Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Massad Ayoob on gunfighting myths | Main | "Only police are competent to have guns" »

A novel approach

Posted by David Hardy · 30 December 2015 12:50 PM

Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe is proposing various forms of gun control, and has by executive order banned firearms in State offices. Va State Senator Charles W. Carrico Sr. has an interesting response: defund the governor's armed guards. "It's easy for someone who is surrounded by armed state policemen to tell someone else they can't carry a weapon to protect themselves."

The idea has lots of potential. If a public figure maintains that, oh, firearms should be limited to ten-round magazines, the legislature could ensure that his body guards are limited to those. After all, if ten rounds is enough to defend against a criminal attack, and the body guards are there to prevent criminal attack, they can set the example for the rest of us.

Actually, we might wonder why a governor needs body guards. I can't recall a single case of a governor being attacked while in office, with the exception of Huey Long eighty years ago. And there are some that argue that Long was hit by an errant shot from his body guards.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

SDN | December 30, 2015 1:38 PM | Reply

George C Wallace was still Governor in 1972 when shot in Laurel MD.

Magus | December 30, 2015 4:09 PM | Reply

And there was a Ky governor assassinated 'bout 115 years ago. William Goebel

Being a state Governor seems safer than being a judge though; there's been several of those rapscallions shot over the years.

Harold | December 31, 2015 5:31 AM | Reply

It sure looks like a self-described anarchist tried to kill Missouri governor Jay Nixon but attacked the wrong person. Nixon, BTW, opposes legal concealed carry in Missouri.

MarkPA | December 31, 2015 6:07 AM | Reply

This is an interesting rhetorical approach. I think most of us recognize the very low probability of getting any traction on any proposal to strip Noblemen of their Pretorian Guards. But that is the wrong focus. It won't matter at all whether we succeed or not in actually removing any anti-gun politician's armed guards. Instead, it's the public perception of the rhetoric that really matters.
The press will have a hard time avoiding covering the controversy. Naturally, the national MSM will succeed in avoiding coverage. Why should anyone in any of the 49 States care about a controversy that affects just 1 State such as VA? Nevertheless, the local (municipal and State) press will cover it. We can win the fight for the 2A one State at a time.
The Antis dare not meet us in this debating hall. What could they possibly say to defend armed guards (15-round magazines, etc.) for politicians but not for the proletariat?
Another facet to work on is LEOSA. Why should Congress give valuable life-saving and living-earning licenses to carry as an emolument of serving in their politically-controlled police forces? Once they turn-in their badges they are no longer the knights of the Noblemen; they become proletariat like the rest of us subjects. The apparent purpose is to provide a limited supply of armed-guards licensed to serve men-of-means such as Bloomberg. What is the principle that justifies LEOSA when the 2A guarantees the right-to-carry to the People generally? We can play the class-warfare game as well.

Jim D. | December 31, 2015 11:49 AM | Reply

Not that body guards or personal carry would have helped him, but John Connally was also shot.

James N. Gibson | January 4, 2016 12:32 PM | Reply

Lets see how this can work. The State legislature designates the governors armed men be armed only with 0.45 caliber Colt M1911s. They are then uniformed in a manner within the requirements of the State Defense Force laws as administered by the National Guard Bureau. This way they won't be mistaken for federal troops and their arm and ammunition will not impact national defense. Of course they will be restricted to the standard seven round magazine but then again law enforcement is being returned to the six shot revolver given the Obama policies against the militarizing of Police. Sounds sensible

Leave a comment