Lo Que es Bueno Para el Ganso...

Fighting Insurrection in Mexico, Fostering it at Home

In towns along the United States-Mexico border, a battle is raging between drug cartels and the Mexican government that has left thousands of innocent civilians and Mexican police officials dead. A galvanizing moment occurred on May 8, when assassins shot and killed Edgar Gomez, Mexico's top cop and an anti-cartel crusader, as he exited his home north of Mexico City. Gomez is just one of 6,000 Mexican government officials and police officers that have been killed by drug-related violence in the last two and a half years alone.

This epidemic of violence has become a major news story in the United States because of the source of so many of the guns being used in these attacks. Mexico's deputy attorney general, recently stated that 97% of the firearms used by Mexican drug gangs originate in the United States--primarily coming from the states of California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.

Mexico itself has strict prohibitions on purchasing firearms, but in the United States guns are easily acquired in an open market environment. U.S. gun shops and gun shows in border states are frequent shopping spots for agents of the drug cartels, who often bring narcotics to America and return to Mexico with firearms. Their guns of choice are extremely lethal: assault rifles (fully legal in the U.S. since the expiration of the federal ban in 2004), .50 caliber sniper rifles (capable of puncturing armor from long distances) and high-velocity handguns like the FN Herstal-57 (known south of the border as the "mata policia" or "cop killer").

The U.S. government's response to this cross-border trafficking of firearms has been quick and dramatic. The ATF has initiated "Project Gunrunner" with the aim of "deploying its resources strategically on the Southwest Border to deny firearms...to criminal organizations in Mexico and along the border, and to combat firearms-related violence affecting communities on both sides of the border." A bipartisan Congressional effort has also authored the Merida Initiative, which would provide Mexico with up to $1.4 billion worth of aid to fight the drug cartels. This legislation, which has passed both chambers of Congress and awaits President Bush's signature, also provides $15 million in new funding to Project Gunrunner. The ATF plans to use the funding to create seven additional Project Gunrunner teams.

So why are the Bush administration and so many traditional Congressional allies of the gun lobby supporting an anti-trafficking initiative that would benefit Mexico when they have been so reluctant to address America's own internal gun-running problem?

The answer is that the problem is quickly becoming a national security issue. Mexico City sociologist Luis Astorga recently told the Washington Post that the violence in Mexico "could have a snowball effect, even leading to the risk of ungovernability. It indicates terrible things, a level of weakness in our institutions--they can't even protect themselves." The cartel wars now pose a threat not only to Mexico's democracy and sovereignty, but to America's security as well should the government of Mexican President Felipe Calderón collapse.

Here in America we often hear the gun lobby spout off about how freedom is best preserved by unfettered access to firearms, but the current situation in Mexico demonstrates that reality can sometimes get in the way of public relations slogans. The obvious question is why don't we adopt Project Gunrunner here at home to help our own crime-ravaged communities? Doesn't Atlanta, for example, deserve the same protections as Mexico City? Unfortunately, it appears the lessons from the Mexican experience are, at the National Rifle Association's encouragement, best left at the border. In fact, in many ways we are moving in the opposite direction in addressing gun trafficking inside the U.S. Congress' repeated embrace of the restrictive Tiahrt Amendments would be one obvious example.

Additionally, the Bush administration and a majority of Members of Congress recently endorsed an "insurrectionist" reading of the Second Amendment in separate amicus briefs in the landmark Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller.* The Court is reviewing a decision by a panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals which held--without precedent--that the Second Amendment, among other things, protects an individual right to possess arms to defend against the "depredations of a tyrannical government." Practically, this would mean that individuals would have the constitutional right to arm themselves and violently overthrow our government once they decided it had become oppressive (not unlike the unilateral action that Timothy McVeigh took in bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995).

