Trad Gang
Main Boards => Hunting Legislation & Policies => Topic started by: Rob DiStefano on January 30, 2013, 10:06:00 AM
-
Trad Gang is totally about traditional bowhunting. That is, and will always be our #1 focus and goal.
We do NOT and will not, allow talk at Trad Gang about any weaponry other than traditional archery bows ...
However, in these trying times for sportsmen and the traditional American gun owning public, Trad Gang supports legal American gun ownership and we feel the current state of most proposed state and federal gun laws are an infringement on our Second Amendment Rights.
If you feel the same, we urge you to write to your state and government officials and let our voiced numbers be a guideline for them to do the right thing for America.
To make all this easy and fast, Ruger Arms has prepared a website page that contains a brief email letter that once you've filled out will go directly to your state and federal government officials. Please consider doing so, and please pass this on to all like-minded folks.
Thank you.
Take Action Now (http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html)
******************************************************************************************************************************************************
29 Jan 2013
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “...pport and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same....". The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.
Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.
First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”
The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!
The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.
Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?
What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).
Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?
In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”
“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’
The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.
A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”
“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.
On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”
So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?
The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!
Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.
If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.
So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:
1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.
3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.
4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.
5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.
6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.
7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.
8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.
The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.
1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter
We have a list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets we can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking “Green Beret”. - ]www.GuardianOfValor.com (http://www.GuardianOfValor.com[/i)[/url]
-
Did it!
-
Now that was SO easy to do. Thank you!
-
Done
-
Did it! Thanks for the link Rob.. :thumbsup:
-
Done. Thanks Rob :thumbsup:
-
I did it, and forwarded the link to some of my hunting friends/family.
-Jeremy :coffee:
-
Thanks Rob. Mine has been sent. I am glad to see Tradgang take a stand on this as I feel this concerns all of us.
-
Rob,
Good thing you have done here...
Thanks and God bless, Pierre
-
Sent. Thank you.
-
Done, Thank you.
-
Thank you for taking a stand to preserve our second amendment rights :clapper:
-
Done.......... thanks for posting this
My wife also is sending our letter we wrote last night reinforcing these same thoughts.
-
I'm in! Thanks Rob :thumbsup:
Eric
-
Done!
Thank you for posting this easy way to do it.
:thumbsup:
-
Letters/e-mails sent.
-
I'm in. Thanks for everything you do TradGang!
-
done!
-
Sent it! :thumbsup:
-
Roger That!...Done
-
Done here also!
-
Did it. Thanks.
-
Done. Would be nice to see at least half, but even better for every member to do this.
-
Done!!
-
Thanks Rob...... Done!!!
-
Thanks for providing that link!
-
Done and done! Thanks for the link, Rob!
-
Done. Thanks for the opportunity.
-
Did it. I also sent it to my like minded friends. Thanks for all you do. Ken
-
Thanks for the link!!!!!
-
Thanks for your help TG!
-
Thanks for the link!
-
Did my part.
Troy
-
Done,
Thank you.
-
Done, and Thanks.
-
thanks trad gang
-
Done, Thanks for the link Rob
-
Done! Thanks so much for posting this up.
-
I had already sent emails to my representatives from North Carolina. Of particular interest to North Carolinians, Senator Burr has a statement opposing gun legislation proposed by the President on his website. Make sure to let him know you support his opposition.
Dave
-
Rob, we all have a common bond when it comes to hunting and ownership of various weapons. I'm glad to see this site takes a pro second amendment stance as do a lot of the members I'm sure. I have wrote or called all my representatives in the past weeks and have gotten some positive and some negative response.
-
Done!
-
Already did it from another forum, started to ask for permission to post a link in the other threads but didn't follow through. Thanks guys, really proud to be part of this community. I have already heard back from one of my reps using the Ruger link, so maybe it will do some good.
-
Rob and Gang, thank you so much for doing this.
Jack
-
Done, Glad that trad gang is staying on topics like this!
