Written by Spencer Aland


Last week a New Jersey Court ruled that Americans do not have the right to own handguns. Even with the Supreme Court ruling of D.C. v. Heller the New Jersey court stated that the ruling “has no impact upon the constitutionality of” the state law. If you ask me, it sounds a lot like they don’t want to follow the Supreme Court ruling ‘just because’.


I have said this before but perhaps its needs to be said again: You cannot defend one set of rights and argue against another without being hypocritical. The court in New Jersey was so determined on ruling against gun rights that they didn’t care about other rulings or even about the very right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is just astounding how this same court can reverse a very large eminent domain case upholding an individual’s right to property and then shortly after rule that we have no right to protect our property.


This case highlights again how important next year’s hearing in the Supreme Court will be when they review McDonald v. Chicago challenging Chicago’s restrictive gun laws. If the Court rules in favor of gun rights again then these types of selective-rights trampling may finally come to an end.

Written by Spencer Aland


The city of Seattle is being sued over a recent mayoral ban on all guns in publicly owned lands or buildings. The mayor of Seattle, Greg Nickels, signed the new law even though Washington state law strictly prohibits any city or town from drawing up their own firearm laws. According to the existing state law, all cities are required to follow state law only without any additional restrictions. The law has no exceptions for individuals that have passed background checks or have legal conceal and carry permits. The mayor has even gone as far as to use tax payers’ money to post signs and media adds encouraging residents to call 911 if they suspect one of their fellow citizens is armed.


What I find most concerning about this situation is the fact that this is little more than a publicity stunt by a man who hates guns. There have been multiple cities that have attempted similar laws and they have all been defeated in court, and have been defeated very quickly and decisively – San Francisco being a prime example. Mayor Nickels knew very well that this law would be challenged and would be defeated and yet he still signed the law. Although I disagree with many people and groups, it is a fundamental right for them to be able to stand up for what they believe in – even if they will ultimately fail in their efforts. The problem I have with this situation is that the mayor is using his office, and tax payer money, to make a demonstration. It is wrong for a public official to squander away his duties as mayor in an attempt to picket gun rights. Greg Nickels can protest on his own time and his own money.

Written by Spencer Aland



The second amendment states:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

There are many today that believe this amendment was drafted specifically, and only, for the purpose of having a ‘well regulated militia’. This is false. In fact the history of the 2nd amendment is very unique among the original ten. When James Madison wrote what would eventually become the Bill of Rights he proposed nine amendments to the constitution to appease the anti-federalist who were concerned about too much power being given to the federal government and not enough rights protected for the people. The second amendment was originally contained within the fourth amendment, and was written as:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

This is obviously a very clear statement leaving no open interpretation as to whether the right to bear arms is tied to militia service. In the end, after many changes and debates, the section on the right to bear arms was removed from the fourth amendment and given its own place as the second. In fact, the right to bear arms was already so important to individuals that prior to the ratifying of the new Constitution all of the previous state constitutions under the Articles of Confederation had already guaranteed gun rights within their texts.


We are lucky that the current Supreme Court understands the true meaning of the 2nd amendment as they stated in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller:

“The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s 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.”

We can only hope that the court will rule in favor of the right to bear arms when it hears a potentially more important case next year out of Chicago.

Written by Spencer Aland


A new California law has been passed and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger that creates a new ammunition registry. I guess if you can’t take away gun rights you can try to take away ammunition. The law will not only require specific ID information and records kept by both the supplier and purchaser, but also the right thumb print of the customer. I have to agree with the Gun Owners of California when they said, “[this bill] creates a liberal feel-good logbook that will do nothing to stop crime.”


If we think that the black market for guns is bad because of overbearing gun control then just wait for the ammunition market. The biggest problem with the program is that it is a classic slippery slope. There are thousands of people that are reloading enthusiasts and don’t purchase ammunition. Will the government require them to keep records of every bullet they reload, or will they ban reloading? Any criminal with half a brain can reload any caliber of ammunition. When will it be justified to force shooters to record each bullet they shoot and maybe we should engrave the initials of each buyer into the bullets while we’re at it. My point is that the line gets more and more blurred every time we allow another unnecessary law like this.


