Archive for the ‘Gun Control’ Category

Sheepdogs and wolves

March 19, 2008

This letter was written by Charles Grennel and his comrades,
veterans of the Global War on Terror.

Grennel is an Army Reservist who spent two years in Iraq and
was a principal in putting together the first Iraq elections
in January 2005.

It was written to Jill Edwards, student at the University of
Washington, who did not want to honor, Medal of Honor
winner, USMC Colonel Greg Boyington. Ms. Edwards and other
students and faculty do not think those who serve in the
U.S. Armed Services are good role models.

———————————————————-


Miss Edwards, I read of your student activity regarding the
proposed memorial to Colonel Greg Boyington, USMC and a
Medal of Honor winner. I suspect you will receive many angry
emails from conservative people like me. You may be too
young to appreciate fully the sacrifices of generations of
servicemen and servicewomen, on whose shoulders you and your
fellow students stand.

I forgive you for the untutored ways of youth and your
naivete. It may be that you are simply a sheep. There’s no
dishonor in being a sheep, as long as you know and accept
what you are.

Most of the people in our society are sheep.

They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only
hurt one another by accident. We may well be in the most
violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably
rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people,
not capable of hurting each other except by accident or
under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

Then there are the wolves who feed on the sheep without
mercy.

Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on
the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are
evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds.
The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you
become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

Then there are sheepdogs and I’m a sheepdog.

I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. If you
have no capacity for violence and you are a healthy
productive citizen, you are a sheep.

If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your
fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive
sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for
violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do
you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking
the uncharted path. Someone who can walk into the heart of
darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out
unscathed.

We know that the sheep live in denial – that is what makes
them sheep.

They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world.
They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why
they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms
and fire exits throughout their kid’s schools. But many of
them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police
officer in their kid’s school.

Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed
or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the
sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is
denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their
child is just too hard. So they choose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot
like the wolf.

He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference,
though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not
ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog that intentionally harms
the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The
world cannot work any other way, at least not in a
representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant
reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would
prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them
traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in
camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much
rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint
himself white, and go Baa. That is, until the wolf shows up,
and then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind
one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were
big, tough, know-it-all high school students, and under
ordinary circumstances would not have had the time of day
for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had
nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack,
however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and
hallways, the officers had to physically peel those
clinging, sobbing kids off of them.

This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when
the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after
September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door.
Remember how America, more than ever before, felt
differently about their law enforcement officers and
military personnel? Understand that there is nothing morally
superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose
to be.

Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter. He is
always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the
breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night and
yearning for a righteous battle.

That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle.
The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they
move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with
the young ones. Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think
differently.

The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog
lives for that day.

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep,
that is, most citizens in America said ‘Thank God I wasn’t
on one of those planes.’ The sheepdogs, the warriors, said,
‘Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes.
Maybe I could have made a difference.’ You want to be able
to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the
warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And
that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an
environment that would destroy 98 percent of the population.
Research was conducted a few years ago with individuals
convicted of violent crimes.

These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of
violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement
officers. The vast majority said they specifically targeted
victims by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and
lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do
in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is
least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be
genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe
that most people can choose which one they want to be, and
I’m proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing
to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd
Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey.
Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over
Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an
operator from United Airlines about the hijacking.

When they learned of the other three passenger planes that
had been used as weapons, Todd and the other passengers
confronted the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a
transformation occurred among the passengers – athletes,
business people and parents – from sheep to sheepdogs and
together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an
unknown number of lives on the ground.

Edmund Burke said ‘There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.’ Here is the
point I want to emphasize, especially to the thousands of
police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature
the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born
that way, and so are wolves.

They don’t have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a
human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a
conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then
you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand
the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved
ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to
protect you.

If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs
are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest,
safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and
walk the warrior’s path, then you must make a conscious and
moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare
yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the
wolf comes knocking at the door.

This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no
dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It
is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an
abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the
ultimate warrior.

Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of
us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in
America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The
sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating
their warriors and the warriors started taking their job
more seriously.

It’s OK to be a sheep, but do not kick the sheepdog. Indeed,
the sheepdog may just run a little harder, strive to protect
a little better and be fully prepared to pay an ultimate
price in battle and spirit with the sheep moving from ‘baa’
to ‘thanks’.

We do not call for gifts or freedoms beyond our lot. Just
like the sheepdog, we in the military just need a small pat
on the head, a smile and a thank you to fill the emotional
tank which is drained protecting the sheep.

And, when our number is called by The Almighty, and day
retreats into night, a small prayer before the heavens just
may be in order to say thanks for letting you continue to be
a sheep.

And be grateful for the millions of American sheepdogs who
permit you the freedom to express even bad ideas.

Patrick,

I told you this was a great letter by Charles Grennel. Was I
right?

So what are you?
If you are a wolf, get off my list now.
If you are a sheep, let me help you become a sheepdog.
If you are a sheepdog, let me sharpen your teeth and claws
and help you become a sheepdog that ALL wolves fear.

I want you to go to this link and take advantage of my
greatest offer ever:

http://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp

Day of reckoning

March 13, 2008

For gun control proponents and opponents a lot is riding on a former security guard for the Supreme Court Annex. Next Tuesday , the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and its requirement that any rifles or shotguns remain locked violates the plaintiff, Dick Heller’s, constitutional rights.

Whatever the court decides, no one expects them to end gun control any more than the First Amendment’s “congress shall make no laws” has prevented the passage of campaign finance regulations. The decision is likely to be limited to just whether a ban “infringed” on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

If the D.C. ban is accepted by the court, it is hard to believe that any gun regulation will ever be struck down. If the court strikes it down, where the courts draw the line on what laws are considered “reasonable” regulations will take years to sort out .

Thus far the District of Columbia has spent a lot of time making a public policy case. Their argument in their brief to the court is pretty simple : “banning handguns saves lives.”

Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been D.C.’s experience.

The ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there is only one year (1985) when D.C.’s murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. But the murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years we have data after the ban, D.C.’s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth.

For Instance, D.C.’s murder rate fell from 3.5 to 3 times more than Maryland and Virginia’s during the five years before the handgun ban went into effect in 1977, but rose to 3.8 times more in the five years after it.

Was there something special about D.C. that kept the ban from working? Probably not, since bans have been causing crime to increase in other cities as well. D.C. cites the Chicago ban to support its own. Yet, before Chicago’s ban in 1982, its murder rate, which was falling from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years, suddenly stopped falling and rose slightly to 23 per 100,000 in the five years afterwards.

Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared — the post-ban murder rate average has been 144 percent higher than pre-ban.

How could this be? D.C. officials say that the ban will disarm criminals. But who follows a ban and turns their guns in? Criminals who would be facing long prison sentences anyway if they were caught in a crime, or typically law-abiding citizens? By disarming normal people, a gun ban actually makes crime easier to commit.

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has actually sided with D.C. in important parts of the case, and the court has granted Solicitor General Paul Clement 15 minutes to make his argument. While largely paying lip service to the Second Amendment being an “individual right,” the Department of Justice brief argues that an “unquestionable threat to public safety” from unregulated guns requires a lower standard must be adopted in defending it than is used to defend the rest of the Bill of Rights. But if they really believed that their evidence showed this, just as with the classic exception for the First Amendment of “falsely shouting fire in a theater,” it wouldn’t be necessary to treat the Second Amendment differently .

But what has not gotten much attention is that for the first time in U.S. history an administration has provided conflicting briefs to the Supreme Court. Vice President Dick Cheney has put forward his own brief arguing that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right that is no different than freedom of speech.

The DOJ constitutional argument is similar to that of D.C. It argues that since the government bans machine guns, it should also be able to ban handguns. And they claim that D.C. residents still retain a right to self-defense because the city doesn’t ban locked shotguns and rifles. Locks, they claim , “can properly be interpreted” as not interfering with using guns for self-protection.

