PracticalGunControlPart3 <== PDF version
Dear readers:
This post is available only as a pdf owing to its considerable length. It continues the examination of the historical aspect of gun control, focusing on the true extent and meaning of the Second Amendment.
Thanks for reading.
EDD
WhatWeLearnedFromOperationFastAndFuriousPart2 < — PDF version
Mr. Dennis Wagner of The Arizona Republic has once again performed a valuable public service in his 29 Jan 2012 article [1] regarding “Operation Fast and Furious”. It is a follow-up to his 27 Nov 2011 article [2], which was the subject of my first essay on this matter (4 Dec 2011).
In the 29 Jan 2012 article, Mr. Wagner recounts the career of Dennis K. Burke, who was the U. S. Attorney for the state of Arizona throughout the entire period that “Operation Fast and Furious” was being conducted by the BATFE. Apparently Mr. Burke knew about the Operation early on. Prior to becoming U. S. Attorney, Mr. Burke served as a law clerk for a justice on the Arizona Supreme Court, and as a staff lawyer on the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee. During that time, he was influential in drafting what eventually become the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (which banned possession of certain semiautomatic rifles and magazines). He later worked with Rahm Emmanuel in the Clinton administration on firearms issues, including discussions on extending background check requirements under the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act through the use of executive orders. Mr. Wagner cites a 1997 article published in the Arizona Business Gazette, in which Mr. Burke said that gun control was his most fulfilling accomplishment in government service. Just what we need: government officials devoted to, and proud of, their role in the destruction of the rights of citizens.
President Obama nominated Mr. Burke for U. S. Attorney for Arizona in 2009; it is not known if Mr. Burke’s sterling citizen disarmament record influenced the selection or not. Suffice to say, it was a fortuitous choice for Mr. Obama.
Mr. Wagner’s article lays out a very important timeline. The gun battle leading to the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry occurred on 14 Dec 2010. The BATFE investigated the incident, and as a result, Mr. Wagner’s article states: “Within hours, Burke was notified that two guns found at the scene were linked to Fast and Furious”. Then some BATFE agents leaked details to Congress, followed by Senator Grassley’s letter in Jan 2011 in which he accurately stated BATFE’s actions, followed by Mr. Burke’s claim to the Department of Justice that Mr. Grassley’s accusations were “categorical falsehoods”.
Now this is a very important point. Mr. Burke was notified “within hours” after the investigation that two guns found at the scene were part of the Operation, but how would the investigating BATFE agents know that? They could only have known by comparing the make, model, and serial number of guns found at the scene to the same data for all guns involved in the Operation. How else could they have known? If the comparison only took a short time, BATFE must have had pretty accurate records. If so, the identity of the “straw purchasers” and the selling dealer must also have been known, since that data is written both on the bills of sale and on the BATFE form to be retained by dealers for all sales. In the notification to Mr. Burke, BATFE’s proof thereof would have been unassailable since serial numbers are unique to each firearm. Why then would Mr. Burke later denounce Mr. Grassley as promoting “categorical falsehoods”, claim that members of Mr. Grassley’s staff were “stooges for the gun lobby”, and criticize the BATFE for not denying the reports about the guns in question? I leave that to your imagination.
He also claimed that Mr. Grassley’s letter was an attempt to “distract from the incredible success in dismantling [Southwest Border] gun trafficking operations”. Let me get this straight. The BATFE engineers a gun smuggling ring in order to … dismantle gun trafficking? Mr. Burke has a bright future in politics.
[1] Dennis Wagner, “Firearm scandal, political fall”, The Arizona Republic, 29 Jan 2012, p. 1
[2] Dennis Wagner, “Behind the fall of gun probe”, The Arizona Republic, 27 Nov 2011, p. 1
FederalistPapersReprint <== FREE PDF reprint of The Federalist Papers
24 Nov 2011
Dear Readers:
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 essays by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay published from the fall of 1787 to the spring of 1788. Their purpose was to explain and defend the newly-crafted U. S. Constitution (intended to supercede the Articles of Confederation) during the ratification debate in New York. In the course of these essays, these three founding fathers discuss the philosophy of limited government with necessary powers, the separation of powers between the states and the federal government, and how these were implemented in the Constitution.