I understand that the government wants to deter criminals from using weapons, and they think that if ammunition is harder to buy then maybe they will not use them. But the logic doesn’t follow. In economic terms we would say that the market for ammunition has a high elasticity of demand, meaning that it very easy for customers to switch between markets. Reloading is not difficult, and traveling across state lines is too easy. Simply put, the ways to get around the rules are far too easy for this law to have any affect on anyone other than law abiding citizens.

Written by Spencer Aland


Many gun control advocates generally cite the relatively low murder rates in European countries as proof of the benefits of strict gun control. Of course those people either don’t know about Switzerland or suspiciously leave them out of the conversation. Why? Because Switzerland has the most liberal gun laws in the entire developed world – radically far more liberal than those of the United States. In fact, gun ownership is compulsory under Swiss law. Not only is every capable adult required to own a firearm, but most own automatic weapons as well. There are also more people per capita that own handguns than any other developed country.


One of the most common myths about gun politics in Switzerland is that the only reason for liberal gun laws is because of the need for a civilian militia. While this is a contributing factor, sport shooting is among the most popular sports, and is subsidized by the government for both adult and youth leagues. Switzerland also hosts the world’s largest sports shooting tournament in the world, the annual Feldschiessen weekend. The reality is that guns laws are very liberal in both  ownership and the sale of firearms, meaning that the need for a militia is one of many reasons for liberal gun laws since militia guns are government issued and cannot be purchased.


Guns are a part of culture and everyday life in Switzerland, and they have been successfully able to enjoy low crime and a high quality of life. Low crime and murder rates are a result of massively increased risks to criminal behavior. Also, because guns are widely available, the illegal gun trade is almost non-existent since profits are minimal at best. I’m not advocating that everyone should be forced to exercise their right to bear arms, but I do think we should take a long hard look at what Switzerland is doing right, and what we can change to protect our rights while simultaneously reducing crime.

Written by Spencer Aland

The problem with gun control is not that it doesn’t reduce gun crime; the real problem is that gun control is completely misguided and failing in its efforts. Making guns harder to purchase only causes difficulties for people that purchase guns legitimately. Apart from ensuring that customers do not have a criminal record, gun control ceases to be useful. Although this is a common argument for gun rights, I want to take it a step further and actually prove how foolish gun control really is by taking an unbiased, statistically based approach to gun crime in general.


Gun control advocates often use statistics showing that the United States ranks very high in the world in regards to gun related crimes and homicide – these statistics are true. I make no claim that gun crime in the US is not a problem; gun crime is a big problem in America, but gun control is not the answer. The reason why gun control does not help the situation is because of the people whom it targets and the crimes it actually reduces. As I stated, I am in favor of ensuring that anyone with a prior criminal conviction not be allowed the right to bear arms. Performing a simple criminal background check is easy and not time consuming, but most gun control measures go far beyond this simple check. Gun control is admittedly aimed at preventing first-time offender gun crime. This is because repeat offenders would have to purchase guns illegally, and would therefore bypass gun control measures. The problem is that according to the Department of Justice over two-thirds of all gun crime is committed by repeat offenders. And in addition, over 67% of all murderers involving a firearm also had previous convictions.


Here is where the statistics prove that gun control is misguided. As of 2000, the US ranked highest among industrialized nations for firearm homicide with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000. The total number of firearms homicides was around 8,380 according to the United Nations crime and drugs survey. Given that 67% of those gun homicides were committed by individuals with previous criminal offenses, only about 2,766 of those homicides were committed by first-time offenders. Therefore, gun-control measures were only aimed at preventing less than a third of gun homicides and total gun related crime. If you subtract repeat offenders from the statistics and count only first-time offenders the gun related homicide rate in the US falls from 2.97 to .02 per 100,000 – making it the lowest among every country in the world. I don’t believe that the government can stop all illegal gun sales, but this does prove the important point that first-time offender gun crime is not a crisis in America. First-time offenders do however get a lot of press. The real problem in America is keeping guns out of the hands of repeat offenders and persons with criminal backgrounds. Gun control does virtually nothing to battle this real problem.


Perhaps a bigger problem is that this is not an area were individual rights need to be restricted in order to preserve order or public protection. We often hear that occasionally rights need to be bridled to ensure public safety, and while this may be true at times, gun crime is not one of them. It is absolutely unnecessary for law abiding citizens to sacrifice to any degree their second amendment rights in order to reduce gun crime substantially in America. Gun control is largely misguided and is sacrificing individual liberties in vain. The battle against gun crime cannot be won if the government continues to brand everyone with a gun ‘the enemy’.

