Early in President Bush's first term, the Justice Department adopted the "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment. According to administration attorneys, the weight of historical evidence and academic scholarship supported this view. Now, however, it appears that at least one federal agency (the Federal Aviation Administration) is endorsing the "collective rights" view in a rulemaking concerning whether firearms should be allowed during space travel. Given that proposed rules are supposed to be subject to White House review in the Office of Management and Budget, the question is whether this one just slipped by, whether it represents a sign that the Administration is backing off the "individual rights" interpretation favored by most supporters of gun rights, or whether this is something that only those of us who with scheduled space travel need worry about. (Link via Instapundit)
UPDATE: It is important to note that, according to David Codrea, the FAA maintains that the rule's language was approved by the Executive Office of the President. This would suggest that the White House, perhaps inadvertently, let through a statement that the Second Amemdment only protects a "collective right" to arms. If this represents an official change in policy, it is significant (and far more significant than the FAA's regulation, which could easily have met the more exacting scrutiny required by an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment).
I have a right to start a fire in my own house here on land, too. In space, fire is a very bad thing, pretty much at all times, everywhere. Different rules SHOULD apply.
Right result, poor reasoning.
...he didn't beat me to it.
Once you enter space a handgun discharge would pierce the protective shell of the spacecraft endangering everyone on board thus making it no longer a person to person weapon but rather something more analogous to a bomb.
Short answer: Yes it can.
Long answer: The powder already contains the oxygen needed for combustion, so the lack of oxygen would not be a problem. And yes, the bullet would keep going until it hit something or was captured by planetary gravity and converted into a satellite.
As for the decision, I doubt it's very significant. I personally think that the career Carter- and Clinton-era bureaucrats that run some of these bureaus are taking advantage of the president being distracted and relatively unpopular and are insituting their own policies (such as the polar bear being declared threatened). And they figure that the incoming Democrat Congress will help them out if they get into trouble.
PatHMV hit on an essential point about using a different :legal mechanism"--Mr. Ashcroft's letter cited "compelling state interest" as the regulatory authority over individual rights. The FAA could have done this and it would have passed pretty much completely under the radar and been unremarkable as far as the administration's record on gun rights goes.
I forget. Was it Carter or Clinton who nominated Dirk Kempthorne (R-Id.) Secretary of the Interior?
What we really need is someone with an administrative law background that can weigh in on what the EOP reviews when it reviews rulemaking like this. Would they review the legal reasoning behind the the prohibition on guns in space to ensure that the legal reasoning is consistent with DOJ's legal reasoning? What exactly does EOP do?
Gary
I think you are missing the point of the comment: the point is that the liberal bureaucrats are taking things into their own hands regardless of what political appointees like Kempthorne want (or what people in the White House want). Political appointees only have loose control over what happens deep in the bureaucracy beneath them.
1. Handguns would work just fine in a vacuum, as the propellant used in handgun cartridges contains its own oxidizer - no air is needed.
2. Projectiles from a handgun would most likely go into orbit around earth or fall into the atmosphere, depending on the intial direction of travel. The muzzle velocities of hand held firearms are not anywhere near the earth's escape velocity, even 300 miles up in orbit. If they go into orbit, they will travel at very nearly their initial muzzle velocity for a long time (but not forever; there is still a bit of atmosphere at low orbital levels).
3. It is not likely that such projectiles would actually puncture the outer shell of any spacecraft, and even if they did, the air leak would not be fast enough to kill everyone inside. There would probably be plenty of time to repair the hole. (this is not to suggest that it would be safe to go blasting away inside a spacecraft; I'm just sayin'.)
No, that's not correct. Civilian ships could, and did, possess cannons just like a naval warship. The National Parks Service gives as an example the Caesar sailing out of Boston, which had 26 cannons. A Letter of Marque and Reprisal was like a hunting license. It gave a privateer the authorization to commit acts of piracy against our enemies or to hunt pirates but it didn't give them the right to outfit their ships and crews with weaponry suitable for military action because they already had that right just as a hunter already has a right to possess his rifle. Additionally, Gatling guns, machine guns, and sub-machine guns were not restricted until the National Firearms Act of 1934.
The reason for the second amendment was because it was unanimously understood that the government had no power to disarm the citizenry nor should it have such power. This necessarily included military style weapons because the whole point was that people had the right to defend themselves against the government and overthrow it if they deemed it necessary. Heck, even Hamilton and Jefferson agreed on this point. That's also why there was such strong resistance to a standing army. Remember, this was a group of people who had just won an armed revolution.
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 28
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, Federalist Paper No.46
"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American? The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb 20, 1788
At least partially because government regulations prevent the firing or replacing of people for political reasons. At least partially because it is only possible to supervise employees to a certain degree, and at least partially because if one believes in personal responsibility one tends to grant that to others until they f' up.
Someone f'd up and needs to be given an oppurtunity to find a job more in line with their talents.
