More Michael Bellesisles defence

This time, you can read his own words here

The most significant and oft-repeated criticism of Arming America concerns the probate materials. Many critics maintain that “the entire argument of the book is based on one thousand probate records.” This statement is incorrect. It is true that I had initially been fascinated with probate records as a source, and for years I would stop at every county courthouse I was near and ask if they had any probate inventories from the antebellum period. These materials open a window on the dynamic nature of the early American economy and the structure of the household economy. However, as I presented my findings at historical conferences over the 1990s, I was persuaded that probate records are deeply flawed as a source. Academic conferences are supposed to accomplish precisely this task, helping scholars clarify their ideas and discover what is strongest and weakest in their evidence. Many historians pointed out that a great deal depended on the dedication of the executors. Theirs was a complex job, that of listing and giving a monetary valuation to every single item in the possession of the deceased at the time of death. Many of them must have been tempted to take shortcuts. Additionally, except for when goods are auctioned, there is no indication as to how the executors arrived at their valuation of goods inventoried. There are also many problems with the documents themselves, not the least of which is deciphering them. Some executors possessed a beautiful flowing script, others had the most awful and barely legible handwriting; prior to the 1820s all spelled erratically. But the primary problem with probate records is their built-in class bias. Generally only property holders were inventoried; far too often the poorest were buried without any concern for the distribution of their few goods.

Because of the many conversations I had with scholars over the years about probate records I decided to make little use of them in Arming America. Nonetheless, they remain significant sources, providing some indication of how many guns were in private hands in America and in what condition those guns were kept. As a consequence, this material appears Chapter Two in four paragraphs and a sentence (pp. 74, 109–110, 266–67, and 386). I tried in the book to indicate, as briefly as possible, the limitations of probate records, which are biased by class, race, gender, local standards, and the personalities of the executors. It is very clear that I erred in not devoting far more space to a full consideration of a source that would arouse the interest of readers. The ensuing controversy has led to a number of valuable insights into the use of probate materials, which will hopefully be of some benefit to future scholars. I have posted on my web page an essay I wrote some years back on the uses of probate materials. Further materials and a name-by-name listing of the probate records examined may be found on that site.

Quick! Quick! What's the answer?

What was the main reason for the formation of the NRA in 1871?

a) The NRA was a militia designed to guard against British invasion.
b) Ulysses Grant wanted to promote hunting in the United States.
c) After the Civil War, Grant combatted political dissent to the Second
Amendment by forming the NRA with disbanded Union troops.
d) General George Wingate and Col. William Church were alarmed by
the Union troops’ poor marksmanship during the Civil War and
created the NRA to promote shooting skills among civilians and soldiers.

The answer to this question can be found here. It is question 14.

Wow! http://www.americanhunter.org! That's a publication of the National Rifle Association! Straight from the Horse's mouth. I was amazed to see that confession.

If you are too lazy to look it up, the answer is (D) The organization was founded in 1871 by Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate in response to the generally poor marksmanship demonstrated by United States troops during and after the Civil War.

In 1863 Church became editor of the newly founded United States Army and Navy Journal and Gazette Of the Regular and Volunteer Services. In its pages, he championed the need for military marksmanship, as evidenced by the limited shooting skills of Union troops during the war. Church found a kindred soul in Wingate, by this time a captain in the New York State National Guard.

Now, wouldn't Union soldiers be great shots if guns were commonplace items?

Nope, they couldn't hit the broadside of a barn.

This in itself this puts the lie to claims about an American gun culture prior to the Civil War.

Gunsmiths: in defence of Michael Bellesiles's " Arming America" -- Part I

I am not impressed with the charges that Michael Bellesisles's Arming America is "all lies". The problem is that by dismissing something as "all lies" isn't really valid without some serious evidence. And to paint something with whole cloth as being "all lies" makes the original statement a lie if there is actually a significant amount of truth.

That said:

As someone who grew up in the Birmingham, England vicinity and is familiar with expensive British game guns made by the likes of Boss, Holland & Holland,Purdy, E. J. Churchill, John Rigby, James Woodward & Sons, Charles Boswell, William Evans, Atkins Grant & Lang, John Wilkes, John Dickson, Westley Richards and William Powell, I know that a handmade gun is (1) expensive as heck (roughly £25,000) and (2) takes forever to make. So, it resonates with me when Bellesisles points out that guns were expensive and rare in Colonial, and pre-industrial, America.

Let's say that a musket costs £1/3/- (1 pound and 3 shillings), but that the average annual income is £50. That would make the musket roughly a week's wages. But remember that there were other expenses such as food and that income would also cover the needs of the entire family under working age. There weren't too many two income families back then. Also, the average citizen didn't have a lot of things (one of those post-industrial revolution changes comes in the amount of personal possessions). Probably a change of clothes, some dishes, and cookware. The houses weren't very big then either, unless you were affluent. Even then, they were fairly tiny by today's standards.

I have seen 18th century gentleman's budgets and how they pretty much paid out for things such as servant's wages, upkeep of property and so on. So, one has to figure out where a firearm would fit into the budget: is it a necessity or a luxury? Think of your current 21st Century budget: can you afford many luxuries?

And they didn't have consumer loans in the 18th Century!

But, firearms weren't the only thing that were expensive. Until the early 19th century, pretty much everything was hand made by a craftman, even clothing was handwoven. Every part was different even when serving the same function. You could not buy a new part. You had to go to a craftman and have it "tailor made" to replace the broken part. Needless to say such a process was time consuming and expensive, and sometimes impossible.

In the 18th century firearms (rifles, pistols, and muskets) were all hand made by gunsmiths. Gun making was a craft. Some pistols were so fancy as to be almost works of art. Pistols and muskets were all essentially one-of-a-kind craft objects. When something broke, repair was difficult because the replacement part needed to be handmade.

This takes me to a couple of neat and gratuitous videos about British Gunsmithing from Mark Williams's Industrial Revelations. The first is about Birmingham Gunsmiths and the Second is about the proofing process, which is how firearms were, and still are, tested in the UK to show they were safe.

While Birmingham was the "foremost arms producer in the world", what exactly was the status of colonial gunsmiths? How many were there really? I see quotes such as this one saying that:

"Firearms were rare in colonial America, with only a total of 18 gunsmiths serving Virginia from 1607 to 1770, and only two advertised in New York City from 1726 to 1776."

On the other hand, Clayton Cramer, comes up with a number of "2400 Americans who worked as gunsmiths in the period 1607-1840". OK, Cramer is extending his period to well beyond the period in question (1607-1794), which in my mind is the period up to The year that the new Federal government decided to manufacture its own muskets so that the United States would not be dependent on foreign arms. Maybe that explains why the large discrepancy between the figures. Not to mention, that number would make the American colonies the largest arms producer in the world, not Birmingham or London. Stack the deck with some later (post-1794) arrivals and others who might not properly be called gunsmiths to come up with an inflated figure.

To pursue the entirety of this trade, a gunsmith must possess skills as a mechanic, a metalworker, a woodworker, and an artisan

I know that some gunsmith shops had multiple workers specialising in various tasks. Harold B. Gill's The gunsmith in colonial Virginia gives the following example: Adam Stephen and Anthony Noble set up a gunsmith shop in Martinsburg, VA during the revolution and employed 30 workers performing various functions in the process of making 18 stand per week during the war for independence.

This book is interesting as it shows the household inventories for several gunsmiths, which gives you an idea how few possessions they had.