Written by Spencer Aland


Want to know when guns are a bad thing? When the police walk down your street with submachine guns and you don’t don’t even have the right to own a .22 rifle. Sound like a dictatorship or communist state? Try the United Kingdom.


For the first time ever British Police Officers will conduct permanent patrols through the streets with fully automatic submachine guns. The measure is supposed to help areas where gang violence levels are on the rise, but does it really take submachine gun wielding cops to lower crime? How much does it take for British citizens to finally realize that the government is taking control of their lives? How long will it take before the police institute a curfew in those areas, and police patrols like these become a regular occurrence in all of London? This measure taken by the British government should not be tolerated and is severely damaging to the already frail social freedoms that Britains are allowed.


These patrols are supposed to be a means of reducing gang violence and illegal gun sales, and according to the police are ‘intended to be a reassuring presence for residents’. However, I can think of very few things more intimidating than seeing uniformed police walking down my street with submachine guns. I know that there must be line somewhere between policing and state control, but the government has blurred that line to the point that citizens don’t notice anymore. I personally feel that individuals should have the right to bear arms, and I didn’t think it could get any worse than denying individuals this right. I was wrong. The only thing worse is to send out permanent patrols armed with military grade weapons after taking away everyone else’s guns.


All steps toward state control start with good intentions. At some point people need to stand up and declare that good intentions are not enough to justify denying personal freedoms.

Written by Spencer Aland


Does the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution give individuals the right to bear arms? If you answered yes to this question then you are absolutely wrong. The same is true about the 1st amendment, it does not grant individuals the right to freedom of religion, press, etc. The Bill of Rights does not grant individuals any rights, but instead it acknowledges the pre-existence of rights and then prohibits government from infringing upon them.


The constitution is unique in the world because of this characteristic. It believes that people are naturally endowed with certain rights that cannot be given to them and should not be taken away. The 2nd amendment is representative of the right to self defense. A free man can never truly be free unless he has the right to defend himself and his other rights.


There are many advocate groups who refer to the old adage, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” in defense of many obscene and outlandish behaviors from individuals; yet I never hear any of these groups mutter something like “I believe guns kill people, but I will defend to the death your right to own them.” Why are so many groups and people so selective over which amendments they choose to support? Is it possible to defend the 1st amendment and argue against the 2nd without being hypocritical? I believe that the rights recognized within the Bill of Rights are natural and not granted to us. I also believe that natural rights do not go away in time or change because of circumstance. If the individual loses his or her natural rights then the individual within society will cease to be important. Taking away one right will inevitably lead to the taking away of many.

Written by Spencer Aland


It is obviously in the best interest of both government and citizens to stop crime and to reduce the number of criminals carrying weapons. However, the government has taken aim at its own citizens more often than targeting those who would use weapons for harm. In today’s world the politics of preventing crime has moved far from actually preventing it. Police forces and politicians alike want to be seen doing rather than actually accomplishing anything, and law abiding citizens are an easy target.


Gun control to a small degree is necessary; we don’t want criminals to walk in a buy a gun without question. But, apart from assuring that purchasers are not criminals gun control does little else other than restrict law abiding citizens. Gun control does not prevent criminal activity because it applies only to those that are following the laws and rules it establishes. Offenders are already disobeying the law and making a new law will not change their behavior. It is as if a burglar continuously breaks into your home through the windows, and in response you add a new lock to your door.


It seems as if the government believes that its citizens want crime and want criminals to have access to guns. We don’t; but we need the government to realize that we can be an ally against gun crime. Police need to crack down on black market trade and distribution rather than legitimate transactions. The fear of immediate retaliation from the victim will also serve as a large deterrence against gun crime on the part of regular citizens. Not everyone needs to carry a gun, but if a criminal knows that the possibly is relatively high, the risks of crime increase and supply will therefore decrease.

Under the 10th amendment any rights not directly granted to the federal government within the Constitution will fall under the authority of the states. However, the federal government has used the commerce clause to extend their authority to any and all things that “might” cross state lines, including firearms. Federal regulators have until now been able to force states to abide by specific gun control laws under these circumstances.


Montana has finally said that it will not follow federal gun control laws anymore. Montana now has a plan to label their firearms ‘made in Montana’ and they will only be for people in Montana. Since the firearms will not be distributed across state lines the people in Montana will finally be able to enjoy the full benefits of the 2nd Amendment.