Iranian gun laws bleg:
The Small Arms Survey suggests that Iran's per capita gun ownership rate is 0.053 (that is, about one gun for every twenty people). This is fairly low by global standards. (See Tables 6 and 7 of my recent article in the Texas Review of Law & Politics.) Could commenters please supply information about the gun laws of Iran, and how they are enforced? What kind of people in Iran are allowed to own guns? What kind of guns? Please don't get into a discussion of whether the Iranian protesters would be better/worse off if they had guns. Just supply accurate information, with citations if possible. Comments based on personal experience from people who have lived in Iran, or visited Iran, are welcome.
.
That 0.053 rate of ownership would fit a regime of fairly tight "reasonable restrictions."
.
Clearly, the Iran constitution does not contain any prohibition whatsoever, and I doubt there is a prohibition as to people, although there may be a prohibition as to type of arm, similar to the United States prohibitions. I suspect there is a permitting process, with a penalty for failing to avail of that.
An odd feature of this is that I've seen comments from Kurdish leaders with a oddly love/hate relationship with the high rate of gun ownership, considering it both necessary to fight off oppression, but also a sign of lawless backwardsness.
Take, for example, this bit from Kevin McKiernan's "The Kurds" (p. 178):
.
Yes, the "completely free" part is sarcasm.
Aren't they? All rhetoric aside, the gun laws in Iran sound to me as if they're the same as in most civilised countries, although they appear to be upheld less than vigilantly in parts of the country. The regulation of the press, on the other hand, is much more severe than anything we "enjoy". (BTW, cboldt, congratulations on having such a gloriously free press in the US.)
.
Heh. Well, Froomkin is free to publish. Freedom of the press is not "guarantee to make a profit at it." I was thinking more along the lines of Mark Steyn, who had an encounter with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (a government entity empowered to impose penalties on errant authors and publishers) for making disparaging statements.
.
-- All rhetoric aside, the gun laws in Iran sound to me as if they're the same as in most civilised countries --
.
I think that's true, from the laws that I've bumped into trying to find anything on Iran's laws. And the Iranian authorities seem to be quite restrained. Here in the US, we had the Kent State incident, for example. The protests in Iran don't appear peaceful to me, there is rock throwing, fires, and whatnot. If the people escalate to violence, the government has every right to protect itself.
.
-- although they appear to be upheld less than vigilantly in parts of the country --
.
I think there is a more or less "universal" (i.e., no matter where on is in the world) relaxation as one goes from urban to rural settings. Some of the material I've read, for example, talks about shepherds and goat-herders having guns. I would think this is a matter of flock protection from animal predators, rather than security against humans. Similar in Australia after its 1996 gun law was imposed.
Unless you buy into the idea of popular sovereignty, in which case the government's 'protecting itself' against the people is an act of rebellion.
.
Gun Policy News: Daily small arms policy and gun news discusses another sale to Iran by Steyr, with some of the .50 caliber weapons turning up in Iraq.
.
Iran is an active participant in UN Small Arms Treaty processes, and its positions there may reflect its attitude toward civilian possession of deadly weapons. [UN] Small Arms Conference Nets Agreement - Iran and Zimbabwe abstained from voting agreement.
.
That's a radical and minority-held proposition, especially with permitting access to deadly force. Of all the governments in the world, the US is the only one, as far as I know, that even has that sort of radical rhetoric in a primary document. And even in the US, the law as handed down by the Courts is that individual rights are conferred by the Constitution.
.
But still, adopting only for talking purposes that "popular sovereignty" represents realpolitik somewhere, my comment about the right to defense can be legitimized by extending to the individual government actors, who are merely attempting to maintain peace and public order, the right to defend their own lives. When a crowd threatens or uses violence, the police are at risk of death.
That is much too simple. The government protecting itself against a massive popular uprising is problematic. But most revolutions start much smaller than that. The smaller the escalation, the more reasonable it is to assume that the rebels don't have the support of "the people". That is why the US government didn't put up with the uprisings that occurred in the early days of the republic. While it is impossible to know, my sense is that most Iranians are not (yet) in the mood for overthrowing the regime, but rather want the regime reformed, perhaps by getting rid of Khamenei.
