“We had to draw a line in the sand, and we have.”
New perspectives on media bias, the role of women in the gun rights movement, constitutional carry, patient privacy, Supreme Court history and knife rights rounded out the closing panels at this year’s Gun Rights Policy Conference in Chicago at the end of September.
Leading off the morning panels was a discussion on new perspectives on establishment media bias, with Brian Patrick, associate professor of communications at the University of Toledo. He told the audience that he is a “renegade professor” who is “intensely interested” in gun culture mobilization against overwhelming odds.
He dismissed the notion of an “objective mass media” asserting that there has never been any such thing.
Patrick talked about “Weapons Prohibited” signs as the kinds of things that were supposed to scare away demons in medieval times. They haven’t worked to prevent mass killings, and he accused administrators of using such signs as a way of lulling people into a false sense of security.
He calls such people propagandists, and also said academics look at guns as symbols of evil. He was critical of journalism because it has become a business, and because journalism schools now teach “social responsibility” in addition to the basics of journalism, which he is concerned may lead to a twisting of the news.
He was followed by Malia Zimmerman, editor of the Hawaii Reporter. She described how the press does twist information, and how some journalists are “out to get you.”
Zimmerman suggested that gun rights activists start their own blogs for the purpose of providing balance and getting facts in front of the public that they do not get from the traditional media. The Hawaii Reporter is an on-line newspaper, and it covers crime, politics and other news.
She further advised the audience to identify and work with independent journalists who are always on the lookout for sensational stories that grab the public’s attention.
Zimmerman advised people who may be interviewed to listen to the reporters and the kinds of questions they ask. This is typically a good indicator of the kind of story they are working on, and how that story will be told.
Don Irvine, president of Accuracy in Media, told the audience that media bias does exist and in terms of the gun issue, the press has a poor track record. He recounted how the press distorted Florida’s Stand-Your-Ground law, how the press treated the Fort Hood shooting, and how other stories are twisted.
He recalled how the press reported the January shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, using that story as a launch pad for furthering an anti-gun agenda.
Irvine referred to a poll showing that 55% of the American public mistrusts the media. He accused the press of being lazy, and advised the audience to use this as a tool for educating the press. Provide stories, provide facts and work with reporters.
Supreme Court history
The next panel dealt with the history of Supreme Court actions and what that tells us about how the court may rule on certain issues, including gun control.
David Hardy, an author and attorney who has also become a notable researcher, recalled two cases, including the Dred Scott case. This case from the 1850s dealt with the rights of citizenship and the plight of a former slave who escaped to a free territory.
He explained the odd and complicated back story about Scott, whose original owner died, and whose widow married a Northeast congressman who was opposed to slavery. But the case, as Hardy explained it, had considerable ramifications involving free states and slave states, and territories, and how this case contributed to events leading up to the Civil War.
Part of the issue had to do with the rights of freemen.
The other case Hardy discussed was the infamous US v. Miller Supreme Court ruling in 1939 that has been misinterpreted for decades as defining the Second Amendment only as a “collective right.”
Nobody filed a brief on behalf of the defendant in the case, a bank robber who had been found in possession of a sawed-off shotgun.
But this case also had a back story that Hardy and associates researched. He said the Miller case was “the best test case you could imagine if you hate the Second Amendment.”
Hardy also looked at the background of the trial court judge who “set all of this up.”
“He was, in fact, an anti-gunner who had been in Congress 20 years before being appointed to the court,” Hardy said. “He loved gun control.”
Hardy suggested that this judge “set up” the Miller case to challenge the National Firearms Act as a way to get the case before the Supreme Court and “deep-six the Second Amendment.” Hardy found the judge’s personal papers, learned that he was tied in strongly with the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration that had “a very heavy anti-gun agenda that has been lost to history.” FDR wanted national handgun registration and other anti-gun measures.
His research also uncovered documents that suggest J. Edgar Hoover was the first to talk about “cop killer bullets” and this criticism was aimed at the .357 Magnum cartridge being developed at the time by Smith & Wesson.
Author and attorney David Kopel, research director at the Independence Institute, discussed how courts look at whether a law is unconstitutional. He said that today, a far more rigorous standard has been established under which the courts determine whether an issue comes under constitutional scrutiny.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the high court looked at what kinds of arms are protected by the Second Amendment. This included firearms commonly owned by citizens for self-protection.
Kopel explained the standards of review for courts to consider constitutional issues. There is the “rational basis” standard, “intermediate scrutiny” and “strict scrutiny.”
He discussed a recent Second Amendment Foundation case against the City of Chicago, known as the Ezell case. This case challenged the city’s handgun law that banned shooting ranges in the city, while the ordinance also required range training in order to get a handgun permit from the city.
