I’ve commended the work of libertarian rapper Neema V before (see Fantastic Libertarian Rapper: Neema V; More Peace Music: White Flag Warrior). He’s now working on an independent film, “Guns and Weed: The Road to Freedom”–the trailer is below.
Guns and Weed–The Road to Freedom Read Post »
On the morning of Tuesday, September 28, the University of Texas community was alerted to the terrifying situation of a gunman on campus. Students, staff, and faculty were told via text messages, emails, sirens, and various forms of social media to shelter in place and await evacuation.
It was reported that the gunman, later identified as UT student Colton Tooley was armed and seen walking down 21st street, shooting his weapon into the air and ground while yelling and screaming. He then entered into the Perry-Casteneda Library and proceeded up to the sixth floor where he ultimately took his own life. Fortunately, no one else was injured in the process, and it appears that the Tooley had no intention of hurting anyone but himself.
Coincidentally, the Libertarian Longhorns and UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus had invited Dr. John Lott, famed writer of the book More Guns, Less Crime, to speak on campus that same day. The date had been set since early this past summer, but the campus shooting obviously put Dr. Lott’s talk in jeopardy. However, the organization’s student leaders decided that, out of respect for the speaker who had traveled all the way from Maryland and the importance of the issues at hand, the event should not be canceled.
The two student organizations quickly reorganized the event. Local bookstore Brave New Books generously agreed to host the talk and extended their normal business hours to accommodate. The Libertarian Party of Texas assisted students notifying media outlets and local groups that the event would continue at the new location.
The result was nothing short of phenomenal. At least 125 students and Austinites crammed into Brave New Books to hear John Lott speak about his research on the effects of gun control laws on violent crime. Television, radio, and newspaper outlets from Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas interviewed people and recorded footage of the event. Their response to the presentation was very positive.
UT students Jeff Shi, Kory Zipperer, Justo Montoya, Jose Nino, and Andy Fernandez were interviewed on Austin area news stations and quoted in newspapers across Texas. More news coverage will certainly be released in the coming days.
Despite the sensitive nature of the issue, the Libertarian Longhorns and UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus acted in a professional manner and provided a solution in a difficult time for the UT campus and Austin community. Their actions are consistent with their firm belief that by educating the community these volatile situations may be reduced.
Media Coverage to date:
Andy Fernandez is a leader of the Libertarian Longhorns at UT-Austin and an SFL Campus Coordinator. Originally posted on the Students for Liberty Blog.
UT-Austin Shooting & the “More Guns, Less Crime” Event Read Post »
Having reviewed what the McDonald gun decision says, the next question is: Is it good for liberty?
The short-term answer is certainly yes. Chicago has one of the worst gun bans in the country, so if it’s loosened at all, then Chicagoans will enjoy more liberty. Presumably very restrictive bans in others cities will also fall, which is also good.
What about that disgusting language in the decision reassuring governments that the right to bear arms “does not imperil every law regulating firearms”?
Some libertarian friends have suggested that this might embolden certain state or local governments to pass more gun laws, but this argument isn’t persuasive.
Places that don’t have more stringent gun control now haven’t been holding back because they heretofore thought that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protected an unqualified right to keep and bear arms. Until now, governments everywhere had every reason to think they could pretty much get away with anything because cities like Chicago had already done it. The reason some places, such as my home state of Ohio, have a lot of gun freedom (relatively) is because the people there want it, and that’s not going to change.
One might also argue that the decision is bad because it is centralist — it is the federal government telling the states what to do, which the Founders never intended, and which, arguably, the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers intended only to a limited extent. I’m sympathetic to this point of view, but that question was not at issue in this case. The reality is that the Supreme Court long ago assumed the power to strike down state and local laws that violate certain rights, and it’s not going to lose that power anytime soon no matter what. The only question now is whether it will use that power in a way that benefits liberty, and here it did so.
Of course, future Supreme Court decisions may make clear that the exceptions to the rule are so expansive as to render Heller and McDonald meaningless. And none of this is to say that we should be grateful to the Supreme Court for letting us do what we had a right to do in the first place, or that we should count on the Court to protect our rights in the future. Where you see the Supreme Court’s true character is in its decisions on the extent of the federal government’s power — which it has held to be virtually unlimited, with the exception of a few carved-out “rights” such as this one. If the Constitution is going to get us out of that problem, it won’t be through more Supreme Court cases, but through nullification.
Is the McDonald Gun Decision Good for Liberty? Read Post »
The Supreme Court issued its decision in the McDonald gun case today, holding that the Second Amendment’s protection of gun rights applies against state and local governments just as it applies to the federal government.
From a quick read of the decision, it appears to break down like this.
The majority opinion by Justice Alito holds that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause “incorporates” the Second Amendment right to bear arms and therefore limits state and local governments just as it limits the federal government. Like Justice Scalia in the Heller decision two years ago, Alito is careful to reassure governments that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” so many gun-control laws will still stand.
Unsurprisingly, the majority opinion dismisses in a single paragraph the petitioners’ argument that the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, which the Supreme Court rendered toothless more than a century ago in the Slaughter-House Cases, protects gun rights. The Privileges or Immunities Clause is the provision in which some libertarians, such as Randy Barnett, put great hope for protection of liberty in the future — but the Supreme Court’s decision here confirms that, however strong the legal arguments, the idea that the Supreme Court would ever do it is little more than wishful thinking.
…
Supreme Court: Second Amendment Applies to State and Local GovernmentsRead More »
Supreme Court: Second Amendment Applies to State and Local Governments Read Post »
If a small town in which property rights (the societal recognition of Lockean rules as enforceable claims) are generally respected doesn’t have one individual called “the mayor” or “the governor”, society will collapse in a blaze of lead and gunpowder, Hollywood neverendingly tells us. Movie directors show us a land of arbitrary deeds from violent types who terrorized peaceful (this is the Establishment’s code-word for “harmless”) populations all throughout the land until forcible government was established and chaos turned to order.
But as several empirical investigations have pointed out, much to the so-called “conservatives” and “liberals” (actually two branches of social democracy, dogma and fallacy based, respectively) dismay, the less government there is, the more peaceful and prosperous a territory can be with respect to its own cultural potential. Why? Because no area is better served by a monopoly than by free competition: this certainly includes the provision of personal, property defense, and conflict resolution services.
Terry Anderson has a superb academic paper entitled “An American Experiment in Anarcho- Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West“ and a lighter yet not less revealing article on the subject that has been a must-read for Mises.org visitors interested in the real dynamics of society, the State and its allies’ propaganda notwithstanding. …
How wild was the “Wild West”, in fact? Read Post »