Prior to 1794, There were no real large scale arms manufacturers in the United States. In 1794, the United States Congress passed a bill calling "for the erecting and repairing of Arsenals and Magazines". President George Washington, given wide latitude in carrying out this order, selected Harpers Ferry, then a part of Virginia, for the location of the Harpers Ferry National Armory. Harper's Ferry was the Second Arsenal in the United States, The first being the The Springfield Armory

The land in Springfield, MA had been used as a training field for militia since the 1600s. In 1777 "The Arsenal at Springfield" was established to manufacture cartridges and gun carriages for the American Revolution. During the Revolution the arsenal stored muskets, cannon, and other weapons. Barracks, shops, storehouses, and a magazine were built, but no arms were manufactured. After the war, the government kept the facility to store arms for future needs. By the 1780s the Arsenal was a major ammunition and weapons depot; however, production of weaponry at the Springfield Armory began in 1795 when 220 flintlock muskets were produced.

As an aside, in 1787 poor farmers from western Massachusetts, led by Daniel Shays, tried to seize the arms at Springfield. This was a key event leading to the Federal Constitution Convention. Those involved in the rebellion planned to use the weapons to force the closure of the State and county courts that were taking their lands for debt.

Now, wouldn't these frontier farmers have had guns if they were so common? Why raid the Springfield Arsenal? Especially since they were mostly veterans of the revolutionary war: wouldn't they have just taken their muskets from the mantle? Another point, these were the frontier farmers that the framers were concerned and there is more than enough documentary proof for this, Justice Kennedy.

Anyway, naturally interchangeable parts were closely tied to military history, as is the history of manufacturing in general. Doesn't it make sense to have interchangable parts rather than have to handcraft a new part if you have hundreds of firearms?

In the U.S., Eli Whitney saw the potential benefit of developing "interchangeable parts" for the firearms of the United States military, and thus, around 1798, he built ten guns, all containing the same exact parts and mechanisms, and disassembled them before the United States Congress. He placed the parts in a large mixed pile and, with help, reassembled all of the weapons right in front of Congress, much like Blanc had done some years before.

The Congress was immensely impressed and ordered a standard for all United States equipment. With interchangeable parts, the problems that had plagued the era of unique weapons and equipment passed, and if one mechanism in a weapon failed, a new piece could be ordered and the weapon would not have to be discarded. The hitch was that the guns Whitney showed congress were made by hand at great cost by extremely skilled workmen. Whitney, however, was never able to design a manufacturing process capable of producing guns with interchangeable parts.

Springfield Armory was a center for invention and development. In 1819 Thomas Blanchard developed a special lathe for the consistent mass production of rifle stocks. The lathe enabled an unskilled workman to quickly and easily turn out identical irregular shapes. The large drum turned two wheels: a friction wheel that followed the contours of the metal rifle pattern, and the cutting wheel that imitated the movements of the friction wheel to make an exact replica of the pattern in wood.In the 1840s the old flintlock gave way to a percussion ignition system that increased the reliability and simplicity of longarms.

Not only do we have changes in the manufacture of firearms, but the manufacturing industry changed with the introduction of mass production in many industries. The crude nature of 18th Century manufacturing would have been a limitation on the production of firearms in the colonies.

There is a list of Federal arsenals at the time of the Civil War here.

Get my point?

Or to quote George M. Dennison

As every American historian knows (and knew), no guns were made in the colonies, and relatively few in the United States until well into the 19th century.

So, by the early 19th Century, we have mass produced, interchangable parts revolutionising the manufacturing sector: in particular the firearms industry. Such that The invention of the Colt revolver by Samuel Colt in 1836 revolutionized gunsmithing, and manufacturing of firearms moved from being handmade to precision machine-built manufacturing. Add in that 13 Federal arsenals had been built by 1840. One of these was the Frankford Arsenal, which opened in 1816, it was the center of U.S. military small-arms ammunition design and development until its closure in 1977. So, we have a thriving firearms industry in the US by around 1820.

My question is does Clayton Cramer stack the deck by adding nearly half the 19th century to the years of American firearms manufacturing? Has he just tacked on a bunch of gunsmiths to inflate the figure for the colonial period? Cramer points out that "There are no sources listed for the information about these early gunsmiths. I believe that Carey and Gluckman--and more recent compilers of these lists--are honest and careful, but if you cannot point to a particular source for the information that these books contain, scholars--and those who pretend to be scholars--will not take that information very seriously."

Funny, but Cramer, in his typically hypocritical manner, trashed Belleisles for doing the same thing. How can Cramer use sources which aren't verifiable?

Here is a lovely critique of Cramer:

We hate it when our friends become famous, goes the song. And one of the odder experiences that the internet offers to us old-timers is that of watching our former sporting companions in the increasingly nostalgic exercise known as "usenet flamewars" become transmuted through the magic of ceaseless self-promotion into Acknowledged Authorities on one of the subjects in which they were previously considered Tiresome Cranks.

So it is with the strange case of Clayton Cramer. A decade ago, Cramer was such a notorious blowhard that he rated his own, not at all complimentary section in the (now long defunct) net.legends FAQ, on account of his nigh-pathological inability to refrain from endless debates about homosexuality, no matter how inappropriate the forum. His very name still prompts shudders of immense retrospective annoyance from the people who frequented Usenet at the time. He was a crank's crank, and his arrival in a discussion group was like the sudden appearance of a bloody inscription on the mantelpiece — Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin — or a group of circling buzzards: a grim herald of another formerly useful and/or amusing forum about to enter its death throes.
...
I'm not in any position to cogently criticize Mr. Cramer's second amendment scholarship, and the general consensus seems to be that he knows his stuff on that score: I'm happy to assume that that's correct. But based on Mr. Cramer's creative approach to the truth back when I had the inclination to personally joust with him (just to save you a bit of time: the money quote from the above-linked exegesis is where he manages to dig up an article from from Redbook Magazine in the 70s that claims that homosexuals perpetuate themselves via assaultive pederasty; this is presented as ipso facto proof the subseqent scholarship on the subject is a coverup), I would suggest that if Clayton Cramer claimed that the sky is blue, you'd probably want to rent a spectrometer and double-check to be sure.

From Cramer:

But along with the gunsmiths that I can identify--and in some cases, where I do not have quite enough information to include them--there are a lot of other gunsmiths that were certainly present, but who have left no records. In many cases, I know about gunsmiths because of a single reference to them--and sometimes, they are only a bystander to the situation or event described. An advertisement from 1737 South Carolina described where a sale of merchandise would be held as, "William Cathcart next door to Mr. Miller's the Gun-smith in Church-street..." This is the only known reference to Mr. Miller "the Gun-smith." How many other gunsmiths worked in South Carolina in the 1730s for whom we do not have such indirect evidence? Gunsmith Daniel Nash, who worked in Southfield, Massachusetts in 1699, left a trace only because a stolen gun was found in his shop, and this was mentioned in a criminal case

In legal terms, this is called hearsay. It is also anecdotal. Perhaps this could be called faith, which is lovely in religion, but has no place in scholarship. Honestly, it looks a bit like the loose behaviour that Cramer accused Bellesisles of perpetrating. I have known that Cramer is rather hypocritical in his scholarly methodology. Not to mention, he tends to use facts which are totally irrelevant to the issue. He does have a reputation, which makes it a shame that Bellesisles was roasted on the basis of this modern day Titus Oates.

Next in this series, free speech in academics.

A Blackstone timeline

--Commentaries were first published between 1765 and 1769 in Oxford, England.

1765
March 22 The Stamp Act
March 24 The Quartering Act of 1765
May 29 Patrick Henry's "If This Be Treason" speech
May 30 The Virginia Stamp Act Resolutions
Oct. 7-25 The Stamp Act Congress
1766
March 18 The Declaratory Act
1767
June 29 The Townshend Revenue Act
1768
August 1 Boston Non-Importation Agreement
1770
March 5 The Boston Massacre

1771
--Commentaries on the Laws of England first issued in an American edition.