P.S. Cboldt: I don't necessarily have an opinion about Froomkin being fired. I linked to that OJ post because it contained some musings about the general quality of the press in the US. (In the comments I mentioned the Brian Williams Behind the Scenes in the White House programme recently as a low point in US journalism.)
-- Bertolt BrechtSadly, that is true (afaik). And when you look at the, what, 100 million people killed by their own governments in the last century, you can't help thinking that the survivors would have taken the hint, but no...
.
Ahh, I didn't understand that. Well then, "freedom of the press" obviously doesn't mean "affirmative duty to facilitate accurate world view." The function of the press is to make a profit, and to sell hot dogs and beer. The press itself has started and endeavors to convince the public that the myth, "the press is an objective watchdog" is true. In fact, it is about as far from truth as one can get. The press is propaganda. If they get a story right, it is an accident. Of course, there are a few exceptions to this, but none of the "accurate" sources (Court records, police reports, statutory text, etc.) enjoy mass publication status.
.
But in the US at least, the press is free to publish whatever it wants, with libel and classified information being the limiting factors.
.
It also didn't put up with a substantially larger uprising (which it held to be an act of illegitimate rebellion), later in history. And the central government is many times more powerful now, in all ways (political, financial, regulatory, and militarily), relative to the states, than it was in 1860. "Resistance is futile." Just vote, rejoice in that great freedom (to vote), and get back to work. Same in Iran. They voted. The results are pronounced "correct" (i.e., "the people have spoken").
Fortunately, it is not. Ignoring my own country's declaration of independence, which is similar to the American one but hardly counts as a "primary document" anymore, the most important example of a primary document that recognises the people's right to stand up and fight is the German Basic Law:
cboldt wrote: "If they get a story right, it is an accident." If that is true, then why are the press deserving of their great protection?
I didn't use that one as an example, because judged from the perspective of popular sovereignty, the Civil War may very well be judged to be illegitimate. (I also preferred the founding era examples because in normal US discourse the hadith (=deeds and writings of the founders) are always accorded particular respect, second only to the holy scripture (=the constitution itself).
There is no reliable info on the rate of civilian held weapons in Iran. None. Nada. Zip. The smallarmssurvey.org website suggests the Iranians have about as many weapons per person as the UK, or 5% of the populace at most is armed.
Upon the fall of the Shah in 1979, large numbers of military weapons fell into civilian hands, but it is unclear if they remain there.
Other than the few 30-year old military rifles (AK-47s were popular at the time, at least according to popular literature), the weapons held by police and military units would have to be taken for use in a revolt.
.
Probably because the founders thought it was beneficial to the public to air adversarial positions (which are naturally efforts at "truth shading" advocacy) via word. The public knew that it was reading advocacy pieces, and thereby the public was encouraged to think independently.
.
Contrast with the current situation, where the people have been conditioned to uncritically accept that what they are told by the press is the truth, is sufficient watchdog, etc. Blind trust is what it sought, and the self-serving press continues to peddle the myth that it is trustworthy.
.
To get back to the comment topic (but still wandering off into philosophy of an armed public), why are the people deserving of "their great" (scare quotes, because the government has been systematically undermining this "protection" for about 70 years) protection of the RKBA? As you correctly note, most of the world has restrictions on private ownership of firearms that resemble Iran's. If it's good enough for most of the world, then a similar regime is good enough for the US.
I would agree. Popular sovereignty is great, but the only way an armed uprising can work is with significant arms imports from abroad or by having the rebels steal their weapons from the army. I'd say that is even true in the US, depending on how much of the military is still loyal to the government.
.
"Right to resist" is not "Right to keep and bear arms." As far as I know, the US Constitution is the only one in the world that expressly protect a right of the people to possess and bear instruments of physical violence.
.
Your "right to resist" is a right to turn red faced as you demand action from your betters.
.
Hopefully it never comes to widespread armed confrontation by a pissed-off mass of people. Still, the capability, even with uncertainty in outcome, creates a possibility (government killing large numbers of its subjects) that tends to temper government intrusion. When the government killing is perceived to be unreasonable, the public becomes unruly.
