and about 1,000 rounds of ammunition. They also found something they thought "could be" a "homemade detonator." Police were quoted in a local newspaper article as saying they wanted "to know why" Jeff was carrying all of those weapons. Ohio authorities contacted the police in New Hampshire where Jeff lives, and now they, too, say they are conducting an investigation into him and the fact he (in the words of the police) is "strongly supportive of private gun ownership and critical of government efforts to limit possession of weapons."

Among the published reports are those including a photograph of Jeff looking disheveled and a little shell-shocked (if you'd like to see what Jeff really looks like, take a look at the photo accompanying the reprint of a Letter to the Editor on his behalf). So we now have a man publicly represented as looking a little wild and perhaps disreputable who is accused of having an "arsenal" in his possession as he travels. What we don't have are the stories behind the story, to wit:

  • Jeff not only believes in the Second Amendment, he believes that target shooting is fun. He was carrying the rifle (which was, incidentally, in a locked box in the back of his SUV) for target shooting purposes.
  • Anyone who has ever enjoyed a little target shooting knows that the activity goes through prodigious amounts of ammunition. Does 1,000 rounds sound like a lot to you? It's not to a target shooter.
  • Among the "knives" implied to be weapons were such dangerous objects as a perfectly ordinary "Leatherman"-type tool and pocket knives such as many people carry.
  • The swords are evidence only of Jeff's guilt as an inveterate Lord of the Rings Collector - the swords were fantasy weapons.
  • The "homemade detonator" could have been just about anything except a detonator. Jeff works for the phone company as an installer, and also is an amateur radio operator. He's got all sorts of wires and connectors and gadgets at any given point in time. What he doesn't have is any interest in demolitions.
  • That awful photograph was the perfectly logical result of a man who'd been on the road for 700 miles and didn't take time to comb his hair before being handcuffed and subjected to flash bulbs going off in his face.

So now we have the media coloring Jeff as a very scary guy at the same time we have Ohio's draconian anti-Second Amendment laws being wielded willy nilly (the recent passage of a CCW law in Ohio has no bearing on what Jeff did or didn't do on New Year's Eve). Police have confiscated his firearms, ammunition, knives, and swords (to date, they have returned his vehicle - which is described as having been "trashed" by police - as well as some other personal belongings). Although everything he's been charged with wouldn't have been a crime in New Hampshire where he lives, it remains to be seen what personal and professional fall-out will result from charges in Ohio and an ongoing investigation in both states.

At last word, Jeff's attorneys were going to be fighting the charges on several grounds, not least of which was whether or not the speeding stop and the subsequent search were either warranted or Constitutional. For just a moment, though, let's pretend that they were. Consider under those conditions whether or not Jeff Jordan broke Ohio law, and the answer could very well be yes. But did he do anything wrong? This time, the answer is a clear-cut no.

Everything that Jeff Jordan's case may do to set a positive Second Amendment precedent (such as CCW reciprocity, for example) can be echoed for the Sixth Amendment - and frankly, the entire Bill of Rights - if he ends up in court and faces a jury that takes its full responsibilities seriously. If he has a jury that's cowed by a politically correct judge and prosecution, he faces a tough row to hoe. But if a jury can be seated that understands the entire scope of its task, then we could be looking at the best thing to happen to our civil liberties in a very long time. And that is this: The jury can judge the law even as it judges the defendant. Many judges won't acknowledge that, and some are even puppets enough to prohibit such action, but the jury has all the power and can do just that if it so pleases (to learn more, visit the web site for the Fully Informed Jury Association). Jury nullification is perfect in this case because it's patently obvious that it is not the man, but the law that is in the wrong.

The Liberty Round Table has set aside a portion of its web site to benefit Jeff "Hunter" Jordan, who is one of the Round Table's Knights of Non-Aggression, and who has been honored by the group by being named a "Defender of Freedom". Those who wish to contribute to his legal fund can do so in a variety of ways. At the very least, each and every one of us owes Mr. Jordan some kind of support as a token of our gratitude. After all, at significant risk to himself, he has committed to fighting a case that could result in important benefits for us all. And for those of us who have had the privilege of interacting on some level with Jeff, there's more: he is an inspiration. May we each - whether friends, acquaintances, or strangers with the love of liberty in common - have the courage to live up to the high standard he's set.