Factual errors underlie the rest of the argument — for in D.C., rifles and shotguns become illegal as soon as they are unlocked. That means the city can prosecute anyone who uses one in self-defense, even if it was locked before the incident. Is that a “reasonable” restriction on self-defense? Gunlock requirements are also associated with more deaths and more violent crime as they make defensive gun uses more difficult. Machine guns are also not banned .

It makes sense that the DOJ is backing the ban, given that it would lose regulatory power if it were struck down. As the DOJ lawyers note in the brief, striking down this ban could “cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation.”

The Department of Justice and D.C. politicians can talk all they want about how necessary handgun bans are to ensure public safety and the “reasonableness” of the restrictions. But hopefully the Supreme Court will see past that. At some point, hard facts must matter. This is one point where public safety and individual rights coincide.

*John Lott is the author of “Freedomnomics” and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland. Lott recently consulted with the Independence Institute on changes in D.C. crime rates. Maxim Lott is a junior at the College of William & Mary.

/**/

Political Hypocrisy By Obama

March 9, 2008
Friday, March 07, 2008
 
A March 2 commentary in National Review Online (NRO) demonstrates the hypocrisy that often abounds in the campaigns of anti-Second Amendment candidates.  This time, the transgressor is Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. 

In his NRO column, Jim Geraghty recalls how a few years ago, Obama (then a state senator) proposed enactment of a federal law prohibiting licensed gun dealers from operating within five miles of a school or park.  Of course, considering the geography of most cities and towns, banning a lawful business operation within a five-mile radius of a school or park would very often amount to an outright ban on those businesses. 

While that endeavor certainly demonstrates his disdain for FFLs and their legitimate business, another vote demonstrates Obama’s apparent tolerance for what others would no doubt consider controversial businesses.  On a Senate bill to prohibit sex-related shops to operate within a five-mile radius of schools or houses of worship (which failed), Obama took a pass, and voted “present.” 

The Obama spin:  He was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities! 

Advocating a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products, while showing support for, or, at minimum, indifference to, holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard is not only hypocritical, it’s outrageous! 

If you see something that you feel would be a good candidate for the “Outrage of the Week!” section, please send it to:  freedomsvoice@nrahq.org.  Please be sure to send additional background and citations where available.

Another idea that just does not work

March 9, 2008

 

Anti-Gun Politicians, Are You Listening?
NAS Says Ballistic Imaging Database
“Should Not Be Established”
 

On March 5, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released Ballistic Imaging, the report of a committee it assigned to evaluate the feasibility, accuracy, and technical capability of a possible national database of so-called “ballistic” images from all new guns sold in the United States. 

Colorado Senate Bill 49

March 9, 2008

 Mandatory Storage Bill Sent to Senate Appropriations Committee!  Senate Bill 49, which requires mandatory storage of all firearms, would force adults to store all their firearms under lock and key or face an undetermined misdemeanor penalty if a firearm is later used in a suicide or crime.  This dangerous bill renders homeowners defenseless and gives criminals a clear advantage in home invasions.  If passed, SB49 would add to the already cumbersome bureaucracy that affects gun shops, gun shows, or anywhere else firearms are sold, by requiring them to post a sign informing gun owners that they must lock up their guns.  Please contact the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee and respectfully urge them to defeat this dangerous legislation.  Contact information for the Senate Appropriations Committee members can be found here. 

Gun Control Claims More Victims

March 6, 2008

Gun Control Claims More Victims

source: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0711f.asp
by Benedict D. LaRosa, <!– put date below, before tag –>Posted February 27, 2008

Last year, Virginia Tech University successfully lobbied the state legislature to prohibit concealed-permit holders from carrying a sidearm on campus. At the time, university spokesman Larry Hincker commented,

I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our campus.

