Breaking Slippery Slope Review News
In an earlier (10/18/2002) post, I promised a report on the Kopel and Olson article on gun control ("All the way down the slippery slope") that Glenn Reynolds recommended. I've printed it, and have begun reading it on the Metro on the way back from work. I'm going to use this blog to jot down a thought or two now and then as I read through the piece.

As the title makes clear, the primary theme of the Kopel and Olson essay is that any government control of guns implies the potential for full government control and even elimination of private gun ownership. An early passage (in IV.A: Early 20th Century: The First Step), describes the "first step" towards the elimination of gun ownership rights in England as the Pistols Act of 1903, which required persons to purchase a license before they could buy a gun with a short (9 inches or less) barrel. Kopel and Olson write:

While the Act was, in the short run, harmless to gun owners, the Act was of considerable long-term importance. By allowing the Act to pass, British gun owners had accepted the proposition that the government could set the terms and conditions for gun ownership by law-abiding subjects. As Frederick Schauer points out, for a government body to decide "X and not Y" means that the government body has implicitly asserted a jurisdiction to decide between X and Y. Hence, to decide "X not Y" is to assert, indirectly, an authority in the future to choose "Y not X." Thus, for Parliament to choose very mild gun controls versus strict controls was to assert Parliament's authority to decide the nature of gun control. As this Essay shall discuss in regards to the granting of police authority over gun licensing, establishing the proposition that a government entity has any authority over a subject is an essential, but not sufficient, element for a trip down the slippery slope.*

But labeling the Pistols Act of 1903 as the first such step contradicts evidence the authors have marshaled -- but perhaps not recognized -- in earlier pages. Following the overthrow of the Stuarts in 1689, the authors show there was a concerted effort to restore the right to bear arms to Englishmen. They fail to note, or perhaps even notice, that not just any Englishmen were included in the warm sunshine of gun ownership:

After much discussion and numerous revisions, the right to arms evolved into a statement that "the Subjects which are protestants may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by law." (emphasis added)

The Stuarts and their supporters, needless to say, were Catholic. Thus, even the earliest instance of the right to bear arms was not an unalloyed right, but rather one tempered by if not indeed determined by, shall we say, practical considerations about the safety of the state and the stability of society.

Put even more baldly, the original strong gun ownership right discovered by Kopel and Olson is one enacted by the winning side in a revolution to secure its hold on power and disarm its opponents. Thus, the seeds of gun control were present in the earliest instance of gun rights legislation. As a practical matter, this is unobjectionable, I would say; the first order of business after you've won a civil war is to end the shooting and set up rules that keep your side on top.

But at least one rebuttal to Kopel and Olson's analysis is therefore that a slope that begins in 1689 and ends in 1967** is considerably less slippery than one that begins in 1903 and ends in 1967. The more important point is that Kopel and Olson demonstrate -- one imagines almost against their own will -- that English common law has always featured both gun control (sometimes in an unfamiliar religion-based form) and gun ownership rights, with both waxing and waning over time. Even a strong reaffirmation and strengthening of gun ownership rights like that in 1689, apparently one of the most notable such instances in English history, was part of a system of state control over its adversaries and their arms. This, of course, speaks to and derives from the imperative need (or even right?) of the community to determine the distribution and nature of lethal power within its confines -- that imperative so nobly yet circumspectly addressed in the Second Amendment.

More as this story develops!


=====
*The article is extensively footnoted, and this quote alone featured three of them; here and elsewhere, I'm removing these numbers for clarity in this post. Please see the original text to see these footnotes and the supporting documentation they refer to.
**Or whenever, sometime in the late 20th century; I haven't gotten that far yet. Reading ahead, as far as I can tell, Kopel and Olson see the Criminal Justice Act of 1967 as the final important nail in the coffin of English gun ownership rights. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:06:00 AM -- |    

 

Call it a hunch
VOA News: Bush-Jiang Summit May Focus on Iraq, N. Korea Nuclear Issues. Hmm, thanks, might not have guessed that on my own.

Moving over to the "for what it's worth" department, China denies helping N. Korean nuclear programme (Muzi.com lateline news). Given rumors of Pakistani and/or Russian help with the latest North Korean nuclear weapons effort; it may even be true, at least technically. It's hard to see how China actually benefits from a nuclear armed rogue state on its border.

Finally, in the "blogger speculation" department (which is what we [don't] get paid to do, right?) Aziz Poonawalla points to some thinking out loud by Suman Palit ("Kolkata Libertarian"), to the effect that North Korea needs to mind what China tells it to do, and other reasons why North Korea is deterrable and action against it can be postponed. I agree with Mr. Palit about China's influence on North Korea -- should they choose to use it. But there's the rub; I think "deterrable" in the context of North Korea misses the point. "Deterrence" is about preventing a country from starting a war. What Palit is really talking about is "containable" or "capable of being influenced", both of which require interested, motivated parties to do the containing and influencing. Palit points to diplomatic pressure by China to get North Korea to return to the 1994 agreement. We'll see whether that's pro forma pressure or whether it's accompanied by threats of reducing fuel shipments to North Korea, the quickest way to bring pain to that government.

