by
Marc J. Victor

Recently
by Marc J. Victor: Not
Guilty on 83lbs of Marijuana and Still No Justice

“Firearms
stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the
American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence
… from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events,
occurances and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and
happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the
very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference
– they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” ~ George Washington

I can’t think
of any reason I need to own my AR-15 assault rifle. I don’t pretend
to need it for self defense. I also own several handguns.
Any one of my handguns would be adequate to allow me an opportunity
to defend myself, or another person, from virtually any act of aggression
by another individual. Indeed, I could have easily halted any of
the recent gun based rampages, by any of those deranged lunatics,
with just one of my handguns. I wish I had been there.

I have needlessly
and peacefully owned my AR-15 for many years. I keep my AR-15 securely
locked in a gun safe in the very same home where my young children
live. My children are aware of my AR-15. Like many other things
in life, I have taught my children about guns.

Recently, some
of my kids attended a private gun safety class given by a highly
experienced gun expert. I enjoyed watching my kids learn about my
AR-15. I admit being a bit nostalgic about my AR-15. I spent lots
of time learning about every aspect of the AR-15 when I was in Marine
Corps boot camp at Parris Island, South Carolina. I also carried
an AR-15 when I served my country in Operation Desert Storm in Saudi
Arabia. I had it with me when I lived in a dirt hole on the border
of Kuwait. It is the weapon I know better than any other.

I own lots
of dangerous things I don’t need. I don’t need my highly modified
600+ hp Z06 Corvette, or my Harley Davidson motorcycle, or that
crazy looking knife I sometimes jokingly say was imported directly
from the Klingon Empire. All of these things can be used, intentionally
or accidentally, to hurt others. Because I have always been careful,
peaceful and responsible, none of the things I own have ever been
used to hurt another person.

I am an American.
As such, none of my rights depend on a showing of need. I am a free
man who has the right to define and pursue my happiness in any peaceful
way I see fit. The government does not grant me rights. I was born
free. The legitimate role of government is to act as my agent to
protect my rights; which exist independent of government. Americans
do not beg the government for rights nor are they required to demonstrate
a “need” for rights.

I cherish lots
of my rights for which I can’t demonstrate any need. I don’t need
the right to say highly offensive things to another person. Although
I generally don’t try to offend other people, I cherish my right
to do so. I also cherish, and would aggressively defend, your right
to say highly offensive things to me. Defending the rights of people
to say things most people agree with is entirely unimpressive. Liberty
must always be defended at the edge.

As a criminal
defense attorney, I seek out unpopular clients. When I represented
Elizabeth Johnson in what is sometimes referred to as the “Baby
Gabriel” case, one of the things that attracted me to the idea
of representing her was the fact that she was hugely unpopular.
Defending the right to a fair trial starts with the unpopular client.

Although I
never have anything to hide, I cherish my 4^th Amendment
right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. I would
never consent to a warrantless government search. Opportunities
to defend the 4^th Amendment usually arise in cases where
people are engaging in some type of criminal activity. The cost
of defending our rights in this area sometimes results in dangerous
criminals going free. I frequently advocate for our right to be
free from unreasonable searches and seizures on behalf of people
who think nothing of trespassing on others. Indeed, I always advocate
for the right to refuse searches in cases where there is nothing
to hide. Protecting liberty in hard cases requires the work of the
most committed liberty minded Americans.

Government
never has a more tempting opportunity to increase its size, power
and scope, and to curtail the liberties of free people, than during
or immediately after a crisis. Indeed, crisis is so tempting an
opportunity for government that governments invent crisis whenever
possible. This is why “emergency acts” and “wars”
on anyone and anything are so popular for governments. Nothing entices
people to stop thinking, act impulsively, and to relinquish liberties
so easily as a “crisis” or a “tragedy” or an
“emergency.” We need to be smarter if liberty is to survive.

Our world is
unfortunately filled with real tragedies. The recent school shooting
at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut, orchestrated by a deranged
lunatic with several guns, was one of the worst tragedies I have
seen in my life. However, because of the magnitude of this tragedy,
much like the September 11^th tragedy, it presents an
almost unprecedented opportunity for government to curtail liberty.
Don’t be fooled!

Banning
Guns is Un-American and Immoral

“And
that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress
to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience;
or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable
citizens, from keeping their own arms; …” ~ Samuel Adams

The right to
peacefully own a gun is such an important and fundamental American
concept that it was enshrined in the 2^nd Amendment to
our Constitution. Millions of peaceful Americans own guns for various
reasons; none of which need to be justified to the government or
anyone else. Peaceful people owning guns is not a problem needing
a solution. Countless Americans will peacefully own and even use
their AR-15 weapons today without incident.