1773
May 10 The Tea Act
Dec. 16 The Boston Tea Party
1774
March 31 Boston Port Act, one of the "Intolerable Acts"
May 20 Administration of Justice Act, one of the "Intolerable Acts"
May 20 Massachusetts Government Act, one of the "Intolerable Acts"
June 2 Quartering Act of 1774, one of the "Intolerable Acts"
June 22 Quebec Act, one of the "Intolerable Acts"
Sept. 5-Oct. 26 The First Continental Congress meets in Philadelphia and issues Declaration and Resolves
Oct. 10 Battle of Point Pleasant, Virginia (disputed as to whether it was a battle of the American Revolution or the culmination of Lord Dunmore's War)
Oct. 20 The Association (prohibition of trade with Great Britain)

1775
Apr. 18 The Rides of Paul Revere and William Dawes
Apr. 19 Minutemen and redcoats clash at Lexington and Concord "The shot heard 'round the world."
May 10 Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys seize Fort Ticonderoga
May 10 The Second Continental Congress meets in Philadelphia
June 15 George Washington named Commander in Chief
June 17 Battle of Bunker Hill: The British drive the Americans from Breed's Hill
July 3 Washington assumes command of the Continental Army
1776
Jan. 15 Paine's "Common Sense" published
March 17 The British evacuate Boston; British Navy moves to Halifax, Canada
June 12 The Virginia Declaration of Rights
June 29 The First Virginia Constitution
June 28 Patriots decisively defeat the British Navy at Fort Moultrie, South Carolina
July 1-4 Congress debates and revises the Declaration of Independence. See Chronology of the Declaration
July 4 Congress adopts the Declaration of Independence; it's sent to the printer
July 8 The Declaration of Independence is read publicly

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, commonly referred to as the Articles of Confederation, was the first constitution of the thirteen United States of America. The Second Continental Congress appointed a committee to draft the 'Articles' in June 1776 and proposed the draft to the States for ratification in November 1777. The ratification process was completed in March 1781, legally federating the sovereign and independent states, allied under the Articles of Association, into a new federation styled the "United States of America". Under the Articles the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically relinquished to the central government.

1780
--Sir William Blackstone dies on 14 February 1780

1781
Jan. 1 Mutiny of unpaid Pennsylvania soldiers
Sept. 15 French fleet drives British naval force from Chesapeake Bay
Oct. 19 Cornwallis surrounded on land and sea by Americans and French and surrenders at Yorktown, VA

1782
Nov. 30 British and Americans sign preliminary Articles of Peace

1783
April 19 Congress ratifies preliminary peace treaty

The Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended hostilities with Great Britain, languished in Congress for months because state representatives failed to attend sessions of the national legislature. Yet Congress had no power to enforce attendance under the Articles of Confederation.

Sept. 3 The United States and Great Britain sign the Treaty of Paris officially ending the War of American Independence (AKA American Revolution)
Nov. 25 British troops leave New York City
Dec. 23 Washington resigns as Commander

1786
September--Commissioners from five states met in the Annapolis Convention to discuss adjustments to the Articles of Confederation that would improve commerce.

1787
May 25 to September 17, 1787: delegates from 12 states met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to address problems in governing the United States of America, which had been operating under the Articles of Confederation following independence from Great Britain. Although the Convention was purportedly intended only to revise the Articles of Confederation, the intention of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, was from the outset to create a new government rather than "fix" the existing one. The delegates elected George Washington to preside over the convention. The result of the Convention was the United States Constitution.
September 20, 1787 The proposed Constitution is read in Congress
September 26, 1787 Congress takes up debate on the proposed Constitution
September 28, 1787 Congress refers the proposed Constitution to the states
December 7, 1787 Constitution is ratified by the first state – Delaware

1788
August 2, 1788 First North Carolina convention refuses to ratify Constitution without amendments

1789
March 4, 1789 First United States Congress is seated
September 26, 1789 Congress sends twelve amendments to the Constitution to the states for ratification. The last ten were eventually enacted as the Bill of Rights.

1791
December 15, 1791 Bill of Rights comes into force on ratification by Virginia

Get my point?

No?

Then to clarify it for you. When Blackstone died, the Colonies were still colonies with the War for Independence raging on, The Treaty of Paris was 3 years in the future, there were the Articles of Confederation, but no US Constitution. Wouldn't be for another 7 years. The Bill of Rights was 9 years in the future and wasn't in effect for another 11 years. How could he have known about the Second Amendment, let alone the Constitution unless he was psychic.

For all Blackstone knew, the Colonies could repent their ways and become good little colonies again (there's still hope).

BUT BLACKSTONE KNEW DICK ABOUT THE US CONSTITUION OR BILL OF RIGHTS

Veiled insult

Perhaps the Court’s approach to the text is acceptable advocacy, but it is surely an unusual approach for judges to follow.

This should be pretty clear, but I think some people don't understand it...

Constitutions, or charters, are documents which set forth the structure and rules of governance. These entities ruled by constitutions can be countries or "artificial persons" (that is corporations, trusts, Companies, Unincorporated institutions, Partnerships, and so on).

That said, the US Constitution is a separate thing from the British Constution. Well, the British Constution isn't really a document, but a set of laws. That is constitutional statutes enacted by the Parliament (E.G, House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, Northern Ireland Act 1998, Scotland Act 1998, Government of Wales Act 1998, European Communities Act 1972 and Human Rights Act 1998) and also unwritten sources such as constitutional conventions, observation of precedents, royal prerogatives, custom and tradition, such as always holding the General Election on Thursdays.

There is no difference in legal terms between constitutional law and statutory law (i.e. law applying to any area of governance) in the English system. Both can be altered or repealed by a simple majority in Parliament. In practice, democratic governments do not use this opportunity to abolish all civil rights, which in theory they could do, but the distinction between regular and constitutional law is still somewhat arbitrary, usually depending on the traditional devotion of popular opinion to historical principles embodied in important past legislation. For example, several Acts of Parliament such as the Bill of Rights, Human Rights Act and, prior to the creation of Parliament, Magna Carta are regarded as granting fundamental rights and principles which are treated as almost constitutional.

By separating itself from England, The United States broke with English Constitutional law and created its own rules of governance. The law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War. The supreme law of the land, under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (VI), is the United States Constitution, as well as laws enacted by Congress, and treaties to which the U.S. is a party. The Constitution forms the basis for federal laws under the federal constitution in the United States; it circumscribes the boundaries of the jurisdiction of federal law along with the laws in the fifty U.S. states and in the territories.

The most important source of law is the United States Constitution. All other law falls under and is subordinate to that document. No law may contradict the Constitution. For example, if Congress enacts a statute that conflicts with the Constitution, the Supreme Court may find that law unconstitutional and declare it invalid. Notably, a statute does not disappear automatically merely because it has been found unconstitutional; it must be deleted by a subsequent statute. Many federal and state statutes have remained on the books for decades after they were ruled to be unconstitutional. However, under the principle of stare decisis, no sensible lower court* will enforce an unconstitutional statute, and any court that does so will be reversed by the Supreme Court. Conversely, any court that refuses to enforce a constitutional statute (where such constitutionality has been expressly established in prior cases) will risk reversal by the Supreme Court. (But who reverses the ninnies when they mess up???)

While Blackstone may have talked about rights, he knew full well they could be repealed by Parliament. This is why the language is "bear arms for their own defense, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law". This is the way rights are treated under the English Constitution. Here today and gone tomorrow.

Again, if one uses Blackstone as a source, one knows that the right to bear arms for defence in England (and by extension the UK and other common law countries) is next to nil as well. This is because the right is "as allowed by law". That is it is under regulation by parliament and not as absolute as the language in the Second Amendment. The Founding fathers were well aware of the tenuous nature of rights under the English system, which did not define or quantify natural rights. They believed that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution would limit their rights to those listed in the Constitution. This is the primary reason the Ninth Amendment was included.

On June 5, 1788, Patrick Henry spoke before Virginia's ratification convention in opposition to the Constitution: "Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system? Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!"