.
US policy toward putting arms in Iran changes with the regime. We armed the shah. But US law prohibits export of arms to the mullahs. Iran would be well-justified to take an importation of arms to its people as an act of war.
.
When the US has dropped weapons for the public, it was inside a country that we were at war with. When we've otherwise taken a side, it was covert CIA action, propping up one side or the other (sometimes, maybe both sides, hoping they'd kill each other off!).
If an act of violence is justified, then defense against it is NOT justified. An aggressor has no right to protect himself from his victim's self-defense. If you hurt or kill someone during a struggle in which he is attempting to prevent you from committing a crime against him, you cannot claim self-defense.
"Where attack is justified there can be no lawful defence." -Pierino Belli
"Force is to be opposed to nothing, but to unjust and unlawful force." -John Locke
Exactly the kind of arms the police - and to a lesser extent, the military - are equipped with. The only question is how many Iranian civilians would be willing to die to get the first batch.
That certainly seems to be the standard interpretation of the freedom of the press clause of the US first amendment. Yet there are many jurisdictions that provide the press with special protections, such as the right not to disclose sources, that are not enjoyed by non-journalists. (wiki) AFAIK, that is the case in the US as well.
Of course that sort of government-approved-and-regulated sanction of "journalists" is common elsewhere; just one of the many reasons I regard the US as superior.
Firearm fatalities. A preliminary study report from Iran - A Amiriab, H Sanaei-Zadehab, et al [link is to Google cache]
@Kirk: Lest we stray even further off-topic, just quickly: How easy would it have been, say, to get Woodward &Bernstein to give up the identity of Deep Throat? Are there any legal tools available to compel them to do so, like the law would compel others who have evidence of crime?
First, under islamic law men are allowed to carry "Arms" but the term arms in these cases is reserved to the carrying of ceremonial daggers. We needd to be careful in interpreting the word "arm" under islamic law as being firearms.
Second, in Iran there is a "militia". The Basij is more a paramilitary force then a militia in the old term. Of Iran's 71 million people they supposedly make up 12 million, but almost half are women who are probably prohibited from bearing arms. It is also estimated that only about 400,000 are true reserve or full time members. The rest are just subject to a call to service like being on a draft list.
Third, the original statistic was one gun for every twenty Iranians or 71/20* 1,000,000. That comes out to 3.5 million guns. One Wicki estimate is that the Basij only have about 25% of there members armed.
I would suspect that the majority of the "gun Owners" in Iran are either Basij regulars or other people connected to the ruling mullahs.
I would disagree with this.
First of all, there are enough arms in civilian hands to equip every single adult, male and female, in the United States. Typically, something between 1/3rd and 1/2 of homes in the US have guns, but those homes that do have guns tend to have multiple guns, so it evens out. At least, that's according to surveys. A significant number of us don't really trust strangers who ask us about our guns, so that number is probably a bit higher.
As a side note, that also seems to be an issue in counting the number of guns in civilian hands overseas in places like Iran. The number of guns might be as much as two or three times higher than either surveys or counts of legally registered firearms might suggest.
It's not just the guns though, you need ammunition. One thing that isn't really understood is the number of people in the United States with the capability to reload their own ammunition. At the bare bones level, all you really need outside of the actual components is a $45 Lee Loader set to reload your own ammo. As for the components, you can cast bullets (and many already do), and there are ways to improvise powder and primers from commonly available items. This would only be necessary for a protracted campaign, though. Most people who own guns have at least a few rounds for each gun, and many people have hundreds, or even thousands of rounds.
Then, you need to know how to use them. Millions of people in the US go shooting on at least a semi-regular basis. If I recall correctly, there are at least 14 million hunting licenses sold in the US every year. Not everyone who goes shooting hunts, so the number of people who shoot at least once or twice a year has to be higher than that.
As for how many in the military would still be loyal to the goverment, well, your guess is as good as mine. I will say this, though: A great many in the "gun culture" go into the military, and thus there will be a certain percentage of military personnel who would be amenable to conversion, not to mention the number of people who have military training but who are no longer active duty.