In June of last year, the university reemphasized its ban on carrying guns on campus by students, employees, and visitors. Last spring, it disciplined a student with a concealed-carry permit who brought his handgun to class. On April 16, 2007, 43 students and faculty members paid the price for such shortsightedness when a deranged student killed 33 and wounded the remainder with handguns.Despite claims to the contrary, this is not the worst school killing in U.S. history. On May 18, 1927, a disgruntled school-board member killed 45 people and injured 58 — most of them second-grade to sixth-grade children — when he set off bombs at Bath Consolidated School in Bath, Michigan.

In response to the Virginia Tech incident, gun-control advocates predictably demanded more gun-control laws. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), author of the latest assault-weapon ban making its way through Congress, which is a more draconian version of the Clinton 1994 assault-gun ban that expired in 2004, suggested that we need to talk about guns on campus. For once, I agree with Representative McCarthy.

The gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, a Korean national with permanent resident status, had filled out the required forms and undergone the mandatory background check and waiting period, proving once again the uselessness of such laws.

The problem at Virginia Tech was not that there were guns on campus — only the campus police and gunman were armed — but that it was a “gun-free zone.” As a result, there were not enough people carrying guns to neutralize the gunman once he began his rampage. He should have been outgunned after his first shots. To a criminal or deranged person bent on killing, a gun-free zone is a free-fire zone. As is obvious from all such incidents, the police arrive too late to prevent multiple killings.

That’s not to disparage the police. In most cases, they act aggressively and competently. But they are rarely the first to arrive at the scene of a crime. The first ones there are the perpetrators and their victims. That’s when self-defense weapons are needed, not after the damage is done.

Consider that in all such incidents, the shooters are not so deranged as to attack police stations, shooting ranges, or gun shows. They have enough presence of mind to assail unarmed people in gun-free zones because they will encounter no effective resistance. (The one incident in which an individual was foolish enough to threaten to kill hostages where guns were prevalent was at a shooting club in California in July 1999. The gunman was promptly shot by an employee, without harm to the hostages.)

Test my hypothesis. Was anyone carrying a gun killed or injured in the Virginia Tech shooting? Only one, the perpetrator by his own hand. All the other victims were unarmed. They were unarmed because of state law, university policy, the success of gun-control advocates, and a false sense of security. The gun-control lobby has succeeded in stigmatizing gun possession and training; influencing legislators to pass laws making it difficult for law-abiding people to purchase, carry, and use firearms; and convincing people that they can depend on the police to protect them. The students are also at fault for believing the lie that they are not responsible for their own protection in the face of common sense and history.
Handguns and self-defense
Handguns are self-defense tools. They are designed to protect people from those who would harm them. In many cases, merely the appearance of a firearm dissuades an attacker. When you prevent people from carrying self-defense weapons, you are making them easy targets.

Let’s look at some examples to illustrate my point:

  • In 1974, 34 Israeli students were gunned down in a bus on a school trip. Israel responded by arming teachers, administrators, bus drivers, and others to protect their children. Israel has not had a repeat of that tragedy. The U.S. government’s response? Prohibit guns within 1,000 feet of schools, as if criminals and deranged people obey laws.
  • In October 1997, Assistant Principal Joel Myrick used a gun to stop a violent teen who was shooting up his high school in Pearl, Mississippi. The student killed two and wounded seven before Myrick could stop him. Why did it take Myrick so long to disarm the shooter? His gun was in his automobile, which was parked more than 1,000 feet from the school in compliance with the law.
  • In January 2002, a disgruntled student at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia, shot and killed the dean, a professor, and a fellow student. He was disarmed and subdued before he could harm anyone else by two students who retrieved guns from their automobiles.
  • Utah and Oregon allow concealed-permit holders to carry their weapons on campus. To date, no school shooting incidents have occurred in these states.
  • The most heavily armed populations are the Swiss and the Israelis. Crime is negligible in both countries.
  • The Luby Cafeteria shootings in Killeen, Texas, on October, 16, 1991, where a gunman killed 23 people, provide a stark example of the danger of gun-control laws. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who was having lunch with her parents, left her gun in her car in compliance with state law. Her parents were among those killed. Two other diners also left their guns in their cars for fear of violating state law. Hupp had a clear shot at the killer several times as he reloaded and leisurely executed patrons.“I was mad as hell at my legislators,” she said, “because they had legislated me out of the right to protect myself and my family.” Hupp is responsible for Texas’s having enacted a concealed-carry law in 1995.