The founders knew they were setting up a totally new and different system from the English one under the US Constitution.

Of course, as I read more about Scalia's pretensions at "originalism", the more I worry that he is willing to destroy rights willy nilly in the common law fashion. Sod the fact the US Constitution is a written document: he'll tear it up.

But, I would prefer for my elected officials to do that. There is a reason that Royalty and nobility are unconstitutional.

Unless, of course, I am calling the shots here!

* On the other hand, a non-sensical supreme court can do whatever it wishes until whapped over the head.

Words to remember

"When fascism comes to America, it will be waving the flag and carrying a Bible."

Justice Antonin Scalia turned history on its head several years ago when he attended an Orthodox synagogue in New York and claimed that the Founders intended for their Christianity to play a part in government. Scalia then went so far as to suggest that the reason Hitler was able to initiate the Holocaust was because of German separation of church and state. Here is an article about that.

Well, maybe Scalia WILL find that Catholics need to be burned at the stake since the founding fathers were strongly anti-catholic.

More Blackstone silliness!

I have to admit to musing on the fact that using Blackstone as US Constitutional authority leads to some very wrong results: especially for Catholics.

One needs to remember that the Test Acts, as well as anti-Catholic sentiment, were still going strong in Britain and the United States during the Revolutionary and Constitutional drafting periods. One of the Test Acts is titled An Act for preventing Dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants', Charles II, 1672, Statutes of the Realm: volume 5: 1628-80 (1819), pp. 782-85

Get the picture?

As I mentioned in my previous post, John Jay, the first chief justice of the US Supreme Court urged the New York Legislature to require office-holders to renounce foreign authorities "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil." That means you mackeral snappers need to renounce popery and put your true allegiance in the US Constitution.

Love it or burn at the stake.

I believe they were still chopping off heads and sticking them on poles as punishment for treason in Britain around this time. I am not sure about hanging, drawing, and quartering. Whatever the state of capital punishment at the time, the English Criminal law at the time of the adoption of the constitution was called the Bloody Code because a large number of crimes were punishable by execution. Transportation to the North American colonies, which went on to become the United States, and Australia after US independence, was a frequent alternative to the death penalty.

One reason we need a space program is so that we can shoot criminals into space.

It is a melancholy truth, that among the variety of actions which men are daily liable to commit, no less than an hundred and sixty have been declared by Act of Parliament to be felonious without benefit of clergy; or, in other words, to be worthy of instant death — William Blackstone

I predict that Scalia's last opinion be that by using Blackstone as an authority and no less than the words of the First US Chief Justice, the Article VI language that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" is unconstitutional.

Scalia would then order that all US Catholics would be burned at the Stake on the Captiol Mall on the Fourth of July.

I mean wouldn't that be original intent?

(Note: I should write for the Onion: Scalia writes opinion advocating burning Catholics at the Stake

More Blackstone

I hinted at deference to the legislature in my prior Blackstone post which leads to some interesting knowledge.

First off:

The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law.

Section The Second, Of The Nature Of Laws In General

So, one needs to defer to the intent of the legislators, not only the text. Also, if a law is within the spirit of the legislation, or not covered by the legislation, then it is presumed constutional.

3. As to the subject-matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end. Thus, when a law of our Edward III. forbids all ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at Rome, it might seem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victuals; but when we consider that the statute was made to repress the usurpations of the papal see, and that the nominations to benefices by the pope were called provisions, we shall see that the restraint is intended to be laid upon such provisions only.

4. As to the effects and consequence, the rule is, that where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them. Therefore the Bolognian law, mentioned by Puffendorf, which enacted "that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity," was held after a long debate not to extend to the surgeon, who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street with a fit.

In other words, one cannot read into a law what one wants, which Scalia did. One cannot take popular meanings and interpretations which have no legal basis and use them as law: especially in the face of prior judicial precedent. Unfortunately, Scalia has shown that he is ignorant of the meaning and history of the Second Amendment. I use this in the proper term as ignorance can mean that one chooses not to take notice of something as in:

ignorance XIII. — (O)F. — L. ignōrantia, f. prp. of ignōrāre not to know, misunderstand, disregard, rel. to ignārus unaware; see -ANCE.
So ignorant XIV. ignore †not to know XVII; (of a grand jury) reject (a bill); refuse to take notice of XIX. — (O)F. ignorer or L. ignōrāre.

In fact, given Scalia's prejudices in this case, I am amazed that he did not recuse himself. It is obvious that his own opinions clouded his decision and removed them from the law. In fact, "RKBA" commentators were hopeful that Scalia would write the opinion given his known bias for this theory.

I was going to use this post to say that the judge needed to think of the consequences of his decision, but it is obvious that Scalia had only one intent and that was to give official sanction to a lie. It has burdened the Constitution with unwanted and unnecessary baggage even if it should be overturned by a decision which is based in reality.

Another point I wanted to make about reliance upon Blackstone was that the text he was commenting upon was this:

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

I find it amusing that the mackeral snappers on the SCOTUS should hook their decision upon this text. Even more humourous is that the author of the Heller decision is a devout papist (or so he claims).

By what means does he presume that he is covered by this text?

If he is truly an "Originalist" than he must surely know the anti-Catholic sentiment in the English speaking world at the time of the adoption of the Constutition!

The "Second Amendment Scholar" came out with some mention of the Gordon Riots which have no meaning to the Second Amendment, but do show anti-Catholic sentiment in England and the United States at this time.

John Highham described anti-Catholicism as "the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history". Anti-Catholicism which was prominent in the United Kingdom was exported to the United States. Two types of anti-Catholic rhetoric existed in colonial society. The first, derived from the heritage of the Protestant Reformation and the religious wars of the sixteenth century, consisted of the "Anti-Christ" and the "Whore of Babylon" variety and dominated Anti-Catholic thought until the late seventeenth century. The second was a more secular variety which focused on the supposed intrigue of the Catholics intent on extending medieval despotism worldwide. Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. characterized prejudice against the Catholics as "the deepest bias in the history of the American people" and conservative Peter Viereck once commented that "Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals."

William Blackstone shared the general Anti-Catholic prejudices of his age and millieu. As discussed in more detail in the article on Anti-Catholicism, his Commentaries summarized his attitude toward Roman Catholics as follows:

As to papists, what has been said of the Protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of reliques and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects.

— Bl. Comm. IV, c.4 ss. iii.2, p. *54

I find it amusing that someone who is an Originalist should not only bastardise, modernise, and debase that which he claims fidelity, but I find it even more amusing that he should do so with such a text which is obviously as dated, if not more so, than the one he has baselessly altered.

Some of America's Founding Fathers had anti-clerical beliefs. For example, in 1788, John Jay urged the New York Legislature to require office-holders to renounce foreign authorities "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil." Thomas Jefferson wrote: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government," and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

Although, perhaps Scalia is showing his fidelity to the founders' and Blackstone's sentiments toward Catholics and being faithful to another master in deceit to the one he has taken an oath of fidelity.

Again, using Blackstone as an "Authority" is a minefield unless your intent is to destroy the Constitution.

One nice point about US "Democracy"

The US is the only country in the world to elect its village idiot.

Or is that idiots?

William Blackstone and the Second Amendment

I had an interesting banter with someone who purports to be a "Second Amendment Scholar" who said that Blackstone 'called it the "fifth auxillary right" of Englishmen' in reaction to my question about "where is Self-defence mentioned in the Second Amendment?"

WTF?

Blackstone being Commentaries on the Laws of England. The four volumes of the Commentaries were first published between 1765 and 1769 in Oxford and first issued in an American edition in 1771.

Blackstone would be appalled to be cited as an authority in this matter and even more appalled in how he is used in the DC v. Heller opinion for the reasons I will mention in this.

I can point out a multitude of points why citing Blackstone is incorrect.

