by Bob Barr | Dec 21, 2020 | Daily Caller Article |
Daily Caller As irksome as are the recent COVID restrictions imposed by New York, New Jersey, California and other states primarily run by Democrat governors, citizens should be thankful that our Founding Fathers understood and acted on the need to place clear limitations on government powers through a Bill of Rights. While anglophiles may protest that England, too, has a Bill of Rights, it is nothing like ours that was ratified in 1791.The British “Bill of Rights” predates ours by just over 100 years, but its weaknesses were manifest in the manner by which the colonists were mistreated by the Crown, notwithstanding being considered “Englishmen.” The 1689 Bill of Rights, for example, offered no real protection to colonists whose homes and businesses were invaded by British soldiers acting on order from the Crown pursuant to the infamous “Writs of Assistance.” Nor did that early Bill of Rights provide protection against severe censorship measures enforced by the Redcoats.While the English version did include words supporting citizens’ right to bear arms in self-defense, they rang hollow, as when British troops moved to seize colonials’ arms and gunpowder, leading to the battle of Lexington and Concord in April 1775.Perhaps most important in this Age of COVID, is the fact that the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. While some American governors, such as New Jersey’s Phil Murphy, New York’s Andrew Cuomo, Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer and California’s Gavin Newsom would have been far more comfortable identifying as Tories back in the Revolutionary War era, at least most U.S. governors in 2020 still respect individual rights as being superior...
by Bob Barr | Dec 14, 2020 | Daily Caller Article |
Daily CallerSelf-styled media “fact checkers” worked overtime last week defending Texas State Rep. Terry Meza’s bill to amend the Lone Star State’s “Castle Doctrine” from well-deserved criticism. No matter the effort to present Meza’s proposal as a serious measure, however, it remains at its core juvenile and dangerous.It is true that Meza’s bill (H.B. 196) does not repeal outright Texas’ Castle Doctrine, the law that codifies situations in which property owners are justified in using deadly force for self-defense. It would, however, gut much of the law by removing “robbery” and “aggravated robbery” from the list of justifying actions. In defending her bill from critics who joked she hoped the change could promote wealth redistribution, Meza used “stealing lawn ornaments” as an example of why the change was needed.One might be forgiven for not being able to separate the satire from Meza herself, but what cannot be excused is Meza’s ignorance of the law, as both a lawmaker and an attorney. It seems she has no clue that under Texas law, theft and robbery are two entirely different legal concepts. Nobody is being shot over “stealing law ornaments,” and if they were, the state’s Castle Doctrine would (rightfully) not protect the property owner from prosecution. At best, her bill is a bad solution to a problem that simply does not exist. The distinction between theft and robbery is important and is what makes Meza’s ignorance – whether deliberate or actual — so dangerous. Both theft and robbery are based on theft of property, but “robbery” and “aggravated robbery” are reserved for property theft in which the assailant either causes, or threatens...
by Bob Barr | Dec 9, 2020 | Townhall Article |
TownhallI am not sure who he was, but when English jurist Lord Sowell in 1788 wrote that, “precedent embalms a principle,” he could just as well have been addressing 21st Century policy makers here in America as he was the protagonists in an 18th Century British court ruling. As gun owners here in America look with trepidation toward a Biden-Harris Administration come January 20th, a precedent set by the Trump Administration is likely to haunt them.Three years ago in Las Vegas, Nevada, mass murderer Stephen Paddock slaughtered 58 innocent people and wounded hundreds more, shooting into a concert audience from a hotel window on The Strip. Among the tools he used in this horrific crime was a device known as a “bump stock.” This contraption, which never has been considered by gun aficionados to be a legitimate firearm accessory, is a piece of plastic with no moving parts. It can, however, be used to increase the rate of fire for certain semi-automatic rifles, even as it reduces accuracy. In response to the Paddock mass murder, in 2018 the Department of Justice directed that the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) change federal regulations regarding machine guns, so that a “bump stock” would fall within the definition of a “machine gun.” With that one “stroke of the pen,” a piece of plastic previously lawful to own, was rendered illegal. Unlike gun control by legislation, this was gun control by fiat. Elected Members of Congress played no role in the decision, having already punted on the question — with some members afraid to upset their pro-Second Amendment constituents, and others fearful that their anti-gun voters...