This insurrectionist argument has been pushed for years by right-wing militia and gun rights groups which seek to keep gun ownership anonymous and unregulated by government. Unfortunately, however, we are not immune from the instability that currently plagues Mexico. Rates of gun crime are again on the rise in the United States. The amount of sophisticated firepower in private hands has drastically increased during the last eight years, especially with the demise of the assault weapons ban. The same dangerous weapons now flowing into Mexico are currently available at guns shows across America, and the gun lobby's arguments in the Heller case make it clear that many right-wing gun owners are buying these firearms with our own government in mind. Sadly, recent shootings like the one in Kirkwood, Missouri reveal that anti-government sentiment continues to fuel violence in our country.

For the sake of our democracy, the Supreme Court should reject the insurrectionist premise and commit to the position that it is never constitutional, legal, or ethical for individuals to employ violence against democratic officials or institutions. Ditto for America's elected officials. While appeasing the gun lobby might be good politics for some Members of Congress, systematically breaking down America's gun regulations could one day threaten their own well-being and create an anarchic void that not even a domestic Project Gunrunner could redress.

* The amicus curiae brief from the Bush administration Department of Justice in the Heller case asserted that the Second Amendment guarantees "an armed citizenry as a deterrent to abusive behavior by the federal government itself." The brief from Members of Congress (and Vice President Dick Cheney in his role as President of the Senate) stated, "In sum, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms ... This Court should affirm the judgment of the court of appeals."

Comments

[montestruc]

If you want to help Mexico with the drug cartel problem, end the drug war and legalize, regulate and tax possession, sale and use of them by adults. That will quickly destroy the Drug Cartel by taking aways their money.

You have no business infringing our right to bear arms.

[Thirdpower2]

Even the Brady's recognize it:

'We've Lost the Battle on What the 2nd Amendment Means,' Brady Campaign Head Says

"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically."

"We're expecting D.C. to lose the case," Helmke said. "But this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side."

If the Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. gun ban, the Brady Campaign is hoping that it will reorient gun control groups around more limited measures that will be harder to cast as infringements of the Second Amendment.

"The NRA [National Rifle Association] won't have this fear factor," Helmke said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5055064&page=1

[gjdagis]

So you mean to tell me that WE in the United States should give up OUR constitutional rights and put our citizens at risk because the Mexicans cannot control themselves ?

On the OTHER hand; just legalize the drugs and you would have much less of a problem in the first place 1

George J. Dagis

[twhjohnson]

What rights does the US Citizen give up in the Merida Initiative and how does it put our citizens at risk? It does the exact opposite by supplying the Mexican government with funds to fight a national security problem in their country before it becomes a bigger national security issue in our country. The Merida Initiative is an investment in the safety of all North Americans.

[ebaLnoloM]

Wow.

So many misrepresentations in this article I don't even know where to begin.

Josh, from your own wikipedia link:

"Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton[1] shot one police officer with a revolver across the street from city hall and took the officer's handgun before entering city hall.

A revolver, Josh.

Despite the hoplophobic rhetoric, statistics continually show that ALL rifles (not just the scary black evil Assault Rifles(tm) )are used in 2.9% of all homicides in the US. The Socialist response of the anti-rights lobby is to ban them, despite their prevalence in the hunting and sport shooting community, and the ineffectiveness of the ban itself:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/03/assault_weapons_revisited.html

Yet people like Josh claim that America desperately needs a renewal.

Josh also likes to ride the insurrectionist horse, implying that the Founding Fathers and the NRA today advocate anyone in disagreement with the government to take up arms and revolt.

False.

Hey Josh, here's a novel idea- Border Security. But the left doesnt' want to hurt Mexico's feelings do they? Lets just infringe upon our rights some more instead.

[djkrlsn]

Maybe if the U S and Mexico cooperated, we would have fewer illegal aliens and narcotics here and Mexico would have fewer American guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels--if the border is tight on both sides--fewer problems right?

[twhjohnson]

The Thornton example was used to show that people are buying and using guns with the thought of insurrection against the government in their minds, not a point about what kind of firepower Thornton used.