First off, it is a text book, which means it isn't even law in England. Never has been and never will. The "Second Amendment Scholar" should have read the whole wikipedia article before making a dumb statement about its being used as an authority by the Supreme Court: the United States Supreme Court quotes from Blackstone's work whenever they wish to engage in historical discussion that goes back that far (Colonial times), or further.

2) The title and dates of publication give you another two, Blackstone's Commentaries on The Laws of England (1769): unless he was psychic, he wasn't writing about the Second Amendment. He is also commenting on English Common law, not US Constitutional law.
A correlary to (2) is that Blackstone died on 14 February 1780, which means he didn't physcially take part in the debates regarding the US Constitution. So, while he is an example of an opinion on the state of the Common law in pre-Revolutionary times, he isn't a US Constitutional authority.

The Court’s reliance on Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England is unpersuasive for the same reason as its reliance on the English Bill of Rights. Blackstone’s invocation of “‘the natural right of resistance and self preservation,’” ante, at 20, and “‘the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence’” ibid., referred specifically to Article VII in the English Bill of Rights. The excerpt from Blackstone offered by the Court, therefore, is, like Article VII itself, of limited use in interpreting the very differently worded, and differently historically situated, Second Amendment.

Justice Stevens's dissent in Heller, p.30

Add in that self-defence as a topic is discussed in a different section: Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the Third, Chapter the First: Of the Redress of Private Wrongs by the Mere Act of Parties p.3

I get into this subject later in this post.

3) Article VI puts paid to any claim of Blackstone having any bearing upon the Second Amendment. For those not in the know. this is the text of Article VI:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

That means the British Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, or a Philadelphia phone book from 1776 (if one existed) aren't constitutional authorities and neither is Blackstone. Unless one is talking about a question of common law, which the Second Amendment ISN'T, Blackstone cannot be cited as an authority. Did Scalia have some third grader or his grandchild write DC v. Heller?.

Also, foreign law cannot be used as a holding, precedent, or to bind an outcome of a legal decision interpreting the Constitution. Strangely, the use of foreign law as being a no-no is something Scalia claims to believe, but not in this instance for some odd reason. Likewise, using a pre-revolutionary law textbook is a no-no as well: especially when trying to decipher the Constitution.

4) Most common law countries don't even allow lesser self-defence items (e.g. pepper spray), let alone firearms. Britain has had laws regarding weaponry for some time. Examples of past regulation of Arms in England, The Assize of Arms from 1181, The Assize of Arms from 1252, The English Archery Law of 1363, The Border Reivers were forbidden to carry weapons by James I (England, VI of Scotland), James II "caused several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law" from BOR 1689, the Act of Proscription of 1746.

As early as the second year of Edward III., a statute was passed prohibiting all persons, whatever their condition, “to go or ride armed by night or by day.” And so also at common law the “going around with unusual and dangerous weapons to the terror of the people” was a criminal offence.

Even sillier is the belief that armed self-defence was acceptable at the time the Constitution was written. As anyone who knows the British law of self-defence knows, even the military can be called to account for excessive force. If there were a right to self-defence at that time, the soldiers in the Boston Massacre would not have been brought to trial for murder! I mean 9 soldiers surrounded by an ugly crowd--what other course of action did they have except shoot? Also, why didn't the shipowners shoot the raiders during the Boston Tea Party?

Furthermore, The Bill of Rights of 1689 states that:

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

Got that as allowed by law?

So, again, don't look to Common law for guidance on the Second Amendment. Especially since you are then stuck with how other common law countries, in particular England, have used and interpreted that source: e.g., Tony Martin.

Also, arms means weapons of all sorts, not just firearms. Hence "suitable to their conditions" which means a toff can have a sabre and a pistol and a peasant a pike. So, longbows, swords, etcetera have been regulated by English law since time immemorial: usually for ensuring the common defence.

St. George Tucker wrote this regarding the English Bill of Rights in his 1803 edition of Blackstone's Commentaries:

In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

It is pretty obvious that Blackstone would have been aware of the limitations to the "right to keep and bear arms" and know that it was not related to self-defence. The linking of self-defence to the Second Amendment is a very recent trend which comes from the "new scholarship".

I know that I said something about taking DC v. Heller to the Privy Counsel in a previous post, but only a well educated US court is capable of rendering a judgement on the Second Amendment. I would imagine the Privy Counsel saying something such as that the Second Amendment is a US Constitutional question, which it is. Justice Stevens also correctly points out in his Heller dissent that any look at British law is totally different from US law (which doesn't stop me from wanting to take DC v. Heller to the privy counsel). But I don't really want to digress into that as I have more than enough posts about how the Second Amendment fits into the structure of the US Constitution.

Also, to say that arms are necessary for self defence neglects Blackstone's writings concerning the law of self-defence which are:

THE defence of one's self, or the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affrayd . For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and (when external violence is offered to a man himself, or those to whom he bears a near connection) makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lenghs of reapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defence therefore as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away be the law of society. In the English law particularly it is held an excuse for breaches of the peace, nay even for homicide itself: but care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defence and prevention; for then the defender would himself become an aggressor.

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the Third, Chapter the First: Of the Redress of Private Wrongs by the Mere Act of Parties p.3

In short, as I have also said in previous posts, one can only use enough force to resist the attack and not become the aggressor. In fact, one should back down if possible rather than escalate to violence if one follows the common law of the time.

Statutes have recently changed the law of self-defence to allow for deadly force, but that is a statutory change and not a change in the common law. I have posted more than enough about the Common law doctrine of self-defence in other posts.

Going beyond self-defence, citing Blackstone as an authority would also require that you give deference to the proeme of the Second Amendment according to his rules of statutory interpretation.

If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point.

The law which relates to the same point as the Second Amendment is the US Constitution itself and in particular Article I, Section 8: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia.

That would mean that you would have to go with it being a civic right (that is only for the militia) since deference must be given to the proeme (A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state). You would also have to look at other provisions in the Constitution that addressed the militia, which there are. Scalia decided to pick and choose his authority and sources ignoring this portion of the common law doctrine, misinterpreting the law of self-defence--which isn't even mentioned in the Second Amendment, and ignoring the militia clauses in the main text of the Constitution.

In fact, Scalia violates another dictate found in Blackstone: stare decisis.

A judge is “bound by oath to decide according to the law of the land,” William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone notes that “it is an established rule to abide by former precedents,” that the scales of justice be kept steady and “not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion.” It is a good thing, to achieve that end, the judge is “sworn to determine not according to his own private judgment, but according to the known laws and customs of the land.” (Blackstone at 117)

Stare Decisis is not absolute. Blackstone wrote, “[T]his rule admits of exception, where the former determination is most evidently contrary to reason” (Blackstone at 118). In such instances, it is incumbent on the inferior judge to decide pursuant to his Oath, and not to the faulty and irrational opinions of men. The DC. v. Heller chain of decisions is contrary to when an exception can be made to stare decisis as it was the opinion of the people and the faulty reliance upon Blackstone (and other irrelevant authorities).

In fact, the Heller decision is flawed from a stare decisis viewpoint in that there is no valid reason to overturn US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) other than public misinterpretation of the Second Amendment and a need to state the holding in idiot proofed modern English, which Justice Stevens did. The new scholarship is all over the place since it once talked about the militia, now we are seeing it being talked about in the context of self-defence for which there is no basis in the US Constitution.

I mean do a search for the term self-defense in one of the online versions of the constitution It ain't there!. Common defense is and self incrimination is, but not self-defence.

There especially is not any authority to say the Second Amendment covers the right of self-defence using Blackstone.

The question asked by Patrick Henry was "When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed?" when the Second Amendment was being debated.

He wasn't talking about self-defence! In fact, none of the quotes in the ratification debates deal with anything other than the question of Federal power under article I, Section 8:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

For more quotes go here. The relationship between a Federal Army and state militias was what was being discussed at the time, not self-defence.

