Posted on 08/09/2006 6:37:46 PM PDT by neverdem
United States justice statistics show Americans need firearms for defense of life and property, says gun law expert
“An analysis of crime figures released Sunday by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that law-abiding Americans should continue to enjoy legal access to the possession and use of firearms,” gun law expert John M. Snyder said here this morning.
“If anything, this access should be strengthened for the good of citizens and the safety of society,” he added.
According to the justice report, 56 percent of the violent felons convicted in the nation’s 75 most populous counties from 1990 through 2002 had a prior conviction record, 38 percent had a prior felony conviction and 15 percent had been previously convicted for a violent felony.
Thirty-six percent of the violent felons had a least one active criminal status at the time of their arrest, including 18 percent on probation, 12 percent on release pending disposition of a prior case and seven percent on parole.
“What these numbers show, for the umpteenth time,” observed Snyder, “is that there is a violent criminal class in our country. Law-abiding people have to be able to protect themselves and their families and their property from these thugs. In order to be able to do this, they need access to the tools with which to do it. There is no better self-defense instrument than a gun, in particular a handgun.
“People who seek to deny citizens this access, no matter how well-intended they may be, and whether they come from political, academic, professional, business, media or ecclesiastical backgrounds, in reality work against the true interests of law-abiding citizens and in favor of the nefarious interests of the criminal class. To be blunt, they are allies of the violent criminal class. At some point, they’re bound to get what’s coming to them.”
Snyder pointed out that, “at present, there are a number of proposals in Congress and in state legislatures to loosen current legal restrictions on the individual Second Amendment civil right of law-abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. One of the most significant of these is a congressional proposal to free law-abiding residents of our Nation’s Capital from the draconian gun control system to which they have been subjected for 30 years. It’s time to overturn the D.C. gun law and allow law-abiding citizens in Washington, D.C. to own and carry handguns to protect themselves and their loved ones from the reign of violent crime that hand-wringing local officials seem incapable of effectively confronting.
“There are a number of other proposals on deck at various stages for congressional consideration, including more than one to prohibit the use of federal funds for confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens during times of public disaster. Congress should act favorably on them.”
“Guns save lives,” Snyder said, “and a number of scholarly studies, such as one conducted by Gary Kleck of Florida State University, and another conducted by John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, clearly demonstrate this. Easing legal access to firearms for law-abiding private citizens correlates with precipitous decreases in rates of violent crime. It’s time public policy reflected this truth.”
A former Associate Editor of The American Rifleman, official monthly journal of the National Rifle Association, Snyder is Public Affairs Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Public Information Officer of the American Federation of Police and Concerned Citizens, Treasurer of the Second Amendment Foundation, and Chairman of the St. Gabriel Possenti Society, Inc.
Guns are good....mmmmkay.
He makes it sound like someone can take that away from me.
Pls relay this to Santa if the opportunity arises.
What about the law abiding mentally ill ? or UNCONVICTED domestic violence suspects? When people say keep guns away from Felons they really mean thats just the start.
Guns in the hands of a private citizen, non felon are a good thing. Remember that a RIGHT (ie 2nd Amendment) is not something that can be taken away unless "you" let them take it away.
Meadow Muffin
"Guns are good....mmmmkay."
Guns in the hands of the law-abiding are GOOD.
Guns in the hands of criminals, most of whom are repeat offenders, are BAD.
Not too complicated I hope...
Add "mentally ill and domestically violent" to "criminals." One caveat re: domestic violence: Spouses in bad divorces (i.e., most of them) often lodge false claims of domestic violence without proof strictly for strategic advantage in the divorce. Those should NOT count (but they do in many states).
Thanks for clearing that up.
I'll go first.
We want them, we are entitled to have them, no further discussion is necessary.
One forfeits his/her rights when one commits a felony. De facto outlaws, they should be considered outside the protections and privileges conceded to Citizens by the U.S. Constitution--which does not guarantee continued 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' to spies and traitors, nor guarantee continued funding to courts not displaying good behavior.
The ACLU has quite another opinion, of course--one by which John Kerry and others prosper.
Ping!
I'm quite willing to bet you don't live in D.C.
Fixed.
But only in so far as the court and jury which convicts them sets the punishement. They can't take away freedom of speech, except temporarily, and even then only on the basis of time, place and manner, not content. They can't take away your right to petition for redress. They can't take away most rights, except temporarily and as necessary to keep you confined and under control. Laws should not be able to take anyone's rights away by fiat. They can be taken away only as individually adjudicated.
