The oddest of Gun law debates

This is a post on the minutiae of historical nitpicking, how two historians can pick apart any subject and can even resort to acting like spoiled toddlers.

I want to start this with a few quotes that I think help explain my personal pro-gun position and my Jeffersonian-Agrarian libertarian politics:



“There is no sport that, like boxing, promotes the spirit of aggression in the same measure, demands determination quick as lightening, educates the body for steel-like versatility.” - Adolf Hitler

“To me, boxing and jiujitsu have always appeared more important than some inferior, half-hearted, training in shooting.” - Adolf Hitler

"The strength of the state depends on physical prowess, not on arms. The folkish State has to fight for its existence. . . . [T]he best protection will not be represented in its arms, but in its citizens; not fortress walls will protect it, but the living wall of men and women, filled with highest love of the country and with fanatical national enthusiasm.” - Adolf Hitler

Now in contrast:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

Here are links to the two PDF files written by the - at least partly - opposing historians.

Note that current legal Supreme Court rulings were made after the two papers linked below were written.

Bernard E. Harcourt - Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, political theory Princeton University, law degree Harvard Law School, Ph.D. political science Harvard University

ON GUN REGISTRATION, THE NRA, ADOLF HITLER, AND NAZI GUN LAWS: EXLPODING THE GUN CULTURE WARS

Stephen P. Halbrook - Attorney at Law, business Florida State University, law Georgetown University, Ph.D. philosophy Florida State University

NAZISM, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, AND THE NRA: A REPLY TO PROFESSOR HARCOURT

In his paper Mr. Harcourt spells out his reluctance to have to illuminate on this subject German gun control laws, but insists that historical review is necessary. His reluctance is partly due to the fact that he is Jewish and his foray into the "culture war" puts him at odds with some faulty use of historical evidence.

From his paper:

Both prior to and after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights, there were a number of gun regulations in place in England, including registration requirements. In 1660, for instance, all gunsmiths were ordered to produce a record of all firearms they had sold and of all their buyers from the past six months. Gunsmiths were then required to report this information weekly. These requirements—which constitute the first known gun registration scheme—remained in place after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which declared that “the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” Prior and subsequent English history reflects a long and steady tradition of substantial statutory limitations on gun ownership. -Page 13

Later in the paper.

Nevertheless, if one reads the Nazi gun laws closely and compares them to earlier German gun legislation, as a straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, several conclusions become clear.

First, the Nazi regime reenacted in 1938 strict gun control laws and regulations that required licensing and reporting for the acquisition, transfer, or carrying of handguns, and for dealing and manufacturing in firearms and ammunition. In this respect, the Nazis had in place stringent gun regulation, including strict reporting requirements.

Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. In this respect, the Nazi gun laws were more restrictive than those under the Weimar Republic.

Third, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. The Nazi gun laws of 1938 reflect a liberalization of the gun control measures that had been enacted by the Weimar Republic with respect to the acquisition, transfer, and carrying of firearms. In this regard, Hitler appears to have been more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic.

Four, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. The Nazi regime implemented this prohibition by confiscating
weapons, including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide of the Jewish population. -Page 23-24

Note the less than subtle connection - it is not the tool, the firearm, but rather something evolves, a SELECT population that is given preferential status. (This is an important distinction) and that a clear comparison of the laws and changes in the laws show that the earlier Weimar laws and even more restrictive and earlier post-war laws were clearly lessoned, but for a select group.

Now I have the sad task of reviewing the article from Mr. Halbrook and I have to admit that I found an immediate collection of MSM style of backhanded insults and distortions! I am going to break this up to make it more clear how I was startled by this clear bias from Mr. Halbrook and what I would term "deliberate disinformation."

'The Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” controversial enough as a domestic constitutional issue, becomes an extraordinarily provocative enigma when viewed in light of historical experiences of foreign governments." (So far so good)

"This is particularly the case when the state analyzed is Nazi Germany, which invariably (and justifiably) gives rise to negative comparisons."

"A revisionist view now has been boldly asserted that Hitler was friendly to perhaps the most dangerous freedom in the Bill of Rights." (Boom, there it starts, we have the first attack, using the word "revisionist" to discredit the competitive historian. In no way would I consider the paper by Mr. Harcourt to be "revisionist" it is simply a partly dispassionate historical review)

"Professor Harcourt began by pointing to and disputing this author’s statements that totalitarian regimes disarm their subjects so as to prevent resistance," (No, that is not what the paper reported, it was more pointing out possible "culture war" distortions)

"that German firearms laws played a prominent role in disarming Jews, and that Germany

had no equivalent to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." (Here again, this is a distortion, Harcourt was pointing out the SELECT nature of the changes. Harcourt was pointing out that a general disarmament of the population was not necessary, nor was he in any way defending totalitarianism. I understood that the point was that once a part of the population was disenfranchised and stripped of rights, the general population need not be molested for the goals of the government to be achieved)

"Recognition of a right such as this (the Second Amendment rights) anywhere in the world in any historical epoch must acknowledge that “the people” must mean the peaceable populace at large without regard to race, religion, or creed." (Not just wrong but very wrong, if anything the NSDAP government and the English before them prove this point with their history. If given sufficient reason to believe they have a superior status the select of any population will ignore the abuses of the non-select, that is simply the sad fact of the biologic encoded group-exclusive behavior of the human as a species)

"However, Professor Harcourt embraces American neo-Nazi William L. Pierce, who asserts, “German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens . . . .”