Jake
-
Done!! Thanks for the link!!
-
Thank you!
-
Did it and snail mailed signed paper copies to both Federal and State level. Also did the same for a couple of buddies (had to get their signatures before mailing)
I think snail mail is more effective.
-
Thanks Rob!
God bless,Mudd
-
Done and forwarded to all of my gun and bible-(or Torah) clinging friends.
-
Done. Thanks Rob.
-
Originally posted by Lowrider:
Thanks Rob. Mine has been sent. I am glad to see Tradgang take a stand on this as I feel this concerns all of us.
x2
-
Done
-
Done, Thank you Gentlemen.
-
Thanks guys, myself and my wife just took care of it.
Eric
-
Done!
Perhaps if all registered members of this site will do the same it may have some favorable impact on the matter. :thumbsup:
-
Done
-
WOW! That was awesome. Very easy. Thanks for posting, Rob. :thumbsup:
-
I'm on it! Thanks guys!!
Also sending it to my sizeable email contact list, so if you get it from me and already have done it, just delete me! LOL
-
Good deal , I even had my Goodwife send one .
-
I'm in, Thanks for posting this!
Steve
-
Thanks Rob, did it 2 weeks ago on another site, but kudos to you guys for being open minded and bending the rules for the good of all!
-
Cool. Done.
-
Took care of this last week and got your standard, form letter reply from our States 2 Democratic Senators who of course are spouting the party line. Regardless, I still think it's important they know how we feel. Thanks to Rob and Terry for allowing this.
-
So again we find, as in many other ways, the "buck stops here!" It is we who must take the responsibility for finding and putting to good use the TRUTH. It is we who must claim and defend our GOD given rights and freedom from those who would take them from us. It is we who must protect ourselves, our families and our posterity from intrusion by those who live parasitically from the labor, skill and talents of others.
-
Done. It would have been nice had they reminded the elected ones that amendment 2 is not about hunting...it is about protecting ourselves against foreign enemies, domestic enemies, enemies of our Constitution, and governmental tyranny.
-
Sent!!
-
DONE :thumbsup:
-
also done thanks for the ease of the letter.
-
Done, and well done. Thanks for promoting this.
-
Done. Now to pass on the link!!
-
Done ! Thanks for posting !
-
Great link. My wife and I both did it, proud to stand up for our rights.
-
:thumbsup:
I had already sent them a letter but another wont hurt!
-
Done. Thanks for the link.
-
Done, thank you for the link.
-
Done thanks
-
I did my part ! thanks
-
Done! Thanks for posting that link!
-
The wife & I put it in :thumbsup: :archer2:
-
29 Jan 2013
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “...pport and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same....". The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.
Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.
First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”
The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!
The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.
Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?
What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).
Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?
In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”
“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’
The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.
A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”
“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.
On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”
So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?
The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!
Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.
If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.
So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:
1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.
3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.
4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.
5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.
6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.
7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.
8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.
The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.
1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter
We have a list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets we can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking “Green Beret”. - ]www.GuardianOfValor.com (http://www.GuardianOfValor.com[/i)[/url]
-
Done!
-
Thanks for making it so Easy! Very Much Appreciated!!
Just renewed to the NRA and California Rifle and Pistol Assoc.
-
Done!
Thank You!
-
Rob,
That is a well constructed letter, with many points which most citizens are probably unaware of.
Sad thing is the group of readers this letter is really targeted towards, will probably never read it.
It will take another Athens, TN most likely to open their eyes.
-
done, thanks for providing this.
-
Done. That was easy.
-
Done!
-
Did it! Thanks for posting the link!!
-
Thank you!
Your message for "Gun Owner Call to Action" was sent on 01/31/2013 22:03 PM
JL
-
Did that a few days ago, thanks!
-
...done...thanks for the link...
-
Done , thanks Rob :thumbsup:
-
Thanks Rob
-
Done.
Thanks for posting this.
LP
-
Done. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We must all hang together or they will hang us separately.