Except for your right to keep and bear arms and your right to vote. You can petition for your right to vote to reinstated, and that will in general be granted, if you've served your time, including your probation time. By federal law, you can not petition to have your RKBA restored. Or more properly the agency (BATFE) charged with hearing that petition is forbidden to spend any funds to act on such petitions. And the courts say that they can only be appealed to if your petition is turned down, but not if it's merely not acted on. Think they'd rule that way with respect to any other right?
Why is it that there must always be a justification for exercising a Constitutionally protected RIGHT?
Suppose there were no data indicating that it was practical or effective? Does that mean we have no right?
This is B.S!
Arguing by citing the practical outcome of a Constitutional right is a dangerous approach to defending your rights. If the outcome is marginal or non-existent, then the argument can be made that you shouldn't have that right.
The fact is that you maintain that right because the government has been FORBIDDEN, by virtue of it's charter... the Constitution, from messing with your right. That's the only justification you need!
Period!
If there were 60 Senators who believed in the Second Amendment, you wouldn't have to worry about what should be a moot question.
Guns in a particular place can almost be made into an equation, to figure out how many, what kind, and what restrictions and regulations if any are needed.
1) Population density. The more people around, the greater risk from even controlled gun use.
2) Number of police per capita and response time. No civilian needs a gun in a courtroom during a trial. Police are everywhere. In rural Texas with one cop 75 miles away...
3) Crime rate. Only an idiot wants legal gun control where there is a sky-high crime rate.
4) Training & Licensing. The more public training available, the less worry from foolish gun use. The best reason for a license is to assert proficiency. A license should mean you are not a fool.
Add all these factors together for a given place, and you have a reasonable estimate for practical gun freedom.
Not ironically, people most for gun control are those most likely to be a risk to themselves and others if they have a gun.
BINGO.
The best reason for a license is to assert proficiency.
that is the govt for you. we{govt} will decide what is good for you.never trust the govt when it comes to the 2nd amendment or for alot of other issues for that matter
NRA & SAS Bump!
"UNCONVICTED domestic violence suspects"
They already do that, those with restraining orders (divorces), even without any violence or threats, loose their rights until the order (divorce) is over.
All felons? What about people that have restraining orders due to divorce proceedings, even without any violence/threats, loosing their rights?
Define criminals, felons/non-felons, repeat offenders of felonies/non-felonies?
Define "mentally ill"? Would you include who are having post partum(sp?) depression, how about homosexuals (they were claimed to be mentally ill), how about anorexics or bolemics (sp?)?
If you wanted to get technical, even banning felons from owning guns is unconstitutional.
The empty jails/prisons could be used for homeless and emergency shelters.
Where in the Constitution state that felons are not allowed to own firearms?
1) It's the wild west all over again, isn't it.
2) Just like they were able to stop the criminal in Atlanta that shot the judge & female officer and escaped?
3) Only an idiot wants gun control, period.
4) We had less problems years ago when there was less public training and more parents teaching gun safety, discipline, etc. A license means that you met certain criteria, just like a drivers license, but we still have fools. Also, look at all the offices and fed agents that are "trained" in gun safety, but still shoot themselves in classrooms, shoot holes in hotel walls, etc.
You are partly right about those that are for gun control and yet own guns, but not because they may shoot someone. They are a risk because they are allowing incremental steps towards the removal of all firearms from citizens.
What I meant about #1 is that while there are some major cities (high density) where there is major gun violence going, there are others that there is not. The best way to compare them is to compare the number of gun incidents per capita (per 1,000 or some other number). I would bet that DC (with the strictest of gun control laws) is higher than others that have less restrictive laws. The issue is not the guns, but the criminals. More specifically the gangs and druggies.
One could use the Thirteenth Amendment to do so constitutionally, though that would carry an implication about HCI's efforts that they might not like.
ping for later...
How? It specifically states slavery, not taking guns away from felons/criminals.
As the saying goes, "Gun control means having a tight shot group."
The reality of guns today is that we do not have enough gun culture. This public's lack of familiarity with guns creates a problem based solely on ignorance. They do not know the rules of guns, which makes them dangerous to themselves and others.
I believe that private schools should teach at least one mandatory gun safety and proficiency class, so that with the NRA classes, the Boy Scouts, the military and other such organizations, the US can maintain a higher level of gun culture.
The biggest lesson to teach the man on the street is that having a gun does not make you a godlike being. It does not make you strong, or smart, or respected, and it may even make you vulnerable to attack if you deceive yourself as to what it can do.