“The appointment of judges really is important,” he said, “and it will make a difference on Second Amendment issues.”
He said one of the greatest dangers legally to the Second Amendment is a shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court that could create a weak standard of review for laws regulating firearms.
Medical Privacy
A discussion on patient privacy and medical practices featured Dr. Timothy Wheeler, director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Claremont Institute, and Dr. John Wipfler, an emergency room physician. They are co-authors of Keeping Your Family Safe: The Responsibilities of Firearms Ownership.
Wheeler discussed the Firearms Owners Privacy Act in Florida. This law put a limit on the practice of physicians “misusing the trust of their patients” to push an anti-gun agenda. That statute has been challenged. He explained the details of the law, and reported how physicians’ groups have sued Florida. Ten days before the conference, a judge issued an injunction against enforcement of the law, on First Amendment grounds.
He said opposition to the law even came from physicians who own firearms, because they believe it restricts their freedom of speech.
“We are held to a higher standard than for most people,” Wheeler said. “People come into our office and they trust us…to use information and expertise only for their best interests. When we step outside that we are violating an ethical boundary.”
He said the case will get national attention and predicted “two reassuring results.” One of those issues is ethical boundary violations and physicians are now aware of this problem.
“They know not to mess with gunowners,” he said.
The other issue deals with public sentiment, which is “clearly against the meddling anti-gun politics” of medical associations, he said.
Dr. Wipfler, a professor of emergency medicine, noted that physicians and private citizens have much in common. They want their families to remain healthy, free from injuries and they do not want to be censored. There are concerns about computerized medical records, he noted, because these records might contain data about gun ownership.
“We should be very wary of such documentation,” he said.
Wipfler said there are several ways physicians and patients can get along. He offered several suggestions to doctors, including providing educational materials on safety in all areas, including firearms, smoke alarms, medicine storage, and assuming that patients have a firearm in the home. For the public, invite a doctor to the gun range, talk about other problems that may be significant issues.
He said some physicians think the answer is simple: lock up guns and ammunition. Their motivation may be well-intended, but it is misguided and simplistic.
However, he advised people not to worry too much about physicians asking about firearms, but be prepared to provide some information.
Knife Rights
Doug Ritter, founder and chairman of Knife Rights, reminded the audience that knives are “arms” and he said that “sometimes you should bring a knife to a gunfight.”
“Knife restrictions and knife bans are nothing less than a back door to gun control,” he asserted.
He said the same prohibitionists who want to ban guns also want to ban knives “because they view (knives) as easy pickings.” Ritter noted that the New York City District Attorney has continued his war on knives.
“We had to draw a line in the sand, and we have,” he said.
The group has found several plaintiffs and has tried to go to trial and they have sued to get a case into federal court. Ritter recounted one case in New York City in which an electrician was arrested for having a common folding knife in his tool kit.
“Knives are protected by the Second Amendment,” he said. “Knives are tools that are used by millions of Americans every day. Leave our knives alone!”
Another problem is unfolding in Boston, where the city council was discussing licensing knife dealers. Ten years after adopting licensing for gun dealers, Ritter said there are no gun dealers left in the city.
He said “our success is spreading” and that there are moves in several legislatures to get rid of bad knife laws. However, it is costly to conduct lobbying efforts in several states. He asked the audience to spread the word and solicit support for KnifeRights.org.
“The battle for Second Amendment rights is just heating up in this area,” he said, “and we are in a position to put a lid on it. Knife rights is the second front in the battle for the Second Amendment.”
Attorney David Jensen discussed how knives are defined, admitting that he had never heard of a “gravity knife” before getting involved in a lawsuit in New York about knives.
As a theoretical matter, any knife that does not positively lock shut could be defined as a “gravity knife,” he indicated.
Jensen filed a case against the knife law in federal district court. He insists that this is a Second Amendment issue, and that the law is vague. Since filing the lawsuit, the New York attorney general has asked to be let out of the lawsuit, and Jensen agreed to that.
Tom Gresham followed at the podium, asking the audience to imagine putting a knife in your pocket every day and suddenly being arrested for it. A radio broadcaster and board member of Knife Rights. org, warned the audience that people who have been arrested in New York for knife law violations considered themselves “a good guy.” They never imagined the knife in their pocket would get them in trouble.
On a visit to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, Gresham learned there is an entire wing devoted to arms, and the exhibit includes knives.
He also recounted a case in California in which someone tried to rescue a baby from a burning car, and he did not have a knife. Nobody had a knife and an 11-month old baby girl burned to death. Gresham said that’s one reason he carries a knife: to cut seatbelts in an emergency.
Gresham asserted that the New York District Attorney has been conducting a “mafia style shakedown” of knife retailers in the city.