Bush endorsed the Clinton Gun Ban in the 2004 campaign. This game is already over. Aside from one symbolic push from Ashcroft the Bush administration has been as anti-gun as any president since Johnson.
And the Ashcroft push didn't even come with follow-through. A.G. Ashcroft was never willing to take a case advocating for individual rights or even obey existing laws on insta-check or the like.
Unfortunately, the Bush admin. wasted years of time and god knows how much money in man-hours trying to undercut civil service and related protections for employees at the DHS and DoD, only to get slapped down by the D.C. District Court and D.C. Circuit (see, e.g., NTEU v. Chertoff (D.C. Cir. 2006)).
Baloney. The Bush administration allowed the assault weapons ban to expire without lifting a finger to stop it which alone makes it better than the Clinton administration which signed it into law. Moreover the Bush Justice Department quit harassing gun manufacturers with frivolous lawsuits and President Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act into law which stopped these nuisance suits once and for all.
Wouldn't we all love to have a job where we can take credit for everything good that comes out of our department, and blame all the bad stuff on out-of-control underlings.
One should not confuse the ability of a head of a government department or agency to fire a low level civil servant, which may well be restricted to some extent, with his ability to prevent a regulation from issuing out of that department. Does anyone seriously doubt that the head of the agency is unable to do the latter?
"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;" - Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"Knowing of the war when she left Jamaica, &that
our coast was lined with small French privateers,
she armed for her defence, &took one of those
commissions usually called letters of marque. She
arrived here safely without having had any rencounter
of any sort. Can it be necessary to say that a
merchant vessel is not a privateer? That tho' she
has arms to defend herself in time of war, in the
course of her regular commerce, this no more makes
her a privateer, than a husbandman following his
plough, in time of war, with a knife or pistol in his pocket, is thereby made a soldier? The occupation of a privateer is attack and plunder, that of a merchant-vessel is commerce &self-preservation."
- Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 08/16/1793
[The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes,
Federal Edition. Collected and Edited by Paul
Leicester Ford].
So would a man appointed by President George Washington to be U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania in 1791;
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment
may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829).
The Right of Self-Preservation is/was long considered as the First Law of Nature:
"The First Law of Nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war." - Thomas Hobbs, "Leviathan", (Outlines the Laws of Nature), 1651
And, as stated by a very respectable authority on the subject;
"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."
- James Wilson, 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and Supreme Court Justice).
The Right of self-defense is inherent and inalienable. The formations of American governments were intended as to preserve our natural rights. While it is true, upon entering society, some rights must be surrendered for the preservation of the whole. However, this specific Right was expressly retained....
"You, Sir, triumph in the supposed illegality of this body;
but, granting your supposition were true, it would be a matter of no real importance. When the first principles of civil society are violated, and the rights of a whole people are invaded, the common forms of municipal law are not to be regarded. Men may then betake themselves to the law of nature; and, if they but conform their actions, to that standard, all cavils against them, betray either ignorance or dishonesty. There are some events in society, to which human laws cannot extend; but when applied to them lose all their force and efficacy. In short, when human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void."
- Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 23 Feb. 1775
Papers 1:86--89, 121--22, 135--36
Moreover, since in near and probably far future space flight will be run by large organizations, they will be able to restrict handguns on spacecraft in the exact same way airlines do on aircraft. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone has ever made a 2A challenge to the airlines' right to control what goes on their property.
Yeah, think Mr. Madison covered that one;
The Debates, "Personal Rights Vs. Property Rights", August 7, 1787
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." - James Madison, Federalist No. 51
So did Mr. Hamilton:
"But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power." - Federalist #16
"We The People", remember? NO one has any legally rightful authority to negate an inherent, God-given, inalienable right. The federal government has a declared duty to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity".
Tell me, how is something "secured" when it is allowed to be arbitrarily infringed upon by not only local, state and federal governments, but by FELLOW CITIZENS? It is then no longer secured, correct?
What is of more value; A mans life? Or, a piece of 'property'? And how would my RIGHT to defend myself, and my "DUTY to be at ALL times armed" interfere with someones 'property'. It doesn't.
Samuel Adams put it quite nicely;
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. . . . . In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave..." - 'The Rights of the Colonists'
"Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity."
"She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights."
- John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, to the U.S. House of Representatives, July 4, 1821.
Only TYRANTS fear We The People exercising our God-given, Inherent and Natural right. A tyrants 'fear' is not a RIGHT, it is an emotion.
The “frequent recurrence to fundamental principles” is the bulwark of freedom and constitutional government. And this, to prevent having to resort to revolutionary means in order for the people to, once again, secure their "inalienable rights".
Self-Preservation is not called the "First Law of Nature" for nothing. Without it none of the other rights can be secured and enjoyed for long. Man would be once again bound to the will and pleasure of a 'master'. Or, to put it more plainly, man would again be a slave.
How is it that so many do not understand the Fundamental Principles of our Constitutional Freedoms and Liberties?