Another factor is that there is a reasonably large number of people in the US who make their own guns. Mostly, they are handcrafted target rifles, or perhaps historically accurate black powder guns. It takes a while to make a finely crafted firearm. It takes much less time to make a somewhat crude looking, but perfectly serviceable rifle, pistol, or shotgun.
"The Battle of Algiers" remains one of the best introductions to counter-revolutionary government efforts that I can imagine. In Algeria, the reporters would have been tortured more or less brutally until they gave up the information.
.
I found it ambiguous, not knowing the criteria for engaging the Legal Medicine Organization of Iran in Tehran.
.
The long-arm/pistol observation might inform the question of "what types of guns are possessed by different groups."
Assuming that a significant part of the armed forces stay loyal to the government (otherwise there'd be no problem), the big problem isn't rifles, but anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. Those would have to come from either military arsenals or abroad.
This report also states:
On a (gallows) humorous note, the authors are not well-clued about firearms in general, "the reason why the automatic mode is obviously avoided by the vast majority of the [suicide] victims is unknown."
That's a fascinating contrast to Iraq (or at least Iraq circa 2003) where apparently:
Sorry, IANAL, and thus (if for no other reason) I can't tell you what the exact state of the law is regarding that. Doesn't stop me from having an opinion about what should be, of course! :-)
Roughly 33%, or about 100 million. Very roughly.
Though I don't know why you would bother asking. Handguns are militarily useful, especially if you are fighting a low-grade guerilla type campaign by virtue of their small size. They are somewhat less useful in open battle, but still have some utility.
Not necessarily.
You would want to avoid the tanks and the aircraft, not engage them in open battle.
Having said that, tanks are vulnerable to large buried IEDs. You don't have to be able to actually destroy the tank itself, but if you make it throw a tread, it can't move without the crew exposing themselves to fix it. That limits the amount of explosives you need to use.
Aircraft are a more difficult proposition, but in the final analysis both tanks and planes are flown by humans, and those humans are vulnerable when they are not inside their machines.
The paradigm of resistance isn't to stand up and blaze away at an armored gunship with small arms like in "Red Dawn" (a pretty pessimistic examination of resistance, by the way, if you watch it carefully: All but 2 of the Wolverines are dead within about 6 months, and within a month of confronting actual combat troops). You pick the time and circumstances that favor you, and avoid conflict at all other times.
The ultimate goal of an armed citizenry, though, is to make all of this theorizing moot: If it appears to be too expensive for your government to oppress you so that they don't even try, then those arms have served their purpose without ever needing to fire a shot in anger.
That is to some extent true. In recent times, the major democratic revolutions (from end of Communism to the colour revolutions of the Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan) have generally occurred without a shot being fired in anger, at least not by the protesters. In Iran itself, the previous two revolutions (1906 and 1979) both involved massive strikes and protests, not an armed uprising. If change is to come to Iran this time, it will not be through force of arms.
Once you get outside the cities, Iran is very rural and lawless. The conditions are more like "The Old West(tm)" than the old West ever was. I would expect firearms ownership to be relatively common, just not looked at by the gummint.
Given that the Turd World is awash in Mikhail Kalashnikov's invention, and the nature of Iran's neighbors, I would expect the AK47 and its variants to predominate. It is a fine rifle for unsophisticated rural areas, cheap, simple to operate, and exceedingly reliable. It can literally be stored under the goat shed and dug up when needed.
I agree, the collective populace doesn't seem interested in armed revolution, and even if they could be well armed they might not go for it.
However, it'd be pretty easy to arm the Kurds and have them foment some revolutionary activity in Iran (some say we've been doing that all along, but I doubt it). Such a policy would have many tails, some quite negative, and I believe the policy all along has been to just wait out the mullahs, until change arrives, and it just may be.
I found this from your quote interesting:
“All but one of the suicides were committed at the garrisons or police stations.
The unique pattern of suicide that was found in this series was not similar to that reported in earlier studies.”