Harcourt asks, “How is it, you may ask, that I . . . would end up agreeing with a white supremacist leader of the National Alliance and National Vanguard?” Harcourt further concluded that “the Nazis were relatively more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic . . . .” (Boom, did you see that? Halbrook reflexively uses the fallacious "Godwin's law" or Reductio ad Hitlerum by directly associating Harcourt of "embracing" a "neo-nazi")

So to be fair, lets compare the above mis-quote to the actual quote in context...

"How is it, you may ask, that I—the faithful and loving son of a Jewish refugee who escaped his native France in June 1940 thanks to the magnanimity of a Portuguese consul who illegally signed thousands of visas for Jews and other refugees—would end up agreeing with a white supremacist leader of the National Alliance and National Vanguard? This is the truly bizarre, surprising, and somewhat uncomfortable product of culture war. It is the often unexpected, but utterly fascinating result of the fragmentation and fracturing of apparently monolithic identity groups and world views—or what might be called “cultural orientations.” It reflects both the strange alliances and the unanticipated conflicts between and within identities. Here, in effect, is the ultimate irony: The pro-gunners are probably right, the Nazi-gun-registration argument is probably wrong." - Harcourt

While there is much to agree with in Mr. Halbrook's article, I found it painfully clear that there was some deliberate misdirection and more than a few not-so-thinly veiled attacks on the character of Mr. Harcourt. Resorting to fallacious arguments including appeal to emotion, ad hominem, and reductio ad Hitlerum or "playing the Nazi card." and in this case it becomes so clear and shows such a reduction to the absurd due to the fact that Harcourt is Jewish. Clearly Harcourt is uncomfortable with the subject because of his ethnic background, finding himself on the "wrong side of the tracks."

Halbrook continues:

"Professor Harcourt’s suggestion that the Nazis supported Second Amendment-type values assumes as insignificant that the Nazis disarmed, intimidated, threw into concentration camps, or exterminated all of “the people” they identified as inferior by reason of race or religion, or as otherwise untrustworthy by reason of politics or any other reason whatsoever. Other than that, Professor Harcourt surmises, Hitler was a disciple of a liberal arms policy."

No, here is what Harcourt wrote:

"It is absurd to even try to characterize this as either pro or anti-gun control. But if forced to, I would have to conclude, at least preliminarily from this straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, that the Nazis favored less gun control for the “trustworthy” German citizen than the predecessor Weimar Republic, while disarming and engaging in a genocide of the Jewish population."

Halbrook continues:

"While Professor Harcourt might argue that the Nazi regime disproved the viability of an armed citizenry to resist tyranny, the statist model was not so great at resisting Nazi aggression, as the quick defeats of the governments and standing armies of Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, and Greece from 1939 to 1941 attest. The argument that armed citizens are worthless in resisting tyranny, even when many engaged in partisan activities throughout World War II, disregards that the entire governments of these nations collapsed within days or weeks of the Nazi Blitzkrieg."

No I don't see that as the driving force behind the paper. I don't see disproving the viability of an armed citizenry as a central point. My personal view from reading the paper is: First, general gun confiscation is unnecessary if you have an ignorant enough population that has become propagandized enough to allow the government to target groups. Second, that fact (read as truth) is infinitely more important than propaganda... and - that "pious fraud" pisses me off even when used in defense of a concept I believe in!

In then end it simply seems that Professor Harcourt ended up stepping in a big steaming pile, noted this and pointed it out, Halbrook took personal offense and ended by continually attempting to smear Harcourt in his rebuttal. I find this strange because in the lowest point in this argument - they agree! Reading further into Halbrook's paper you will note that it begins to sound like a small dog chasing his tail (and a bit self-aggrandizing) while he continually pounds on the same repetitive point (saying Harcourt was denying the issue of the SELECT nature - something he was NOT) the without addressing the main issue touched on by Harcourt - the use or mis-use of history in the "culture war" and how propagandizing abuses the simple facts.

How did I end up defending Harcourt? with some leanings I would find myself at odds with? I guess I find myself in the same uncomfortable situation in the "culture wars" - would not be the first time.

I think that I may have to start an award - the Glenn Beck ambush journalism award, for folks I want to like but cannot, whom I may have a majority agreement with on almost all subjects, but for some reason finds a way to just make things worse.

I wonder who should be first?