Assault rifles are used in a small percentage of crimes, but make up an even smaller percentage of total weapons. What is not reasonable about placing regulations on guns often used in violent ways? Police officers are especially at risk.

"Using data obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Violence Policy Center has determined that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.8 Using these figures, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon."

From: http://www.vpc.org/studies/officeone.htm

The Merida Initiative is about stopping the flow of guns one one way and drugs the other and hopes to empower the Mexican government to fight the cartels more effectively. This isn't a "left" idea, the Merida Initiative was requested by President Bush and has support across the aisles. Also how does the Initiative infringe our rights as Americans?

[Thirdpower2]

Now what do they define as an "assault weapon"? Can you tell me what makes them significantly different from any other semi-auto firearms?

THis is also from the VPC "The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons�anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun�can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

So they admit to intentionally misrepresenting what an "assault weapon" is in order to confuse people. That is the same as what Horowitz does above by calling them "assault rifles" above in order to make people think the mafia is getting fully auto firearms from gun shows.

While they are getting semi-autos and revolvers from the US, the high explosives and fully-auto weapons they are using are coming from the Mexican military, police and their southern border. The Mexican Gov't doesn't want to acknowledge those facts so have to blame the US.

[Sry0fcr]

Drop the "assault weapon" angle. These weapons are functionally no different than any other weapons. So until someone can tell me how a pistol grip, muzzle device, bayonet lug, or barrel shroud makes a weapon more dangerous I refuse to entertain to this kind of non-sense. Besides wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the weapons that killed 80 of LEOs slain in the line of duty? Of course not.

[ianto94]

Since Mr. Horwitz needs a lesson on the purpose of the second amendment, I yield to my fellow Virginian:

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

... Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. .

Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

[Thirdpower2]

Since noone is stating that the 2A is about insurrection against a constitutionally elected Gov't, Horowitz's entire argument is based on a strawman. So tell me Josh, what legal measures did McVeigh take to attempt to redress his grievances? If a sitting president were to declare himself for life and disbanded congress, you would have no problem with that? Or would you stand up and take action?

I do find it funny that it's the very propaganda that groups like yours put out about the FN pistol (none of it accurate) that is encouraging criminals to use them.

To top off your list of nonsense, what "assault rifles" are now legal? Or are you using the tired tactic of trying to confuse fully automatic firearms (which the Mexican criminals are getting from their own military) to semi-auto rifles?

[twhjohnson]

The point that Mr. Horwitz makes is that rulings like the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in the Parker case place the onus on the individual citizen about when insurrection is appropriate--a dangerous precedent. There is no strawman there.

You are the one with a strawman, in the very next paragraph you insinuate that Horwitz would not be opposed to a president for life with no Congress! Surely such a scenario would inspire collective action against such an egregious reworking of our current system of governance.

Finally the assault weapon semantics argument is very old. It is pointedly obvious that Mr. Horwitz is referencing those guns that are civilian semi-automatic versions of military weapons. Like it or not, "assault weapon" does not imply a full auto, and its mainstream meaning is synonymous to the definition created by Congress in legislation relating to the regulation of such guns.

Even if some criminals are acquiring guns from the Mexican military, the main problem is that 97% of cartel guns are being trafficked from the North. In any case the Merida Initiative supplies the military with funding to combat such things.

[Thirdpower2]

The point that Horwitz is making is trying to compare the right to overthrow a gov't that has abandoned the constitution to terrorist acts against the legitimate gov't. Show me in the ruling where the precedent you claim is being set. I'll wait.

The "assault weapon semantics" are right in the article. If you google "assault rifle", you will get descriptions of military firearms. Do you think the wording by Josh was unintentional? The very VPC you linked to admits to playing up the confusion to push for bans. Case in point, before the AWB expired, FL sheriff Jenne intentionally displayed a fully auto firearm on CNN and stated that's what the ban covered.

The "main problem" in Mexico is a corrupt gov't. Why do you think they're blaming the US? Because they're in the pockets of the cartels. This includes the administration, police, and military. Monies sent will just end up lining pockets and the violence will continue. Watch.