The immediate question that came to my mind; were these “suicides” members of the police garrison or were they “visitors” to the garrison?
The second thought was that this might be the way the police handle the problem of not enough jail space. (sarcasm)
I'm afraid that this may not be the case. In the examples Martinned mentioned, the government they were rebelling against was really an outside nation. The Ukraine or Georgia leaving the Soviet Union (now Russia) didn't mean a complete fall of the Russian Government. As it is the Soviet Union had already fallen at the government level before these States left to form their own governments.
No, I am afraid the previous example for what is happening in Iran now may be Romania. An extreme dictatorship that eventually wouldn't respond to Public pressure for reform and used its secret police to control the nation. Eventually the government called out the Army only to have the Army join the people at which time the killing really began with fallen Romanian troops being replaced by Romanian civilians who of their own will picked up the weapon of the downed soldier and continued to fire back at the Secret Police.
.
[Press] Privilege Compendium Front Page <- Much information
.
There is weak to non-existent privilege as to withholding testimony from a federal grand jury. The United States Supreme Court addressed this as to reporters, in Branzburg v. Hayes. Didn't hurt the reporters to argue that the 1st amendment protects a privilege against giving testimony, any more than it hurt Presser to assert that the 1st and 2nd amendments prevents state and local governments from requiring parade permits. Yes, the Presser case was only about a parade permit.
Agreed. The instant the protesters in Tehran pick up arms, they will lose the vast majority of their support.
The vast majority of them would not be terribly effective against modern body armor at any reasonable range, let alone against any armored military vehicle.
I'm all for the RKBA and the right of revolution in principle, but my gut feeling is that a contest between the people and the military (under the major and tenuous assumption that it is loyal to the government and not the people) would be short and very lopsided.
People keep saying this like we are not in a middle of a guerilla war in the middle east that has lasted 6 years already.
That's the law for you. set up a minimum, and then the average sentence is LESS than the minimum. Hey, they're lawyers, not mathematicians!
Some interesting statistics comparing countries, but 1) it's dated 1997 and 2) Iran is not on the list.
R.J. Rummel has revised his figures for democide in the 20th century, which is now in excess of 260 million. That includes 76.7 million in Communist China (1949-1987), 61.9 million in the Soviet Union (1917-1987), 20.9 million in Nazi Germany (1933-1945), 10.1 million in China (KMT, 1928-1949), and 50 million in colonialism.
The 100 million estimate is an older one for the victims of Communist regimes only, as I recall.
Why does Jim Lindgren, who just got in his 3-dollar-bill's worth elsewhere on this blog concerning Obama's presser today, get to post in a format that does not allow comments?
I think I know. It's because what he says usually can be so easily knocked down.
What he's doing is really shoddy. Why do you allow it Volokh?
Well, there are more than you might think.
According to a National Institute of Justice research brief, in 1997 there were 70 million rifles. It doesn't break them down by caliber, but let's just say for the sake of argument that 1/2 of them are of a large enough caliber to penetrate typical body armor, ie., your basic big game or social rifle.
That means that 12 years ago, there were around 35 to 47 million of them. That number has undoubtedly gone up in the intervening years, and I'd argue that their numbers, which are based on a survey, are biased downwards because many gun owners are a tad paranoid about unknown people asking them about their guns.
I'd also argue that the number is probably higher: One model of rifle, the Winchester Model 94, had a total production of at least 7.5 million, most of which are almost certainly still in working order*. I helped a neighbor sell her deceased husband's Model 94 that was manufactured in 1949 and bought brand new by him, and it was still in excellent shape.
Point being, that guns have very long useful lives, and at least some owners are reticent about admitting ownership to persons unknown, and you probably have more like 50 million or more rifles that we'll call "military capable", ie., they are large enough caliber to penetrate typical light body armor. That pretty much means almost all rifle calibers above .22 rimfires, by the way.
So, we've got a bare minimum of 35 million military capable rifles in civilian hands (you'd have a hard time convincing me that fully half of the rifles in the US are .22 rimfires), and probably closer to 50 million, and they are owned by roughly 50 to 60 million gun owners (survey from 1994 says 44 million, but I think it's an under-count for the same reasons I set forth above, and adding some for population growth).