Which gets back to my point that The Book is called Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England and was published roughly 20 years before the Constution and before the war for American Independence. Blackstone was dead when the Constution was debated and had no idea of Article I, section whatever or the Second Amendment. That means you can't place the Second Amendment in the context of his commentaries: it is a US Constitutional law issue.

NOT A COMMON LAW ONE.

Blackstone would have given deference to the prior court decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis and weight to the proeme (A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state).

Blackstone would be appalled to see his work trashed by Scalia in the DC v. Heller decision since this decision doesn't follow Blackstone in any sense.

Ya can't pick and choose what part is useful if you want to say he is an authority; well, with the exception where he is clearly irrelevant, which he is in regard to the Second Amendment jurisprudence.

I am not sure how Blackstone would have deferred to the legislature, which the Heller courts failed to do as well.

Justice Stevens's opinion is a much better opinion from a legal standpoint: especially if one wished to use Blackstone as a source. Justice Stevens follows stare decisis, gives weight to the proeme, and did not give weight to "the faulty and irrational opinions of men".

As Justice Stevens said.

The majority cannot seriously believe that the Miller Court did not consider any relevant evidence; the majority simply does not approve of the conclusion the Miller Court reached on that evidence. Standing alone, that is insufficient reason to disregard a unanimous opinion of this Court, upon which substantial reliance has been placed by legislators and citizens for nearly 70 years.

More Heller Wanking

For some reason, I keep rereading J. Stevens's dissent and wishing that it had been the unanimous opinion of the court. I keep wanting to write J. Stevens and ask him if he knew my Uncle from the ABA and would go out for a beer with me at the Brickskeller.

But that isn't really my point here. My point is that the decision was crap for various reasons and doesn't satisfy either side. The starting point being the Simple Justice blog piece I mentioned in an earlier post. Here is another post. And this one from Lew Rockwell is a real doozy!

Here is another post which reiterates the Simple Justice comment. I have seen other blogs where the posters have realised that Scalia hasn't said all firearms regulations are suspect.


The best post is this one from Slate. The writer points out that if someone replaces Justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, or Kennedy (Thomas specifically), they could decide that Stevens's dissent made better legal sense.

Stevens ends his dissent with the following two paragraphs:

I do not know whether today’s decision will increase the labor of federal judges to the “breaking point” envisioned by Justice Cardozo (in Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974)), but it will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries.
The Court properly disclaims any interest in evaluating the wisdom of the specific policy choice challenged in this case, but it fails to pay heed to a far more important policy choice—the choice made by the Framers themselves. The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’sopinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.

Another thing I said in an earlier post was that if the court didn't want to burden the Second Amendment with baggage, and by further implication the Constitution: the should have used stare decisis and produced J. Stevens dissent as the unanimous opinion of the court. But no, they had to come up with some political puffery.

Stevens points out that the position he advocates does not affect civilian firearms ownership, other than to take it from being a right.

On the other hand, while stating there is some sort of right, Scalia's position doesn't define this right. A conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right. In fact, it is the best gift for the "gun grabbers" as there is no way that a law can ban the lawful ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens from what little Scalia says. When people realise that was the meaning of all of Scalia's blather, then the Heller decision is decidedly firing blanks.

Or as one commentator I mention above says "Second Amendment Sharpshooter Scalia Shoots Self In Foot".

Today was my birthday

I spent the entire day with Michael, which meant about 3 hours in the sherpa tote as I went to work, court (CH478), the dentist, and Trader Joes. Too bad they don't knock Michael out at the dentist the way they do me. My big treat for today was to chase two squirrels in the park.

Too bad Michael will be off tomorrow for Jury Duty without me.

More War for American Independence

Believe it or not, I have a lot in common with the average colonial at the time of the War for American Independence. They considered themselved British and that was a major part of their grievance at their being taxed without their consent.

I saw something in the Philadelphia Weekly that struck a chord with me about the "tea Parties" which are occurring over in the States. As Joel Mathis says: "It’s getting so you can’t tell regular Republican insanity from the lunatic fringe anymore."

I liked the part where antitax activist Larken Rose took the microphone and praised America’s Founding Fathers as “cop killers”—and wondered aloud why today’s citizens are too wimpy to follow in their footsteps.
 (A rough transcript of Rose's speech is available at his website).

“Those people were criminals, they were tax cheats, they were traitors,” Rose told the audience, which had dwindled to a few hundred people in the late afternoon. “Truth be told, some of the colonists were cop killers.”


Where, asked Rose, were the Americans who were willing to break the laws passed by crooked politicians and fight back against “crushing” governmental taxation?


“I’m not talking about voting and whining to your congressman,” he told the audience. “I’m talking about resistance.”


Needless to say, the organisers wanted to distance themselves from this type of talk.
“The speakers we had at our tea party gave the message we wanted to portray—period,” says Chris Clemency of the Independence Hall Association.


Pennsburg resident Rob Pepe helped organize the second tea party under the “ReTeaParty” banner. He says he wasn’t the person who invited Rose—but suggests Rose’s speech was to be taken metaphorically.
 “This is an educational revolution,” Pepe says. “It’s time to understand what liberty is all about.”


Rose—an author who served prison time for tax evasion—denies the legitimacy of the federal government and writes angry tirades against “Gestapo” police tactics on his website. It sure didn’t sound like he was speaking in metaphors. He mocked “Freedom Movement” members who vote and obey the law, and smilingly acknowledged a shout of “9/11 Truth!” from the crowd.


“If 2 to 3 percent taxation justified a revolution in 1776, why doesn’t 50 percent and growing justify a revolution?” Rose asked. “If a few little excise taxes on pieces of paper and tea justified open lawlessness from these rebels that were all celebrating, why don’t the myriad of incomprehensible, unavoidable, crushing taxes—state, local and federal—why don’t they justify a revolution today?”


By the way, Rose didn’t respond to an interview request from PW . But it’s worth noting that despite his fiery talk, he doesn’t always walk the walk. He urged his audience to refuse to recognize the authority of the government­—but when convicted of tax evasion in 2005 he didn’t exactly go down in a hail of bullets: Instead, he was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison and lived to write and speechify another day.


Now, this is a good point. Most of the "patriots" were pretty conservative. And, Like Rose, were quite willing to raise taxes on themselved beyond the low taxes which caused the rebellion. As I say, they didn't like taxation without representation, but would go on to tax the crap out of themselves.

The Tories were correct, things were pretty good and far from "tyranny", unless you take into account the standing armies. The problem is that rebellion for the hell of it would lead to people like Larkin Rose.

236 years of a mistake, it's time to go back!

These religious pains....or I'd love to ask for those directions.

It was normal practice for a medieval street name to reflect the street's function or the economic activity taking place within it.

With that as an introduction, Gropecunt Lane was a street name found in English towns and cities during the Middle Ages, believed to be a reference to the prostitution centred on those areas. Gropecunt, the earliest known use of which is in about 1230, appears to have been derived as a compound of the words grope and cunt. Variations include Gropecunte, Gropecountelane, Gropecontelane, Groppecountelane, and Gropekuntelane. There were once many such street names in England, but all have now been bowdlerised. In the city of York, for instance, Grapcunt Lane—grāp is the Old English word for grope—was renamed as the more acceptable Grape Lane. Streets with that name were often in the busiest parts of medieval towns and cities, and at least one appears to have been an important thoroughfare.

Under its entry for the word cunt, the Oxford English Dictionary reports that a street was listed as Gropecuntlane in about 1230, the first appearance of that name. Organised prostitution was well established in London by the middle of the 12th century, initially mainly confined to Southwark in the southeast, but later spreading to other areas such as Smithfield, Shoreditch, Clerkenwell, and Westminster. The practice was often tolerated by the authorities, and there are many historical examples of it being dealt with by regulation rather than by censure: in 1393 the authorities in London allowed prostitutes to work only in Cocks Lane, and in 1285 French prostitutes in Montpellier were confined to a single street.