[ianto94]

As for the decision in Parker -- now Heller -- it will take many years to flesh out the limits of the right to keep and bear arms. At a minimum it will mean the government cannot disarm law abiding citizens or prohibit the use of firearms for self defense, the only issues now before the Supreme Court. It will likely mean that standard firearms like handguns, shotguns and rifles cannot be prohibited. Plainly the result of affirming Heller as everyone believes the court will do, does not mean we cannot have background checks, licensing of dealers, and requirements for permits to carry concealed weapons. Would .50 caliber bans be legal? Who knows. Could states prohibit machine guns (which federal law allows by the way)? Good question. There will plainly be a room for regulation to prevent felons from possessing arms, regulating when minors may possess guns, and certainly the time place and manner of recreational shooting and hunting. Likely not much different from the thousands of gun laws we have now. But the outer limits of government authority over weapons will likely be established. Unlike Mexico, where large classes of arms are reserved to the state, Americans will be assured of the right to possess functional and effective weapons to defend themselves. Why that scares people like Mr. Horwitz is beyond me.

[ianto94]

Perhaps if Mexican citizens were allowed to own effective weaponry, they could take back their communities from the drug cartels. I won't even discuss how that would also help curb the rampant corruption of the police in Mexico. If that be insurrection make the most of it.

[GEErnst]

The gun lobby had already lost in the appeals court. Let's ask these simple questions to candidates:

*******
In his opinion in Parker Judge Silberman arrived at these conclusions:

"Reasonable restrictions also might be thought
consistent with a "well regulated Militia." The
registration of firearms gives the government
information as to how many people would be
armed for militia service if called up.
Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would
both promote public safety and produce better
candidates for military service. Personal
characteristics, such as insanity or felonious
conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous
to society also make someone unsuitable for
service in the militia."
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
p. 54

These are the makings of a firearms policy. Do you accept and support Judge Silberman's conclusions? Will you work towards a policy based on these conclusions?
*******

They are also a devastating repudiation of the gun lobby's core doctrine. The gun lobby, led by the NRA, would fight viciously to defeat any attempts to implement Judge Silberman's conclusions.

[Sry0fcr]

You"re attempting to re-write history as well. First off, Heller won the appeal in a 2-1 decision stating that the 2A was an individual right subject to reasonable regulation and NOT a collective right of the militia. Also Judge Silberman went on to say that, "the right is broader than it"s civic purpose" noting that the right to keep and bear arms traditionally hasn"t been reserved only to militiamen. [Pg 54-55] (If this is true, wouldn"t "well regulated" only apply to the militia and not the "the people"?) Secondly, the "gun lobby" and the NRA had nothing to do with bringing this case to trial! In fact early on the NRA tried to undermine the case because of doubts about getting an individual rights ruling! At any rate, we only have a couple more weeks to argue about it. The decision should be handed down shortly and from the oral arguments I heard the "gun lobby" will win it in a 5-4 decision and the next step will be to figure out what exactly is "reasonable regulation".

[GEErnst]

Just ask the questions. Judge Silberman's conclusions make that individual right he seeks to invent perfectly meaningless. There is a reason why the NRA fought to sabotage the case. It does not want gun rights cases in federal court. It cannot control federal judges with demagoguery. Even the constitutional hacks who are sneaked in don't give the NRA what it wants.
http://www.potowmack.org/index.html

[Sry0fcr]

I really don't know what to say about the last 3 paragraphs except to ask, "Do you own a history book?" Or are you purposely ignoring the text of the Declaration of Independence and ignoring the fact that the founders of this nation not only endorsed and approved of the violent overthrow of an oppressive government THEY DID IT. I find it hard to believe that they didn't intend for future generations to do the same if it became necessary. I find it even harder to accept that it is, "never constitutional, legal, or ethical for individuals to employ violence against democratic officials or institutions." especially considering there's been a long line "democratically elected" despots throughout the 20th century. Again, "Do you own a history book?"