Set that against a total of just under 3 million active duty and reserve troops in the US military, and I'll even spot you the 800,000+ law enforcement officers. Say a total of 3.7 million.
I'd say the 50 million or so militarily capable rifles are enough.
*One thing most people don't appreciate: A quality firearm has a typical useful lifespan that is measured in decades at a minimum, and with adequate care it can stretch into centuries. I've personally fired guns that were manufactured 145 years ago, and I've owned and used guns that were 80 years old and still going strong.
Or look at it another way. The U.S. military is straining to try and keep peace in Iraq, a country slightly larger than California. Picture the same peacekeeping force spread across fifty states, and without a sanctuary country to base operations from.
Lopsided indeed.
(1) No chance that 1/2 of them are large caliber, I'd reckon that a decent proportion (<1/3) are .22 since those are disproportionately popular for target shooting.
(2) Grunts don't wear "typical" body armor.
(3) Even with a .30-06 or larger, you aren't getting through body armor until you are < 60 yards, easy picking for an M16.
Even accepting that figure, rifles don't make an army.
Silly macho bravado. I'll bet your the first to piss your pants when an Apache lights up your tree fort with a barrage of MK4s.
I'm picturing the US military complete with a massive civilian bureaucracy already set up -- not just military and police, but all the arms of State &local governments, courts, hospitals, schools, various loyalist militias ...
I'm also not picturing where you think you are going to get RPGs and other explosive weapons that are largely provided in Iraq by outside financing (in the case of AQ-Iraq) or by legitimate arms of the government vying with each other (as in the Pesh Megra/Shia militias and whatnot).
Also, a trained army with air support can easily defeat even armed civilians at much worse that 1:100 numbers. C3 is worth it's weight in gold (meanwhile, the revolutionaries are trying to figure out why twitter doesn't work on their mobile phones, where the enemy is and what the hell happened to their buddies that were supposed to show up an hour ago with more bullets).
It would result in a lot of civilians laying down their lives to grease the skids of revolution with their blood. I can think of worse things to do with my life.
In the end, though, I think it comes down to the idea that an armed population makes that kind of outcome less likely.
Yes, intuitively, it does seem to foreclose some illegitimate government actions, which can't be suddenly sprung on an armed populace.
Some in the Iranian crowds are dragging those irregulars off those motor cycles, and slapping them around, for example. Any capability for a proportionate response would tend to foreclose some actions, and motivate all concerned to the bargaining table.
The phrase "Act of Intensified Punishment against Arms and Ammunitions" caused me to picture inanimate objects being subjected to various and sundry "intensified" physical activities. The phrase was also useful to obtain a CASA - Country Profile for Iran, which lists the following statutory titles:
.
Punishment of Armed Smugglers Act of 1936
Enhancing Penalties for Smuggling Weapons and Ammunitions Act of 1971
Includes executive guidelines adopted in 1974
Act of Intensified Punishment against Arms and Ammunitions trafficking of February 1972
Punishment of Smugglers Act of 1993
Use of Arms by servicemen in necessary cases Act of 1994
Establishment of the Police Act
Article 4 providing for collection measures
Statute of the Possessory Properties Organization of 1991
Article 38 providing for collection and destruction measures
.
And I see Iran has a government version of the Brady Group / HCI: "With the aim of promoting public awareness concerning the dangers associated with the illicit weapons and encouraging the delivery of these weapons to the relevant authorities, a plan was adopted by the State Security Council, advertising the benefits of disarmament. This plan includes the use of media and producing training films."
I'm not so sure. Civilians shooting at the military might cause antipathy in the military towards the civilian goals -- after all, the human brain is not disposed to look favorably on the motives of those trying to kill us.
If anything, arming the populace might push the army's tipping point further, especially if they
As a side note, it's interesting that the Chinese army had to shift in units from the countryside to disperse the Tienanmen square protesters since the local units were thought to be sympathetic.
It's always been amazing to me how quickly and completely the mullahs hijacked Iran. They went from a popular peaceful revolution to clerical autocracy, almost in a heartbeat.