-
That was fast and easy.
-
Done!!
-
Done
Thanks, Rick
-
Done! :thumbsup:
-
Thanks Rob, One more!
-
if anything, your actions and speaking your mind can yield a better view of just who's representing you, supporting your views, and who you should be supporting ....
"Dear Mr. DiStefano:
Thank you for contacting me about gun control in the wake of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Understanding your ideas and concerns is important because it helps me to better represent you and the Fifth District of New Jersey. I value your comments and appreciate the opportunity to respond.
First and foremost, no words can describe the unspeakable tragedy that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut. With the loss of so many innocent lives, especially the young children, my prayers continue to go out to the victim's families and the Newtown community.
This tragic event has people across the country asking if there are steps that can be taken to prevent anything like this from happening again. As I'm sure you know, the shooter in Connecticut—a state with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation—stole his mother's guns to carry out this unspeakable act. He then illegally carried those stolen weapons into a gun-free zone. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, a majority of guns used by criminals are stolen, bought on the black market, or obtained in other illegal ways.
Unfortunately, many will use this tragedy as an opportunity to restrict access to firearms for law-abiding citizens. I do not believe that these actions will address the underlying issue. The Second Amendment to the Constitution establishes a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. I believe that to prevent future tragedies from occurring, we must keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. I also believe that we must take steps to more effectively address mental illness, not just through the federal government, but also within our families and communities.
Please know that your correspondence is important to me, and that I appreciate your views. Should legislation concerning gun control come to the House floor for a vote, I will consider it with your thoughts in mind.
Once again, thank you for contacting me. As Congress debates solutions to the challenges facing our nation, I hope you will continue to share your thoughts and views with me. Should you have any further questions or comments about this or any legislative issue, please do not hesitate to contact me in my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 225-4465. Also, please visit me at www.facebook.com/repscottgarrett, (http://www.facebook.com/repscottgarrett,) www.youtube.com/repscottgarrett, (http://www.youtube.com/repscottgarrett,) and my website at www.house.gov/garrett (http://www.house.gov/garrett) to sign up for my e-newsletter for the latest updates from Washington, D.C. and around the district.
Sincerely,
Scott Garrett
Member of Congress"
-
Done :thumbsup:
-
Thanks, that was a great link. Easy and to the point. I completed it and passed it on to all my friends and added to Facebook.
-
Thanks so much for posting this. Quick, easy and responsible.
-
Done. Thank you!
-
DONE!!
-
I have signed it. Be sure to show up in your area for any activity supporting anti gun control. We will be in Raleigh NC this Tuesday to let our state legislators know where we stand.
-
DONE :thumbsup:
-
Done Thanks Rob!
-
HOOAH Berets!! Loved that letter.
-
I'm in, everyone needs to remember, united we stand divided we fall! We all need to stick together as brothers, weather, it is stick and string (and sometimes training wheels :bigsmyl: ) or firearms. We are all in this together.
-
Done & Done.
Thanks Rob
-
Thank you for providing this, done.
-
Got it done. Thanks for making it so easy.
-
Done!
-
Thank You, Just finished!
-
Did it, even got a reply from Sen Warner.
-
Thank you, Done
Randy Chamberlin
-
I have completed the form, we need to encourage our Trad Gang members, family and friends to protect our second amendment rights.
-
Did it a while back; got a response, sort of, from Sen. Casey yesterday. Very disappointing. Same old crap about saving the world by banning military look alike weapons and large capacity magazines. But he fully supports our Second Amendment rights.
-
Originally posted by dragon rider:
Did it a while back; got a response, sort of, from Sen. Casey yesterday. Very disappointing. Same old crap about saving the world by banning military look alike weapons and large capacity magazines. But he fully supports our Second Amendment rights.
if they (the politicos) don't walk their talk, they don't get my support.
-
I did.