But that assumes China sees a need to do so. It seems likely to me that China has good enough intelligence in North Korea to have not been surprised or alarmed by anything North Korea is doing. But even if they didn't, the situation may not seem very dire from Beijing's point of view.

North Korea has two weapons programs that rightly worry the U.S. and the Western world: its missile program, and its nuclear program. Neither is necessarily threatening to China: to me, the missile program seems likeliest to be intended as a source of foreign exchange, in both the form of covert sales to other countries (a very legitimate worry to the United States), and in the form of forcing dialogue for "aid" with the European Union and the United States. China may see North Korea in this respect the way Toyota sees Hyundai -- a competitor, but not a mortal threat -- to the extent they are joining that market (I have no idea, to be honest) or likelier the way Sony sees Hyundai, if they don't. It's altogether unlikely that the missiles will ever be fired at China, since China's principal adversaries already have missiles of their own*, and China is North Korea's only ideological partner and ally to any extent.

That leaves the nuclear weapons. They, too, are not directed at China; at current levels (zero to two, as near as I can guesstimate from the news), their main military purpose can only be deter an American/South Korean attack; now American troops or (given the missiles) Japanese cities would be under the threat of nuclear retaliation. We may believe the chances of such a U.S. attack are nil; the North Korean military may not. The secondary purpose may again be foreign exchange. Again, there's not necessarily any compelling interest for the Chinese to intervene, let alone intervene forcefully. Inducements from the United States will be needed for any more than the bare minimum of cooperation in containing and/or reversing North Korea's weapons programs.

It's possible the one result for the Chinese out of all of this is that they want a unified Korea less than ever, since that country will have an active nuclear weapons program; South Korea could probably develop its own in a relatively short time, but there's nothing like already having a nuclear weapon to get others to quit trying to keep you from getting it -- or at least become a lot more careful about trying.

If you believe, on the other hand, that China is seriously worried about the North Korean weapons programs, my guess is that they could be at the DMZ within [distance from Yalu River to DMZ ] / [20 miles per hour] + [time for lunch and rest stops]; North Korean land defenses "point south" for the most part, not north (except, of course, for those nuclear weapons). Especially with US cooperation -- attack and destroy missile sites and weapons facilities -- this could be a "just between us superpowers" thing. In an equally unlikely followon scenario, China might actually allow reunification in exchange for dismantling the nuclear program, an ironclad pledge of nonproliferation by Korea -- and withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Taken altogether, that might actually make sense for everyone, and is therefore vanishingly improbable.

So I'm guessing China won't do much. Does that mean we must? Not really, and not necessarily before Iraq, if you accept that's necessary. While China may not be interested in forcing North Korea to do anything, it may be willing to help keep them from exporting weapons by sealing its borders and permitting a focussed blockade of North Korea: no weapons in or out, possibly inspections-on-demand to see what's going on inside North Korea (but no consequences spelled out). What will be interesting is how much it will take to get even that level of cooperation.

=====
*Except perhaps Taiwan. I would think even North Korea wouldn't make that mistake, though. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:39:00 PM -- |    

 

Oh, what a feeling...
...ballistics match.

I saw the briefing at a cafe near Dupont Circle where Maddie and I had some dinner after picking her up from daycare and a trip to a museum. Moose did some kind of Oscars thank you routine, and finally Mr. Ballistics from ATF spoke the words I'd been waiting to hear.

I feel good! Like I knew that I would. It really is like a weight lifted off of us; we had started to rethink out how to do morning and evening Maddie pickups, parent dropoffs, had started to hate loitering around on Metro platforms, walking across open plazas to work, pumping gas. I hope we can shelve all that now.

Sadness remains, for the victims and their families and friends. A fund has been set up to help them out, I'll be making a donation, here's information how; I'm happy to say the site itself appears to be overloaded just now.

Not to beat myself up about this, but a lot of people have been through worse and are going through worse than what the DC area underwent, even narrowed down to the "sudden random recurring death" department of terror; Sarajevo once upon a time, Israel now, arguably many crime-ridden neighborhoods throughout the U.S. for the last many years. It's hard to take.

For the record, who cares
In the most inconsequential news of the day, I seem to have been wrong about everything I speculated about the sniper(s); no harm done, I assume, but it just goes to show ... me. Regardless, they were mainly murderous a**holes. May they rot in jail for the rest of their days. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:03:00 PM -- |    

 

Persons of interest in serial sniper case
John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo would be very smart to turn themselves in in relation to the DC serial sniper attacks. Chief Moose has just said that a warrant for arrest on federal gun charges has been issued for Mr. Muhammad (formerly Williams), but the man should not be assumed to be the sniper; he and/or Mr. Malvo may may have information about the shooter. They may be driving a burgundy or blue 1990 Chevrolet Caprice, with New Jersey plates NDA 21Z, or a white vehicle with the Maryland tag ZWE517.