No joke, after crushing the students, the outside regiments of the PLA set up defensive positions in the city, as if they were expecting an attack by other (rogue?) elements of the PLA.
Why in the world would any Americans attack or shoot at the Military FIRST.
Who would the people be revolting against? The Government! The Politicans and the Bureaucrats! NOT the military. The Politicans first call in the Police and Federal cops, then they call in the National Guard. They can't call in the Military until they change the law on Posie Commatas (SP).
It is illegal to use the Military to do anything except keep the peace. They can't do policing in the US.
The next American Revolution will not be people shooting a Police and the Military. It will be INDIVIDUALS shooting at Politicans and Bureaucrats.
You forget, the revolution will not be from the military hating police hating LEFT. It will be from the military loving, police loving, constitution loving RIGHT. There is no reason they would attack the Police or Military. They KNOW that that would be to attack people they believe to be ON THEIR SIDE.
We were talking about Iran.
You need to reread 10USC§333.
is just not true. Please do read the statute.
Interesting assertion. I'm not sure where the US military would stand with respect to your hypothetical right-ist revolution. That said, it seems rather presumptuous to just assume that the military will not side with the government.
More likely (IMO), it will depend on the details and the behavior of the various parties during the run-up.
(This comment, by the way, is not meant to suggest that the posted comments by "cboldt" are unwelcome. To the contrary, they contribute a great deal to the vitality of these occasional "volokh conspiracy" exchanges......)
State and local civilian leaders are the folks we gun owners elect. (That's why there isn't nearly as much gun control on the local level as the antis would like.) Counting on them to form ranks against a popular revolution is not realistic. They'd probably be leading it instead.
The type revolution I'm picturing features a substantial majority of the populace pissed off enough at the federal government that it's ready to "alter or abolish" it.National guard, or homemade explosives. It's not hard rocket science. Really? In a set battle perhaps. BTW, given that the military has less than 800,000 actual warfighters the odds will be 100:1. In a guerrilla war environment that's plenty.
I'm speaking as a retired Infantry officer. What is the source of your expertise?
.
I'm not from the Netherlands (martinned is the Dutchman on this thread), but I was raised (a few years) in Holland (Michigan). Anyway, focusing on the 2nd amendment, I was riffing off a Scalia statement in the Heller case.
.
District of Columbia v. Heller
I have a serious problem with the Heller decision, to the extent that I consider it an abomination on the order of the Dred Scot decision. The majority has deliberately misconstrued its own binding precedent for the opposite of what it stands for.
Please show me where Politicans and Bureaucrats getting killed, the police both local and Federal doing their normal thing on the killings etc could trigger 10USC§333.
I said nothing about which side the Military and Police might take. I said that a Right-ist Revolution will assume that many of the Police and Military will support them or remain netural.
About Iran the problem is that the Government is attacking the demonstraters. They need to just act like they won and the demonstraters are just upset about comming in second. The Iranian Government should ignore them. By attacking them they create the revolution that they fear.
In any revolution attack the Government. Kill the Politicans and Bureaucrats. Riots, attacking police and the military are a waste of time, they gain you nothing. The Politicans and Bureaucrats never care about any deaths but their own.
Now the thugs beating up people are fair game. Don't run from them swarm them. Beat them up. Kill them. See how long the thugs are around then. The demonstraters are trying to be peaceful. No, they should kill those that try to beat or shoot them. Peacefull to all others.
Wow. You should meet our local police chief and see how he feels about his "may-issue" power over LTCs. IIRC, he bragged about not once accepting an unrestricted (CCW) one.
If the national guard starts to defect, we are outside the parameters of the scenario that I was talking about. In fact, I explicitly said that if the military forces began to have split loyalties, all bets are off. That's true here and that's true in Iran.
If the President really wanted to, it would be trivial for him to set up a situation that would warrant activation of his power under 10USC333. On the other hand, he doesn't need to go to a court or Congress, he can just declare that the conditions are met and order the military in -- it's his sole determination.