-
Here in N.Y.we are having to deal with Emperor Cuomo and an Assembly and Senate who,in the middle of the night and with none of the public's in-put,signed a Bill with a number of restrictions they intend to put in place next year.To say gun owners here are a little upset is an understatement.Myself and others are sending e-mails and signing petitions to send to our legislatures and senators and I've attended 2 meetings with our county legislatures the last couple weeks and will be at a demonstration at the state capital on the 28th.
Please,any N.Y. gun owners here who care about their Constitutional Rights being stepped on and dis-regarded should attend.Hope to see you there.
-
Completed and submitted! Thank you!
-
Signed and delivered last week via Ruger. Now, I'm getting auto-replies. Some are very vague and skirt the issue. Others are straight forward and to the point. NOW, I know who gets my vote in the next election!!!
-
Rob>
.....and The 1100 initiators, we are blessed to have you alive and speaking out.
I particularily wish to foster the included reference to Soverign States. Less Federal and greater local participation is a pro-active step in my opinion.That is where it all began.
Done and well done all.
Larry
-
Thanks for including this in the forum, Rob! :thumbsup:
-
letter sent!!! THANK YOU ROB!!
-
Done
-
http://www.examiner.com/article/olympic-arms-cuts-off-business-to-new-york-over-gun-restrictions
Check it out. Olympic Arms will not sell any of there firearms to NY Gov. and wants all other manufactures to follow until they change back there firearm laws.
-
Did it today. Thanks for bringing this easy way of doing it to us. Also, I am calling my senators offices tomorrow :thumbsup:
Gerald
-
Guys, here is the best definaton of gun control I have ever heard...
"Gun Control is not "Gun Control"...it's "People Control" :scared:
Therefore, in a society of WOLVES why would we consider making ourselves into "One More SHEEP" ?? :mad:
Gene
-
Done!
-
I did this several weeks ago and have already got responses from my reps. I pray the sheer numbers will make them notice. It is EXTREMELY important for those of you that live in liberal states (Calif, New York etc) to follow up on these issues.
One of the quotes I like, "We must all hang together or we will certainly hang separately".
This is our fight.
-
I'm for Freedom, Message sent!!!
-
Have already sent countless emails
-
Did it 3 days ago and have received 2 responses so far. One was short and sweet and the other was quite lengthy. Maybe we will get something accomplished or are we :banghead: or :pray: they listen.
-
Comcast Cable Network Bans All Firearms Related Advertising
Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/9573/comcast-cable-network-bans-all-firearms-related-advertising
-
All you guys that say they will never take our bows away. Look what is out on the market.
Check out the new Rac-Em-Back Bowmag Arrowhead which holds a .38spcl/.357mag shell. The round fires upon hitting the target!
http://www.racembac.com/
-
kinda cool...
-
...btw..I've NEVER said "they won't try to take my bow"...lol
I don't trust em at all..
-
Done! Thank you!
-
Could you see some compound guy miss firing his release with one of those
-
I sent it in too! Thanks for the link to make our desires known and that we believe the Constitution was wisely written by the signers of the declaration. These people paid forward at the risk of their lives.
-
Done
-
Done...God bless you guys and our nation!
-
Done! Thanks Rob for posting this
-
Thank you Rob. I filled mine out.God bless America and all that have sacrificed for our freedom. Thanks Tradgang.
-
done Thanks Rob
-
Thanks for the link, Rob. I did it and sent the link to people I know who don't visit Tradgang. I'm a little late because I haven't been here in a while. My wife and I are buying 36 acres of hunting/fishing ground in Eastern Iowa, so getting ready for that has kind of had me preoccupied.
-
Done, Thanks for posting for the gun owners of our fine country. Most of us love archery and also do some other shooting sports also.
-
Done, Thanks
-
I will NOT be going to Colorado any time soon. Nor any other state that passes more stringent gun laws.
-
Done,thanks for the info.
-
-
Thanks Rob, Done.
-
Very cool, I am in.
-
Has anyone mentioned this,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-23/pdf/2013-09602.pdf
Check out part 45CFR 160 and 164, your gonna love this.