Ignoring the
obvious Constitutional problems with simply banning guns, such action
would require immorally initiating force against peaceful people.
People who abhor guns have no right to impose their will on peaceful
gun owners. So long as peaceful gun ownership poses no harm or substantial
risk of harm to others, it ought to be a protected activity like
all other peaceful activities conducted by competent adults.

Attempting
to punish everyone for the acts of one or several deranged lunatics
is immoral. Like most AR-15 owners, my AR-15 ownership has always
been peaceful. Seeking to deprive me of my AR-15 because others
have irresponsibly used theirs is akin to revoking my driver’s license
because others have irresponsibly driven drunk resulting in tragedy.
People need to be held accountable for their own actions, but not
for the actions of others.

The
Idea of Banning Guns is Foolishness

“They
that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~ Ben Franklin

It is estimated
there are approximately 300 million guns in the United States. I
suspect that estimate is conservative. The nature of criminals is
such that they do not comply with the law. As such, we can predict,
with absolute certainty, that the violent criminals who currently
possess guns will not comply with any law requiring them to relinquish
their guns. Additionally, I suspect many peaceful gun owners would
similarly never comply with any law requiring them to relinquish
their guns. As such, any law banning guns would be entirely ineffective
and would actually make matters worse. All peaceful law abiding
gun owners would be disarmed and more vulnerable to violent criminals.

We already
have laws absolutely prohibiting convicted felons from possessing
guns. As a criminal defense attorney, I regularly represent such
people deemed “prohibited possessors” for the crime of
simply possessing guns. Nobody working in the criminal justice system
could seriously assert that laws banning guns for felons have been
successful. A deranged lunatic, named William Spengler, ambushed
and murdered two firemen in upstate New York on December 24, 2012.
He was a “prohibited possessor” who previously served
17 years in prison. The law absolutely banned him from having guns.
He had several. Thankfully, Mr. Spengler terminated his killing
spree by shooting himself after being confronted and engaged by
an off duty armed police officer who happened to be present. There
is no doubt many more would have been murdered had an armed man
not been present.

Even if we
strained our imaginations to think banning guns could result in
abolishing all guns currently in existence, a gun ban would still
be futile. If the failed war on drugs has taught us anything, it
is that making something illegal, when there still exists a demand
for the illegal item, absolutely results in a lucrative black market.
There is no doubt a lucrative, vibrant, and violent black market
in guns will immediately grow to whatever size is necessary to manufacture
and supply violent criminals with guns. Such violent criminals would
be enticed to engage in even more criminal endeavors knowing their
law abiding victims are entirely unable to defend themselves against
such aggressions.

Whether we
like the conclusion or not, like marijuana, guns are here to stay.
The facts of reality are such that bad guys with guns are an unfortunate
fact of life. Our focus should be on how we deal with this fact
rather than wishing the fact was otherwise.

Gun
Regulations Never Reduce Gun Violence and Usually Increase Violent
Crime

“The
constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent
in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times
armed; … “ ~ Thomas Jefferson

I realize it
seems counter-intuitive, but it is true. The same unintended results
occur in many other contexts as well. Just like minimum wage and
rent control laws hurt the poor, banning alcohol results in more
alcohol related problems, raising taxes sometimes results in less
revenue for the government, government spending results in fewer
jobs, banning guns usually increases gun violence and never reduces
it.

The examples
of gun control resulting in increased gun violence are easy to find.
In 1976, after Washington D.C. instituted the toughest gun control
laws in our nation, its murder rate increased dramatically during
a time when the nation’s overall gun related murder rate decreased
by 2%. Washington D.C., the nation’s leader in gun control, became
known as the nation’s murder capital. A comparison of states which
allow legally concealed guns to states which outlaw concealed carrying
of firearms reveals no difference in overall gun related violence.

In 1982, when
Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring a firearm in every home,
not only did crime not escalate, but violent crime sharply decreased
and has remained that way for decades. Indeed, Kennesaw, Georgia
claims to have the lowest crime rate of any comparable city its
size in the nation.

These counter-intuitive
results are not limited to examples within the United States. Australia
boldly banned all semi-automatic firearms, including many rifles
and shotguns, in 1997. Indeed, it was a gun grabber’s dream; approximately
640,000 firearms were confiscated and destroyed. This misguided
Australian policy resulted in an armed robbery increase of 69%,
an assault involving firearms increase of 28%, a gun related murder
increase of 19%, and a home invasion increase of 21%. Violent criminals
love gun bans.