Although the name was once common throughout England, changes in attitude resulted in its being replaced by more innocuous versions such as Grape Lane. Gropecunt was last recorded as a street name in 1561. With the exception of Shrewsbury and possibly Newcastle, where a Grapecuntlane was mentioned in 1588, the use of Gropecunt as a street name seems to have fallen out of favour by the 14th century. The ruling Protestant conservative elite's growing hostility to prostitution during the 16th century resulted in the closure of the Southwark stews in 1546, replacing earlier attempts at regulation. A street called Grope Countelane existed in Shrewsbury as recently as 1561, connecting the town's two principal marketplaces. At some date unrecorded the street was renamed Grope Lane, a name which it has since retained. In Thomas Phillips' History and Antiquities of Shrewsbury (1799) the author is explicit in his understanding of the origin of the name as "... [a place of] scandalous lewdness and venery", but Archdeacon Hugh Owen's Some account of the ancient and present state of Shrewsbury (1808) describes it as "called Grope, or the Dark Lane". As a result of these differing accounts, some local tour guides attribute the name to "feeling one's way along a dark and narrow thoroughfare".

Some medieval street names such as Addle Street (stinking urine, or other liquid filth; mire) and Fetter Lane (once Fewterer, meaning "idle and disorderly person") have survived, others have been changed in deference to contemporary attitudes. Sherborne Lane in London was in 1272–73 known as Shitteborwelane, later Shite-burn lane and Shite-buruelane (possibly due to nearby cess pits). Pissing Alley, one of several identically named streets whose names survived the Great Fire of London, was called Little Friday Street in 1848, before being absorbed into Cannon Street (would it be Pissing Alley Station?) in 1853–54. Petticoat Lane, the meaning of which is sometimes misinterpreted as related to prostitution, was in 1830 renamed as Middlesex Street, following complaints about the street being named after an item of underwear.

Now, just imagine if some developer decided to use some of these quaint, Olde Englishe street names in his housing estate.

Well, turn down Cock Street and make a left on Pissing Alley You'll see Gropecunt Lane after you've passed Shiteburn Lane.

Or maybe Cock Street runs into Gropecunt Lane.

A couple of days late, but...

The Philadelphia police arrested the first of the shooters in the Rian Thal case and have arrest warrants for the other two. Read about it here.

Right when I was going to do a piece about how the real first freedom is the ability to write and spread your ideas. There was a great piece about how Czech and Polish dissidents wrote and spread their thoughts on the BBC news tonight.

BTW, if you could check the IP address this was posted from (213.146.164.142), you would find that it was posted from the UK.

The latest in the Rian thal case.

Just being a curious poopster, I decided to check out Katoya Jones's record and cases (MC-51-CR-0030337-2009 and MC-51-CR-0030338-2009). I know the UJS portal isn't considered an official record, but what the heck. Ms. Jones may have had a prior contact with the system in a traffic court appeal, CP-51-SA-9907678-2006, but that's not really criminal as most of us have disputed a traffic charge.

Funny, but for someone who lived in a ritzy apartment complex Ms. Jones appears to have a court appointed attorney, Michael Medway. Please excuse me if I am reading the docket sheet incorrectly, but that's how I read entry #2, 07/09/2009--Appointment Notice. That and the notation "Court Appointed" next to the attorney info. Medway's being appointed on the first listing of the preliminary hearing led to a continuance based upon the attorney being recently retained/appointed. Also, the preliminary hearing is listed in room 306, which is a super duper murder trial room.

I mean if I were really curious, I could go to the courthouse and watch the drama live and in person. On the other hand, if you want that sort of commentary, you had better be willing to pay me.

So, I will just check out the UJS portal and make my own conclusions, but I am pretty sure there is more video out there from this article. The cops usually know more than they tell the media.

So, I am sort of correct about the first arrest, even though Ms. Jones isn't a big fish, but she is big enough to be in Riverside Correctional Facility for the time being. I am surprised the docket sheets don't show her bail.

So, that it straight from the pooch.

Wait a minute!

From: Texas, other states file 2nd Amendment amicus brief

The amicus brief reads in part: “The right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment is not just a ‘fundamental’ liberty interest. In the Anglo-American tradition, it is among the most fundamental of rights because it is essential to securing all our other liberties. The Founders well understood that, without the protections afforded by the Second Amendment, all of the other rights and privileges ordinarily enjoyed by Americans would be vulnerable to governmental acts of oppression.”

Government oppression in a democracy? Are these people listening to themselves?

As I just pointed out in my previous post, in a democracy, the people are the government!

Anyway, Tyranny to the founding fathers would have meant a large standing army used to waste money by some pointless excursion, say invading Iraq.

So much for the Second Amendment protecting me from Tyranny.

Tyrants don't fear an armed populace, they just bomb the fuck out of them.

General rant

Let's see: I could write a book of how we all ended up in the current mess we are in and have been thinking about various topics.

1) failure of leadership: it seems that people are finger pointing at everyone for not taking responsibility. CEOs for not saying that it was ridiculous to fire everyone in a market economy, having a system based upon debt, using mumbo jumbo accounting practises to show a profit, and so on and so forth. Well, I have been saying how dumb these practises are and have the proof of it.

But no one listens to me.

2) The fact that I am a slacker and shirk responsibility. Sorry, but there is no reward in it for me. I've tried and know that I am a leader. On the other hand, there is only so long you can bang your head against a wall before you say "ouch".

3) "Leaders" refuse to tell the truth. For example, remember the Village Idiot on the Air Craft carrier deck saying something about "mission accomplished?" Likewise, I have been banging on about the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is that it is to protect the institution of the Militia organised Under Article I, Section 8 and any other interpretation is gibberish. The masses tell me I am wrong and hurl a misquotation at me.

OK, let's see how the Heller decision works out. People are seeing that there is nothing there but meaningless words.

Why, because the Second Amendment is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Whatever punctuation you may choose.

It's not

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

or

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

or

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

The Second Amendment must be read as a whole and in context of the Constitutional framework, which Includes Article I, Section 8 (and some other bits as well). Both the Militia clause and the Right to Keep and Bear arms clause work together and you can't separate them without turning the thing into total rubbish.

Tough shit if you think the contrary

4) On the positive side, people are not driving as much as they did or consuming as much fossil fuels as they have been because of the economy. Pluses and minuses here in my opinion. The major plus is that I think it is part of the reason that the weather is acting a bit more "normal". Not that I am a scientist or have proof behind this belief.

On the other hand, it's about time this happened. Too bad the infrastructure for public transportation has been neglected, trashed, or otherwise stagnated. It would be nice if Washington, DC's metro system were the worst of the pile instead of the best. INEPTA, or SEPTA, could use a lot of work and far more frequent service. NYC has a super system, but it's downright frightening compared to London.

I show my London bias when it comes to public transportation. London has the Best public transportation system I have seen for its age. NYC and London are roughly the same age, but London has tried to keep its system up to date. And terrorists to the contrary, it runs pretty well.

Of course, I love Belgian trams.

I wish Philly had all its trams still. The place would remind me of Melbourne (as Baltimore reminds me of Sydney).

5) Health care: why is it taking the Yanks so long to get it together?

6) Public v. Private debate in the US. Isn't this a non-issue, or are Yanks really stupid people?

In a "democracy" the government IS the people. I find it interesting how the anti-gevernment types get suspicious about the "government" when THEY ARE the government.

I guess they don't trust themselves.

Anyway, public means that the public has oversight over the process.

On the other hand, would you trust private enterprise with your retirement? Which is a question I have been asking for ages, but seems much more relevant now that everyone's retirements are tanking.