    How many more victims must be sacrificed on the altar of gun control? How many more Virginia Tech incidents must occur before common sense prevails? Blaming inanimate objects for criminal acts and legislating barriers to self-defense is foolish and self-destructive. The hostile atmosphere to gun possession and training fostered by gun-control advocates is costing lives. Frustration, pain, and other emotions shouldn’t drive legislation; reason should. Though we may not be able to prevent such incidents, we can limit the damage they do.

    Instead of listening to gun-control advocates whose advice brings death and injury, we would do better to abide by the Boy Scout motto: Be prepared!

    Benedict LaRosa is a historian and writer with undergraduate and graduate degrees in history from the U.S. Air Force Academy and Duke University, respectively. Send him email.    

  • This is getting really old, why will the authoratarians continue to keep these, and other places “Free Fire Zones?”
  • Colorado Politics: Locking up your safety

    March 4, 2008

    COLORADO:  Mandatory Storage Bill Sent to Senate Appropriations Committee!  Senate Bill 49, which requires mandatory storage of all firearms, would force adults to put all their firearms under lock and key or face an undetermined misdemeanor penalty if a firearm is later used in a suicide or crime.  This dangerous bill renders homeowners defenseless and gives criminals a clear advantage in home invasions.  If passed, SB49 would add to the already cumbersome bureaucracy that affects gun shops, gun shows, or anywhere else firearms are sold, by requiring them to post a sign informing gun owners that they must lock up their guns.  Please contact the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee and respectfully urge them to defeat this dangerous legislation.  Contact information for the Senate Appropriations Committee members can be found here.

    A Sure-Fire Argument on the Second Amendment

    February 24, 2008

    A Sure-Fire Argument on the Second Amendment
    by Rick Lynch, <!– put date below, before tag –>February 18, 2007With the Supreme Court’s decision to examine the constitutionality of D.C.’s gun ban, the nation once again turns to an intense examination of the wording of the Second Amendment. One way to understand an amendment whose words have confused generations is to study its somewhat confusing text. But another way is to examine at whose request the amendment was written. For example, if 200 years from now constitutional scholars are trying to determine whether the Smith Tax Act of 2008 increased or decreased the taxes Social Security recipients paid on their retirement income, knowing that the act came into being as the result of pressure from AARP would pretty much end that debate. This, then, is a vital question when seeking to understand the Second Amendment. For if you know the context in which the Amendment was written, if you know for whom it was written, if you know who was clamoring for it and what were their concerns, then that can help settle any argument of individual rights versus collective rights. The Bill of Rights was written by Congressman James Madison to fulfill a promise made to the Anti-Federalists after pressure from that group had cost him a Senate seat — pressure brought to bear because of his opposition to amending the Constitution with a bill of rights. The Bill of Rights, then, as any history book will confirm, came into being to satisfy the single most suspicious, vociferous, and relentless foes of the new federal government. That is the all-important context in which the Bill of Rights was created. The Anti-Federalists, men filled to varying degrees with fear, mistrust, and loathing of the new federal government, insisted on a bill of rights as additional shackles imposed on that new government. Knowing that alone, knowing that the famous Bill came into existence only to please those most apprehensive of the new government, definitively ends any confusion or debate surrounding the meaning of the Second Amendment. There is simply no way on Earth the Anti-Federalists would have surrendered to the new and mistrusted government the right to own any gun they wanted at any time they wanted in any number they wanted. To believe differently, to believe that the Second Amendment actually gives the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, one must believe the absolutely unbelievable. One must believe that the Anti-Federalists, fearing and loathing federal power, compelled Madison to compose this laundry list of rights, this list of things over which the government was to have no authority and, very near the very top of the list, these people in fear of the federal government desired a clause that reads, “Despite the fact that Article I, Section 8 does not empower you federal government people to infringe our firearms rights, we hereby correct that mistake and surrender to you a right which we previously held, but wish now to give away.” We must further believe that James Madison was such a monumentally incompetent and abysmal writer that, when trying to give the federal government this new authority to regulate the private ownership of firearms, the last fourteen words of the Amendment read, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” We must also believe that revolutionary American history conceals some hitherto unknown and utterly undocumented groundswell of public desire for gun control. Picture in your mind for a moment the rough-and-tumble individualist who gave birth to this nation, a man who had tamed a wilderness, fought Indian wars on and off for 180 years, and successfully faced down the world’s mightiest empire. Hold a picture of that man in your head for a moment and then try to imagine his being told that this new federal government would have the power to regulate his ownership of firearms in any manner it saw fit, including imprisoning him for possession of any firearm for any reason at any time. No honest or serious person could ever claim to believe that any part of the American electorate in the 1700s desired federal gun control, let alone the Anti-Federalists who forced the creation of the Bill of Rights.Rick Lynch is an author living in Virginia. He is finishing a book on constitutional issues entitled They Are Vicious. Send him email.