I realize the
proponents of gun control also offer statistics. However, when our
most respected, unbiased and professional scientific and research
organizations analyze the issue, their conclusions do not support
the gun control advocates. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences
reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications
evaluating 80 gun-control measures. Researchers could not identify
a single regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

In 2003, the
Centers for Disease Control analyzed ammunition bans, restrictions
on acquisition of firearms, waiting periods, registration, licensing,
child access prevention and zero tolerance laws. After their analysis,
the Centers for Disease Control concluded there was no conclusive
evidence that any gun control laws reduced gun violence. Foreign
researchers have also come to the same conclusion. In Australia
in 2008, a peer reviewed study at the University of Sydney reached
virtually the same conclusions as both the National Academy of Sciences
and the Centers for Disease Control. Gun control measures simply
do not reduce gun violence.

Although President
Obama appears excited about the notion of banning guns, I have not
heard him order a ban on the very guns used to protect him. Apparently,
when it comes to his protection, President Obama prefers to be protected
by people armed with guns. Indeed, I suspect none of these gun ban
advocates would hesitate to call 911 and request help from people
armed with guns if they were faced with an intruder in their homes
in the middle of the night. I fail to understand why we can’t all
agree that guns save lives.

Our
Culture of Violence

“Democracy
is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty
is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” ~ Benjamin Franklin

Unfortunately,
we do have a culture of violence in America. It did not spontaneously
arise. It is entirely our fault. There are several contributing
factors. The single biggest contributing factor to our culture of
violence is that our society no longer adheres to the once basic
notion that initiating force against non-aggressors is wrong. We
no longer recognize the sovereignty of the individual. Our laws
are replete with instances of legal trespass against peaceful people.
Rather than living in a democratic republic where most decisions
are left to the property owner, we now have an unfettered democracy
where anything goes so long as the majority of voters agree. This
is not what was intended by the founders of our country, and it
has no connection to freedom. Without freedom, there simply is no
opportunity for peace.

Democracy and
freedom are not the same. To some extent, they are incompatible.
Freedom requires that the owner retains jurisdiction over his or
her own body, time, money and other property. Democracy puts the
voting majority in charge of whatever is up for a vote. Said another
way, democracy is akin to mob rule. At the infancy of our country,
few things were subject to majority vote via democracy. Today, virtually
anything and everything can be put to a vote. The jurisdiction of
government has far exceeded anything envisioned by our founding
fathers.

The drug war
is a fundamental example of government, or the voting majority,
immorally exercising its jurisdiction over the bodies of competent
adults. Despite the laws, many competent adults insist on controlling
their own bodies. This has dramatically increased the amount of
violence and conflict in our society. Indeed, until the drug war
ends, and we once again start respecting the sovereignty of the
individual, there is nothing that can be done to effectively end
the culture of violence destroying our society. The good news is
that by simply ending the drug war, we can immediately and dramatically
reduce the culture of violence.

To be sure,
few countries have such an intense war on drugs as we have in the
United States. Indeed, our drug laws are entirely draconian, and
we imprison far more people than any other country in the world.
Our spending on the drug war will soon be approaching 100 billion
dollars per year. As a result of all this drug war generated violence,
we have a very high corresponding rate of gun violence. I have personally
represented many clients charged with violent gun related crimes
resulting from drug war related issues. Indeed, much of the gun
related violence I see, as a criminal defense attorney working in
the justice system for the past two decades, stems from the drug
war.

The United
States does not have the highest rate of gun violence in the world.
It should not be a surprise that several countries at the forefront
of the drug war have an even higher rate of gun related homicide
than the United States. The firearm related homicide rate, as a
percentage of population, is higher in Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Guatemala and Paraguay. The United States spends millions of dollars
ramping up the drug war in these countries. There is no doubt that
several other drug war involved countries have even higher firearm
related homicide rates than the United States as well.

I would be
remiss if I failed to point out that these awful homicide rates
in other countries persist despite much stricter gun control laws
than in the United States. Indeed, Mexico has some of the strictest
gun control laws in the world. Its laws effectively prohibit gun
ownership. Not only do guns remain widely available in Mexico, but
their gun related homicide rate outpaces ours. The same can be said
of all these drug war countries.

Attempting
to blame our culture of violence on the availability of guns is
entirely erroneous. Canada has a gun culture similar to the United
States. Indeed, their ratio of gun ownership as compared to the
United States is roughly equivalent. However, Canada enjoys a firearm
related homicide rate dramatically lower than in the United States.
It is noteworthy to point out that people who live in countries
like Switzerland and Israel have greater access to even fully automatic
weapons and have higher rates of gun ownership than in the United
States, but enjoy much lower firearm related homicide rates. The
number of guns simply isn’t the problem.