Just today I was reading how police have a "21-foot rule", which is the closing distance a person could make to an officer before they could unholster, take off the safety and squeeze the trigger, all else being equal. They now believe that 21 feet isn't enough distance.
But how many people on the street would know this, or all the other important tips a gun expert should know?
Gun freedom is not just walking into a store and walking out with a gun, any more than an untrained 16-year-old should be given a car and expected to know how to drive.
But unlike with cars, there are public training classes all the time, to teach people how to use their gun. There just needs to be a lot more of them, and of better quality.
The licensing of concealed weapons has been a smashing success, not because the license has kept criminals and kooks from having concealed weapons, which it has, but because it has given much needed training to people who have learned from that training, *and* encouraged more and more people to carry concealed weapons.
Sure, someday those same licenses may be used against the legal gun owners; but for the time being it is increasing their numbers, training them, and taking a big bite out of crime. And *that* is gun freedom.
A few issues I have with your post:
1) Those that end up being gang members, etc. do not go to private schools and they don't join the Boy Scouts. This needs to be addressed at all levels, public schools included. The classes need to be better than the idiot that is "trained" to handle a firearm and then shoots themselves with said firearm.
2) We have to combat the impact Hollywood has on the gun culture (ie. holding the gun on it's side, etc.) and the lack of in home training (mainly due to being a single mother household).
3) Training (no matter the level/quality) does not make a person less of an idiot, just look at the officers and fed agents that shoot themselves, hotel walls, etc. Unfortunately there is no way to weed them out except through self elimination.
4) CCW licensing has not kept criminals from carrying, just like banning felons from possessing firearms has not stop them from doing so.
Can the Second Amendment reasonably be construed as applying to slaves?
If a state has the authority to make someone a slave as punishment for committing a particular crime, that would suggest the authority to put whatever restrictions on the person's actions it sees fit.
If a state wished to impose a law requiring that, as punishment for committing a particular crime a person shall be (unless or until pardoned) a slave of the state who shall ,after serving a certain term of years in prison, generally be allowed to move around freely but will have certain restrictions placed on his actions, including a prohibition on weapons ownership, I would see no constitutional problem with that.
That is, however, a far cry from the federal government's GCA'68 which forbids firearm ownership for people convicted in state courts for crimes where they could receive over a year sentence, regardless of the actual sentence given.
I don't think Brady et al. would want to use this rationale to justify the prohibition of firearms to convicted felons, since it would equate people who are forbidden from owning firearms with slaves. While that may be the agenda, I don't think it's one Brady et al. would admit to.
If they are imposed only during the time they are a "slave", then yes that would apply. But Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. would not allow them to apply after being released from "slavery". I also think that GCA and NFA are both unconstitutional, but because of the infringement not because of who or how it applies.
If a legislature chose to pass laws to make people convicted of certain crimes be lifetime slaves of the state even after they are paroled, it would be within its authority to do so. Congress, however, has no authority to mandate such punishment for state crimes.
As I said before, though, I find it interesting that HCI et al. don't mention the only way in which a prohibition against felons bearing arms might be constitutional. Do you agree that HCI et al. have a real agenda they don't want people to know about?
No, the "slavery" is while they are in prison/probation/parole. When they are released from said, they are no longer "slaves".
If a state (via the legislature) wanted to declare that a person convicted of a particular crime would be a slave for 100 years or his natural lifespan, but his only obligations as a slave were to (1) appear before a parole officer once every five years, and (2) not possess weapons, why would it not be within its authority to do so? Basically a very "loose" parole.
At the fitness club I belong to, one of the trainers was just walking into the locker room when he heard someone breaking into a locker. He went out to the main desk and had them call the police while he then followed the perp out thru the hotel lobby into the parking lot.
The guy then walked around with the stolen keys to a car pushing the remote button trying to locate the car. Just as he located it, the cops arrived and arrested him. Turns out he was just paroled 5 days earlier from prison for prior auto thefts...........
Since there ain't no stopping or rehabing repeat offenders, at least give me the means to protect myself.......
Yes, that is fine because they would still be considered "slaves". However the current system says felons are not allowed to possess, even if they completed their parole/probation/etc (they are no longer "slaves").
I agree that as presently implemented, the statutes regarding felon weapon possession are unconstitutional. My point was that it would be possible to write statutes with much the same effect in a constitutional fashion, but it would require recognizing that disarmament is slavery.
I think any gun control laws are unconstitutional. Not just the liberal ones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.