It is important for those who believe in limited government to read and understand the Federalist Papers. They are as relevant today as they ever were. Page 2 of the reprint (available in pdf only due to its length) contains a commercial for a book that will help you understand it better; I hope you will consider that too.
The Federalist is in the public domain, and there is nothing copyrighted in this reprint. Please distribute it as you see fit.
Thanks for reading,
Ed Duvall
Defects_of_the_Articles_of_Confederation_16 <== PDF version
The last issue surveyed the alteration of power at the federal level from the Articles of Confederation gave way to the Constitution. But there were also significant alterations to the powers held by the states. These alterations fall into three categories: a) those powers held by the states under the Articles, but were prohibited in the Constitution; b) those that were retained in the Constitution, but in a modified form; and c) those that were not addressed in the Articles and prohibited by the Constitution. The essay closes with a list of powers that were prohibited to the states in the Articles and carried over into the Constitution.
The powers falling under the first category may be summarized as follows:
a. The states were allowed to coin money under the Articles, but are prohibited from doing so under the Constitution. This was to correct the paper-money problem so rampant in the states after the war, as detailed in part 10 of this series.
b. The states were allowed to issue bills of credit on their account under the Articles, but are prohibited from doing so under the Constitution. It is worth observing that the federal government likewise falls under the same prohibition. This had been an enormous problem during the war, more so on the part of Congress, as it had issued the Continental bills of credit, which became worthless in a few years. This is also discussed in part 10 of this series.
c. Under the Articles, the states could independently issue letters of marque (privateering) with the approval of Congress (which required a declaration of war); under the Constitution, only the federal government can issue them.
The power falling under the second category is the power to levy import duties. Under the Articles, the states retained the power to levy their own import and export duties, unless they conflicted with provisions of treaties that were in negotiation withFranceandSpainat the time. This power caused several problems after the war. First, the states proceeded to respond toBritain’s navigation Acts by imposing tonnage duties and other duties; this was partly a consequence of Congress’ inability to negotiate commercial treaties, as detailed in part 5 of this series. The second problem was that the states began to prey on each other in order to gain commercial advantages. The Constitution prohibits the states from these levies, except for any necessary to cover inspection costs. Any revenue collected that is in excess of the inspection costs are to be transferred to the federal treasury.
The powers falling under the third category (not addressed in the Articles, prohibited to the states under the Constitution) include: a) prohibited from passing bills of attainder; b) prohibited from passing ex-post facto laws; c) prohibited from passing laws that inhibit the execution of contracts; d) prohibited from passing a legal tender law, except for gold and silver; and d) prohibited from laying a tonnage duty.
Last, there are powers which were prohibited to the states under the Articles, and were likewise carried over to the Constitution. These prohibitions include: a) creation of titles of nobility; b) establishing treaties with foreign nations; c) forming alliances with foreign nations; d) forming alliances or confederations among any number of states; e) keeping a military navy in peacetime; f) maintaining an army in peacetime except as allowed by Congress; and g) engaging in war without concurrence of Congress, except for emergency situations.
In The Federalist Companion, author Edward D. Duvall explains in detail why the Articles of Confederation failed after the Revolutionary War. The result was a union of the states under the U.S. Constitution. This book is a great aid to understanding the defense of the Constitution presented by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay in The Federalist Papers.
In Can You Afford That Student Loan, author Edward Duvall explains how to evaluate whether a student loan makes sense economically. It includes a unique nomographic system for seeing the whole picture of debt, income, and repayment.
-Chronology from 1761 to 1787
-Extended outline of The Federalist Papers
-Text of Articles of Confederation and Constitution
-Fully indexed and cross-referenced
Download for free.
-Full version of the Federalist Papers.
Download for free.
Download for free.
Free Nomograph Templates.