Our culture
of violence is more directly attributable to anti-freedom government
policies which diminish and disrespect the rights of the individual.
Guns, like other tools, can be used for both good and bad purposes.
Demonizing the tool, while piling on more anti-freedom regulations
and laws, without getting to the root cause of the violence, is
exactly the wrong approach. We will never achieve a more peaceful
society until we recognize that competent adults own themselves
and the drug war is reduced to an awful historical mistake.

How
to Stop a Bad Guy with a Gun

“To preserve
liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always
possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to
use them.” ~ Richard Henry Lee

Dangerous violent
people should not have guns. Additionally, people should not shoplift.
We already have laws against both. Notwithstanding our laws, dangerous
violent people continue to, and always will be able to, obtain guns.
Likewise, people continue to shoplift. Regarding the shoplifting
problem, major retailers have accepted that shoplifting remains
a fact of life and they have endeavored to combat the problem with
private security guards, cameras, RFID chips, etc. As I often represent
such people accused of shoplifting, I know these rational combative
measures against shoplifting are reasonably successful.

As a society,
we need to accept the reality that bad guys will continue to get
guns notwithstanding our laws. We need to devise appropriate, rational
and effective measures to combat this foreseeable reality. Well
intentioned and famous Hollywood actors simply saying, “Never
Again!” or simply passing more gun regulation laws will not
combat the problem.

As the tragic
shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut proves,
the passing of more laws is entirely the wrong approach. Federal
law prohibits the presence of guns in schools. It is clear the deranged
Mr. Adam Lanza was entirely undeterred by this federal law. Indeed,
this law may have encouraged Mr. Lanza to work his horrific violence
at the Sandy Hook Elementary School knowing federal law provides
that nobody could have the capacity to stop him. One unintended
consequence of this federal law has been to create a guaranteed
victim zone, comprised of children, who are unprotected sitting
ducks for any deranged lunatic such as Mr. Lanza.

Additionally,
Connecticut’s gun control laws also proved to be entirely ineffective.
By stealing his mother’s gun, Mr. Lanza exempted himself from any
laws regarding background checks, waiting periods, permits, licenses,
etc. Neither unarmed security at the front door nor the presence
of heroic yet unarmed adults at the school had any chance of stopping
Mr. Lanza’s murderous rampage. Even the courageous school principal,
who dashed toward Mr. Lanza in a heroic effort to protect her innocent
students, had absolutely no chance and was therefore also tragically
murdered.

There can be
no legitimate criticism of the local police. Their trained and armed
police officers arrived as quickly as one could reasonably expect
upon learning of the tragedy. However, by the time they arrived,
the incident was completely over. They were not able to save even
one life. The only thing that stopped the deranged Mr. Lanza was
the deranged Mr. Lanza himself. One can only wonder how many more
lives would have been needlessly taken had Mr. Lanza decided to
continue shooting others rather than shoot himself.

I wish I could
have been there that day with my AR-15 rifle or even my .40 caliber
handgun. This story would have had a different ending. What a shame
that not even one peaceful, responsible, trained and armed teacher
or parent could have been present, when Mr. Lanza arrived, to do
the one thing that actually could have avoided this tragedy; shoot
him. I can say, with absolute certainty, that one well placed round
from a gun could have saved the lives of everyone at the Sandy Hook
Elementary that day.

I don’t know
if that well placed round would have been the first shot fired,
but I do know at least there would have been a chance to stop Mr.
Lanza before he decided to stop himself. As a parent of five children
in school, I prefer that my children are no longer unprotected sitting
ducks at a federally mandated gun free zone in school. The only
way to stop these types of gun related tragedies is by force.

I recognize
that some parents feel differently than I do. For reasons I do not
understand, they prefer to have their children at school totally
unprotected in federally mandated gun free zones. I respect their
rights to have their children at schools which comply with whatever
rules they deem appropriate. However, the current state of federal
law prohibits parents from choosing schools which could actually
protect their children against the horrendous acts of deranged bad
guys like Mr. Lanza. Just like at my home, I would prefer to have
my kids in schools where responsible adults, with adequate training,
have immediate and safe access to firearms. I, like many parents,
don’t want my kids to be unprotected sitting ducks while they are
at school.

I fail to understand
why the anti-gun people find it appropriate to thwart my choice
as a responsible parent. As I have stated, I respect the rights
of the anti-gun parents to send their kids to schools without guns.
I have heard their protestations that my plan to have armed people
at school would not work. I don’t know why their judgment should
be substituted for mine regarding the safety of my kids.