Private industry means that business as usual goes on and fuck the little guy.

Feeling a bit fucked lately?

7) On the other hand, I am feeling very anti-democratic and am probably in good company with the founding fathers. Quite a few of them owned slaves and decried "mobocracy".

Didn't anyone point out to Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison that it made no sense to say things such as "give me liberty or give me death" or "all men are created equal" yet own slaves? We the people, that is we the rich, white men who run things, not you effing peasants.

Furthermore, The unfortunate thing is that myth has won out over reality and they image of the Colonial miltiaman prevails (sorry Ladies, BUT). Instead of the War for American Independence being seen as a world war with France contributing a significant amount to the war effort. For example, the Siege of Yorktown, did you realise that there were 10,800 French troops and 29 French War ships compared to a total of 11,000 Colonial troops (8,000 regulars and 3,100 Militia). The militia had a terrible reputation in both the War for Independence and 1812 Wars.

I think the amount of Loyalists in the population was never properly assessed. Historians have estimated that between 15 and 20 percent of the white population were Loyalists. Historian Robert Middlekauff estimates that about 500,000 colonists, or 19 percent of the white population, remained loyal to Britain. I think this number comes from the about 20% of the Loyalists left the U.S. to resettle in other parts of the British Empire.

But how many people were loyalists who kept their mouths shut just to stay in their homes?

Remember that most Colonials thought of themselves as British. Which is a good seque to...

8) Rights: What a nebulous term. What is a god given right anyway? If owning a firearm is a god given right, wouldn't they have been around well before 1100 AD?

9) I think the real issue though is that most people don't want to take responsibility for their action or contribute to society. For example taxes.

I wouldn't mind taxes if I had a way to pay them (same for bills for that matter). Taxes are the cost of living in society.

If we take the private enterprise model, a shareholder needs to contribute his share to the effort. Likewise, in a public/civic model, a citizen needs to contribute.

10) Which gets to the final point, there was a counter-argument to Thomas "Revolution for the Hell of it" Paine's Common Sense called Plain Truth. Unfortunately, it didn't have the flowery language of Paine's drivel, or the popular appeal.

Volumes were insufficient to describe the horror, misery and desolation, awaiting the people at large in the form of American independence. In short, I affirm that it would be most excellent policy in those who wish for TRUE LIBERTY to submit by an advantageous reconciliation to the authority of Great Britain; “to accomplish in the long run, what they cannot do by hypocrisy, fraud and force in the short one.”

INDEPENDENCE AND SLAVERY ARE SYNONYMOUS TERMS.

An arrest.

OK, yesterday I said there would be an arrest in the Rian Thal case by the 7th. Well it turns out, the first arrest happened today. It was Thal's neighbour, Katoya Jones. Jones wasn't a major player in the murders, but she is a link.

So, I still say that the big arrest will happen in the next week.

Here is some of the surveillance video:


I've heard there is some better video out there, including the acutal shooting. Not sure if that is the old rumour mill though. But that would be the final wrap on their nooses.

Still, these clowns should have just left their tags for all it mattered.

For those of you who are no in the know, CCTV is the upcoming crime fighting tool. I've already had one client have to admit after video footage showed him doing what he was "alleged" to have done. Britain is notorious for its use of CCTV. Sure, at this point, crime hasn't fallen significantly, but that is a matter of time.

The criminal "mind" takes a while to realise that it is being outfoxed. Also, it is dependant on its belief that there is a "get out of jail free" card.

So, these crims can do their shooting and not realise they are on candid camera, which will be only one factor in their conviction. You can be sure Katoya Jones will be cooperative once she becomes aware of the implications of her actions. Add in the prints of the one perp who is sitting on that chest. There are also several witnesses to this from just watching the surveillance tape.

BTW, there is another rumour floating around that the one "associate" who made off the the duffle bag was carrying 10 kilos of coke and even more money. As is wont, there was enough money and drugs left to show that the people who were killed were drug dealers.

I feel sorry for Rian Thal, but crime just doesn't pay. There is really no quick way to make money: but my posts on avarice are another thing.

R.I.P. Steven Wells: aka Seething Wells, Susan Williams, Swells

I have to admit to a regret at not meeting Steven Wells. As I said in a comment on the Philly Weekly site

Funny that Steven and I never met in person given we are both Brits who have made Philadelphia our homes for the past 10 plus years. Probably because I have been working in the legal field and Steven in journalism. I did write him to say I agreed with his opinion on Christ and Christmas, after all we did come from a country which banned Christmas for being too pagan.

I googled Steven to find this page and saw he was also a writer for the Guardian and FourFourTwo as well as the Philly Weekly and NME.

Come on folks, give this bloke credit! the Guardian also ran a super obit on Steven

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/29/obituary-steven-wells

That's worth noting as well.

I am not sure whether we would have loved each other or wanted to kill each other if we had ever actually met. We were both early punks, but I have moved away from that to World Music, although you could say I have always been into world music.

I can imagine him telling me that the Bollywood stuff I am listening to as I write this is shite. So, I just switched to L'Arpeggiata's Monteverdi. Anyway, we shared a love of music and I am sure we wouldn't have lacked for conversation. Probably the difference in opinion would have been one of our links if we were friends.

We had the Great Western Railway as another link, Swindon being one of the more boring places in Britain (although it did give us XTC). I was from further West: Warwickshire and went to University in Exeter, but Paddington was my link to home in the counties or in London. Swindon was the home to the GWR.

I have heard two sides of the Eton Story, one that said they thought he was an Etonian (scroll down) and another that said he hated them. Whatever. I know loads of old Public School boys in shit jobs. And as my Grandfather pointed out, the lowest are just as important as the folks on the top. So, I would hope we would be a class free zone, despite my putting my title in my comment on Philly Weekly.

Hey, we could have both sold out if we had wanted. So, I guess I should be glad to be in my position. I bet Steven is agreeing with W. C. Fields right now: "On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."

Well, it beats the alternative!

I mean what is someone who wrote for the Guardian and another who was a barrister in training who was told it was a shame I had to leave Britain to find work by Paddy Ashdown when I graduated from University given my credentials.

Not that Philly is a total wasteland.

Part of me says we would have gotten on like a house on fire, which gives me comfort in not having had met him. I would be another of the people who miss you and see the world as an emptier place on your passing. Maybe Philly is a wasteland now that you aren't here.

So, I'll raise a pint in your honour, mate, and miss you. I will add to those grieving your loss and write my ha'penny's worth to the cyber mourner's book.

Well planned murder?

OK, my boss says that I am totally out of the loop on local Philadelphia news (but can tell you what is happening in London).

It seems that I missed the crime of the century here, which is the shooting of Rian Thal.



Anyway, he used my expertise to find her myspace page and dig up some info on her.

Anyway, I keep hearing how the "hit" was "well planned".

Excuse me, but they caught all 4 perpetrators on camera and one left his finger prints at the scene. Not to mention there was 4 kilos of cocaine and 100 grand in cash left at her apartment.

I am the first to say that criminals are not the brightest stars in the firmament, but this crew wins a Darwin award. I am curious as to how long it will take to find and prosecute them.

Well planned would have been to have scoped out the CCTV cameras and worn something like latex gloves. Not these geniuses.

Fortunately, their little ambush would net them the death penalty, but I know how the criminal justice system works and predict that they get something less than that. How does life in prison sound? As someone who has taken the course on death penalty, I know that is a more probable outcome.

So, Life in prison, 20-40 years, or the death penalty as a possible outcome for the four stooges.

Of course, another outcome is that one turns "rat" for a sweetheart deal and the others get the death penalty.

So, I am waiting for an arrest by the end of next week (7 July). Max time for arrest being the end of July or early August.

Anyway, yet another young woman is buried before her time. Sad.

The only people who can make crime pay are law enforcement, lawyers, security personnel, and alarm system companies.