    Kennedy Introduces A Handgun Ban In Congress…Again

    February 24, 2008

    1974, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said that the “manufacture and sale of handguns should be terminated. Existing handguns should be acquired by the states.” Since then, Kennedy has been the most anti-handgun member of the Senate, having introduced legislation to ban handguns, register handguns, license handgun owners, ban ammunition, authorize the Consumer Products Safety Commission to prohibit the manufacture of firearms and ammunition, and impose waiting periods on handgun purchases. 

    As we recently reported, on February 7 this year, ten days after endorsing another handgun ban supporter–Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.)–for president, Kennedy renewed his efforts to ban handguns by introducing S. 2605, a bill that seeks to ban the manufacture, importation, and transfer (sale, etc.) of any semi-automatic pistol that does not possess “a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol . . . etched into the breech face and firing pin of the pistol,” and stamp both sets of characters into the cartridge case of a round of ammunition, when the round is fired. On the same day, Representative Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) introduced an identical bill, H.R. 5266, called the “National Crime Gun Identification Act.” 

    The Kennedy-Becerra bill is much more severe than the micro-stamping handgun ban passed in California last year. Where the California ban applies only to models of semi-automatic pistols that are produced after January 1, 2010, the Kennedy-Becerra bill would apply to all models of semi-automatic pistols. 

    Micro-stamping has repeatedly failed in scientific tests.  Micro-stampings are easily removed.  And most gun crimes cannot be solved by micro-stamping, or do not require micro-stamping to be solved.  Additionally, most criminals who use guns get them through unregulated channels, thus micro-stamping may increase gun thefts, home invasions and other burglaries, and expand the black market in guns. Moreover, most guns do not automatically eject fired cartridge cases, only a small percentage of guns will be micro-stamped, and most violent crimes are committed without guns.  Finally, micro-stamping would waste money—money that is better spent on traditional crime-fighting and crime-solving efforts.

    SOURCE:

    Lock up your safety, yet again

    February 24, 2008

     Mandatory Storage Bill Sent to Senate Appropriations Committee!   Senate Bill 49, which requires mandatory storage of all firearms, would force adults to put all their firearms under lock and key or face an undetermined misdemeanor penalty if a firearm is later used in a suicide or crime.  This dangerous bill renders homeowners defenseless and gives criminals a clear advantage in home invasions.  If passed, SB49 would add to the already cumbersome bureaucracy that affects gun shops, gun shows, or anywhere else firearms are sold, by requiring them to post a sign informing gun owners that they must lock up their guns.  Please contact the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee and respectfully urge them to defeat this dangerous legislation.  Contact information for the Senate Appropriations Committee members can be found here.