Some of those
parents claim that armed people at the school could make no difference
if such a shooting was to occur. They are entirely wrong. There
are many examples of occasions where armed people successfully terminated
some deranged person’s gun rampage. Here is a short list of some
notable examples compiled by the Libertarian Party:

• A 1997 high
  school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi was halted by the school’s
  vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his
  truck.
• A 1998 middle
  school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire
  and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
• A 2002 terrorist
  attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher
  and a school guard.
• A 2002 law
  school shooting in Grundy, Virginia came to an abrupt conclusion
  when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
• A 2007 mall
  shooting in Ogden, Utah ended when an armed off-duty police officer
  intervened.
• A 2009 workplace
  shooting in Houston, Texas was halted by two co-workers who carried
  concealed handguns.
• A 2012 church
  shooting in Aurora, Colorado was stopped by a member of the congregation
  carrying a gun.
• At the recent
  mall shooting in Portland, Oregon the gunman took his own life
  minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed
  weapon.

Moreover, the
internet is full of videos documenting peaceful armed people thwarting
a violent criminal’s attempt to victimize others. I fail to understand
why the anti-gun crowd refuses to acknowledge guns save lives. It
is estimated, and there are several scholarly studies to support,
that guns are used to prevent crimes between 700,000 and 2.5 million
times each year. While I agree there are examples of bad guys doing
bad things with guns, we should also agree there are millions of
armed good guys who successfully and frequently stop bad guys with
guns as well.

Three
Reasons Americans Have a Right to Own Guns

“Are we
at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that
we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference
between having our arms in possession and under our direction and
having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be
the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be
trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own
hands?” ~ Patrick Henry

There are three
main reasons why Americans, or any free people, should have a right
to keep and bear firearms. First, free people have a right to self
defense. This is the most basic of all rights. Although government
can legitimately act as one’s agent to assist in protecting against
another’s aggression, the individual need not delegate or rely upon
another person or entity for the exercise of that right. To deny
a free and competent adult the right of self defense, is to deny
such a person their sovereignty. No society can be considered a
free society, or even a civilized society, without the basic right
to individual defense of one’s self.

The second
reason for a right to keep and bear arms is to deter possible foreign
invasions. I acknowledge we live in a world where mass destruction
is an option for many foreign governments. However, history has
shown that foreign governments generally like to advance on territory
they seek to make their own. As such, a radioactive wasteland is
not the preferred trophy of most hostile governments.

During World
War II, Hitler’s Germany advanced against much of Europe. However,
Switzerland, despite its vast gold resources making it an extraordinary
prize, was not one of those places advanced upon by Hitler. One
rational explanation for this lack of aggression by Hitler was the
reasonable conclusion that Switzerland, with its exceptionally high
proportion of civilian gun ownership, would have been an unusually
difficult target.

During the
same time period, it is speculated that Japanese Admiral Isoroku
Yamamoto reached a similar conclusion regarding a possible invasion
of the United States. Some have attributed the comment, “You
cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind every blade of grass” to the Japanese Admiral. Given
our high proportion of civilian gun ownership, it also seems a reasonable
conclusion.

Indeed, it
gives me a sense of pride, as I know it does many other veterans
and other proud Americans, to know that in the unlikely event our
country ever was invaded, we would not need to sit idly by, helpless,
to assist in defending our country. Rather, much like the other
civilian militia that was so instrumental in assisting to win our
independence from King George III, we may also be able to assist
in some way.

The third reason
for a right to keep and bear arms is, as Thomas Jefferson stated,
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep
and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against
tyranny in government.” Citizens have a right to keep and bear
arms as a defense against their own government. Further, Mr. Jefferson
also stated, “When the people fear the government, there is
tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

The founders
of our nation believed people must always preserve their right to
resistance and revolution against their own government. “And what
country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” ~ Thomas Jefferson.

The
founding fathers of our nation were keenly aware of the potential
for governments to ban guns, then curtail liberty, enslave, torture
or even murder their own naïve and trusting citizens. One can
only wonder what the founding fathers would say had they been aware
of the human slaughter suffered in the 20^th century by
unarmed people at the hands of their own gun grabbing governments.

In the 20^th
century alone, the death toll resulting from governments murdering
their own disarmed citizens after guns were legally banned is estimated
at 56 million. Our founding fathers knew any government, including
ours, has the potential to become tyrannical and even deadly towards
its own citizens. I suspect many or even most of those 56 million
murdered by their own governments believed their government
could always be trusted. Let’s learn from history.

“If ye love
wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the
hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
~ Samuel Adams

December
31, 2012

Marc
J. Victor [send him
mail] is an Arizona State Bar Certified Specialist in Criminal
Law and can be reached via his
law firm website.

Copyright
© 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.