Didn't work so well for the Shah -- the protesters shut down more and more of the country until he was forced to use the military, but it was too late. These things are best crushed early (from a tactics point of view, of course I want them to succeed).
.
I remember when that law was amended to its current form. It's a radical revision (and one that I abhor), although it was sold by the Bush administration as an insignificant and necessary change to accommodate action in natural disaster, when a governor fails to timely request use of US military to provide help (See Katrina). See Pub. Law 109-364 (John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007).
.
That aside, I am not sure how big an uprising would have to be "underway" before the feds ordered the US military to be used against US citizens on US soil. If I was president, I would be very circumspect about escalating from FBI/BATFE and other domestic firepower, to obviously military firepower. US Military against US citizens on US soil is a signal that the Republic is dead.
That said, once the decision is made that there will be no compromise, I would advocate the opposite strategy as you have -- maximum force escalated as fast as possible. History is full of failed regimes who waffled in the face of opposition.
A better analogy to what could happen in response to perceived government "oppression" may be found in the Reconstruction period after the American Civil War. To this day hardcore regionalists in the South joke that "the North won the war, we won Reconstruction..ha ha.." Hey, it only took about 100 years for the intentions of Reconstruction to finally apply to the rebellious regions of the South. So forgive me if I am underwhelmed by the theoretical threat of massive force against a theoretical american rebellion. OF greater concern to me would be societal breakdown in the face of a massive denial of services event - either an EMP or multiple massive natural disasters which overwhelm resources so no help comes for a long time. No water, electricity, breakdown of distribution networks (food, information, water, medical care, etc). How quickly we would turn on one another.
This is not true. In the US the press is free to publish classified information so long as the press person didn't steal it themselves. This is established case law, and has been for some time. When my european friends find this out they tend to be rather shocked.
.
I was trying to make the general points that there are SOME limits on the press, and that those limitations are narrow.
.
As a practical matter, I agree that most classified information can be published without meeting the elements of any criminal code violation. However, the Espionage Act prohibits publication of a few narrow classes of classified information, even if the press person/company did not steal it themselves. See, e.g., 18 USC 798 for some of those details. FISA also prohibits publication of certain information.
.
NYT v. US, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), makes it clear that these prohibitions do not generally serve as prior restraint; any more than libel laws prevent the press from libeling people.
This is probably a prerequisite for an insurrection to make the jump to revolution. To make it big time, you need a significant percentage of the people. Once you've got critical mass, all bets are off.
That's easy to say, but the average mob is exceedingly difficult to wield in a coherent manner, and exceedingly easy for small numbers of semi-trained riot control troops (or thugs) to break up. This is the basis of all riot control tactics. Breaking up mobs is particularly easy if the anti-riot forces are willing to freely use deadly force.
Crowds are prone to panic and stampede.
Quite true. But, in case of an EMP event or some other disaster, where not just socialized medicine but actual survival is at stake, deadly force will be met with deadly force, as Californio mentions.
Watch a pack of hyenas taunting more powerful lions. They back away a bit from a deadly charge, but quickly close in from another direction, risking life, because they gotta eat.
[Hiding in bushes and fingering the edge of my blade.] :-/
[Hiding in bushes and fingering the edge of my blade.] :-/
I do understand there are differences. I recently got a call from someone who moved from New York who wanted a "regular gun permit" not a concealed carry license. He just wanted to get his revolver registered so he could take it to the range. He was happy to hear that Texas doesn't fool with any of that nonsense.
I'd probably reccommend he get a CCW permit anyway. It gives you a little more protection against making a silly technical mistake over how your weapon is stored en route to the range.
Small minority of States, large minority of people.
CA + IL + NY + MA + WI + NJ + CT + MD = 100 million people!
Sure, but the broader point, that extrapolating from your local situation can lead to inaccurate conclusions, is valid. Especially when you're in California.
With that said... the current issue vests will stop .30-06 at 60 yards? Really? I've heard enough reports that they'll stop 7.62x39 to not need evidence, but 7.62x63, aka .30-06, is another beast entirely.
In a sustained combat scenario there isn't anything soldiers can wear that will protect them from even intermediate cartridges like the 5.56MM.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.