An image of Mr Muhammad can be seen here. Chief Moose said he is a black man, about 6 feet 1 inch tall, and weighing about 180 pounds. He is considered armed and dangerous. Mr. Malvo is said to be 17, it's not clear whether he faces any charges.

Meanwhile, here are some sensible guidelines for being a good witness, from the Montgomery County Police Department. Sightings of Mr. Muhammad should be called in to 911 or 1-888-324-9800.

Other news links: Washington Post, New York Times, full text of Chief Moose's statement.

=====
Update, 1PM: It looks like these are the guys: "the right kind of rifle," i.e., a gun capable of shooting .223 caliber or similar rounds, was in their car, as well as a tripod used to steady the gun. The car had been modified to allow access to the trunk from inside, as well as with a hole to shoot out of somehow. Ballistics tests presumably by the end of the day... posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:46:00 PM -- |    

 

Fiat bux
On October 18, the Vatican decided (NYTimes) to overrule the recent American bishops' "zero-tolerance" policy towards priests credibly accused of child sexual molestation. A Sunday New York Times article by Frank Bruni ("Rejecting Sex-Abuse Policy, Rome Rejects Erosion of Authority") provides background:

...Thus, it was the American bishops themselves who built the lectern at which Gov. Frank Keating of Oklahoma, the head of the national board, stood as he publicly excoriated American church leaders for failing to act swiftly and decisively enough against abusive priests.

Mr. Keating went so far as to suggest that Catholic parishioners upset with their leaders withhold financial contributions to the church, saying Catholics were "stunned, sick, heartsick" by the failures of American church leaders to protect children from sexually abusive priests.

"That really bothered people here," said one Vatican official, adding that some Vatican officials had the sense of a public penance spinning out of control.

Yeah, I can imagine that really brought the issue into sharp focus for Their Holinesses. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:40:00 AM -- |    

 

Here is New York in DC

"here is new york: a democracy of photographs," the exhibit of 9/11 photos from New York, has been in Washington at the Corcoran Art Gallery for several weeks now (it runs through November 11). On Sunday, I finally went to see it, while Cricket took Maddie to a Disney Ice Capades show at the MCI Center.

The exhibit is simply hundreds of very densely packed photos, 8 by 11 or 12 inches I think, hanging on the four walls and dividers of a single large room at the Corcoran, as well as a hallway outside that room. The photographs are not in any order, so that pristine Trade Center towers are next to pictures of missing persons, firemen, camera crews, the woods near Shanksville, people watching, ruins, American flags, posters, the Pentagon with that huge burning notch like an ax chop, family members searching, bagpipers at funerals, a roiling dust cloud, policemen. And a plane flying much too low, and the fireballs.

Sometimes I'll think "did it really happen"; here I felt like it has never stopped for me after all. There was a video -- there were a few, but there was one in particular. It just showed people watching, looking up and watching. They blinked sometimes, their eyes would tear up sometimes, but each person kept watching. They might look away for a second to process it all, then they would watch again. Some of the photos had the same feeling: of people being born into a new world they weren't ready for that morning.

But also, looking at this, seeing people survive, help the victims, dig out, tend to their children, and argue about everything -- who to fight, whether to hate, whether to take photographs -- I felt this: this is an incomparable country. Unprecedentedly, beautifully, superbly, absolutely incomparable. If you're not here, you should be so lucky. If you are, you should feel so lucky.

After an exhibit like that, picking up your family at a Disney Ice Capade, with vendors hawking $10 bags full of Cinderella souvenirs, one four year old meltdown every ten yards or so, why, that was just about the most perfect place in the world to be. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:42:00 PM -- |    

 

Welcome Wired News readers
For non-Wired readers, I'm one of those non-experts Mr. Shachtman refers to in his piece, "Who is the Sniper? The blogs tell all." As a convenience for Wired readers, the correct links to my two sniper related comments are:

10/11: Sniper speculation update

10/3: Five-murder shooting spree in Montgomery County

The link Mr. Shachtman apparently intended to provide, but inserted a space in ("racist nut", incorrect link), is actually not about the sniper per se, but about the gun control debate: "Kicking the can down the road." As it worked out, it more or less pointed to the 10/11 piece above. More on Mr. Shachtman's article later, maybe; suffice it to say I usually find Jim Henley's blog sniper news roundups more illuminating than the New York Times' or Washington Post's.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:04:00 AM -- |    

 

In solidarity

MEMORIAL SERVICE IN WASHINGTON, DC

A Memorial Service to commemorate the large number of Australians who lost their lives in the bombing attacks in Bali on Saturday 12 October will be held in Washington, DC.

The Memorial Service will be held at the National Cathedral, Massachusetts & Wisconsin Avenues NW, Washington DC, at 11.00 am on Thursday 24 October 2002.

The image is of wattle, the floral emblem of Australia. The Australian prime minister asked that people wear it today in remembrance of the victims of the Bali attack. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:01:00 AM -- |