The New York Times reports that the Canadian Parliament is well on its way to abolishing one part of its costly and troubling gun registry. Currently, all long guns (shotguns and rifles) need to be registered, but that registration would stop if the House of Commons approves a third and final vote and upper house of parliament approves the measure as well. However, the bill preserves language requiring firearms safety training, earning a firearms license and following storage and transporting guidelines.

To one that is not familiar with the Canadian legal system, it would seem that the bill still has a ways to go before any judgments can be made regarding its probability of passage; however, news sites are reporting that the long gun registry will soon be dead while polls are showing that Canadians are split over the issue.

Advocacy groups on both sides are out enforce with published letters to the editors of newspapers, public demonstrations, and heated commentary on blogs. One local newspaper published an article on its website reporting that the “scrapped gun bill targeted the wrong people.”

At a time when people are worried about limited opportunities and economic decline, it is nice to know that there are still some areas of human thought and creative activity that are still appreciated.

Consider, if you will, the realm of logical fallacies, where choices abound and where government agencies are actively"‘incentivizing" (to utilize one of the more hideous neologisms) the cultivation of such fallacies. One list includes 42 different fallacies to choose from, and yet sometimes individuals demonstrate such marked creativity in the construction of such fallacies that it can be difficult to restrain any particular effort to a single fallacy.

Our example for today of government stimulus for the fallacy industry is provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). According to a Washington Times article (“U.S. quietly begins to study gun safety”):

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE, but more commonly known as the BATF) has experienced a bit of turf being taken back in a constitutional legislative move by the state of Tennessee. But now the controversial federal ageny seems poised to fight back.

The move to defend the right to keep and bear arms came in Tennessee. The “Volunteer” state was the first to pass a Firearms Freedom Act that invoked both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to protect citizens’ right to keep and bear arms, and within that, to keep the federal government’s nose out of the gun business inside of the state. With this move, Tennessee has become target number one for the BATFE’s arrogant posturing  for now.

The Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act is a beautiful piece of constitutionalism that passed in June and went into effect without the governor’s signature; it passed in the state senate 22-7 and in the house 87-1. Here are the most inspiring sections:

(1)  The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to
the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government
elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Tennessee
certain powers as they were understood at the time that Tennessee was
admitted to statehood.  The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract
between the state and people of Tennessee and the United States as of the time
that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by
Tennessee and the United States; 
 
(2)  The ninth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to
the people rights not granted in the Constitution and reserves to the people of
Tennessee certain rights as they were understood at the time that Tennessee
was admitted to statehood.  The guarantee of those rights is a matter of contract
between the state and people of Tennessee and the United States as of the time
that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by
Tennessee and the United States.
 
(3)  The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under
the ninth and tenth amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if
not expressly preempted by federal law.  Congress has not expressly preempted
state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an
intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition;
 
(4)  The second amendment to the United States Constitution reserves to
the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the
time that Tennessee was admitted to statehood, and the guarantee of the right is
a matter of contract between the state and people of Tennessee and the United
States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon
and adopted by Tennessee and the United States; and
 
(5)  The Tennessee Constitution clearly secures to Tennessee citizens,
and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Tennessee
citizens to keep and bear arms.

The rest of the TFFA enumerates the details of the gun trade within state borders and proclaims, rightly, “The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Tennessee from those materials,” while it clearly states its goal of regulating its own gun trade as it sees fit.

It’s really hard to argue with the clearly specified rights laid out by the Tennessee legislators, so harmonically in tune with the Constitution. So, the BATFE is trying a different variation on a theme; a theme of subtle contempt for the Constitution combined with a touch of officiousness.

The BATFE is now engaged in a letter-writing campaign of sorts, aimed at Tennessee gun dealers, proclaiming their final and supreme authority in the matter. One Tennessee gun dealer posted a letter allegedly from the BATFE with this following excerpt criticizing the TFFA:

The Act purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the State, and which remain in the State, from most Federal firearms laws and regulations. However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.

While the case could be made that the BATFE itself is unconstitutional from its inception, its claim that Tennessee’s state rights are in conflict with federal gun laws, and therefore superseded by the federal laws, are spurious at best, and based on years of judicial precedent from incorrect and wrongful interpretation of the Supremacy Clause and the whole notion of interstate commerce regulation by the courts.

One question is, will the state of Tennessee defend its own rights and the rights of its citizens from the inflated egos of the officials of one of the most notorious bureaus in America? If Tennessee chooses not to defend its rights and its citizens, then the Act is so many meaningless words, and not even symbolic in nature.
 

When Kirsten Gillibrand was appointed by New York Governor Dave Paterson to fill Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat, reports surfaced that the Kennedy family was outraged, due to Gillibrand’s supposed anti-stimulus bill stand, pro-gun rhetoric, and dim view of same sex marriage. The ruling elitist family felt they were being betrayed. That was in January.

My how things change.

This is mid-May, and Gillibrand, who was the National Rifle Association’s top New York state pick as a firm supporter of the Second Amendment, has moved so quickly in the other direction, that she has even surpassed anti-gun Congresswoman Caroline McCarthy (D-NY). She beat McCarthy to the punch in introducing legislation in the Senate to force dealers at gun shows to perform background checks before McCarthy got it into the House.

McCarthy, a one-issue representative — anti-guns, pro-gun control — at one time attacked Gillibrand’s pro-Second Amendment stance. But again, things have changed. "She actually has been signing things we have been sending over to her," McCarthy said. "And I am very happy about it. I just want to make sure she stays there."

Don’t think for a moment that any of these people “represent” the citizenry. (A response letter today from my senator says he votes according to his private preference, proving it.)

So, McCarthy says she will keep up the pressure on Gillibrand. But what that pressure specifically entails, common folks like myself probably have no idea. One supposes that peer pressure is what passes for debate in Congress these days. Intense it must be, to have someone change a decade of political philosophy in just three months. Or was it all just rhetoric to begin with?

Was Gillibrand chosen because of her willingness to play the game? The Village Voice had some interesting commentary on Gillibrand’s political history and ties, from her father, to her former employer, who just happened to give $25,000 to Paterson’s campaign chest, as did the employer’s son, at a critical time.

The real litmus test that will measure Gillibrand’s defense of the Bill of Right’s 2nd Amendment is about to be taken, as McCarthy will be introducing an assault weapons ban bill in the House, and wants Gillibrand to do the same in the Senate, sign on as a co-sponsor, or at the very least be counted on to vote according to the politics and pressure of the day.

As to date, Gillibrand refuses to comment on legislation not yet in the hopper.