Posted on 02/19/2007 3:22:35 PM PST by Nasty McPhilthy
Given the successes of those states issuing concealed carry permits to citizens, I suggest a nationwide pilot program: the repeal of all anti-gun laws – all 22,000 of them — for a period of five years. This includes a moratorium on all new gun laws for five years, and suspension of all court cases pending for weapons charges with the exception of violent crimes involving a gun. Owning a certain rifle is considerably different from holding up a liquor store with a gun.
The object is, of course, to demonstrate the truth and genius of the sovereignty of the law-abiding, and to give trial to the second amendment’s ageless place in our society. (Not that it needs it.) The question should be on the lips of every honest American: why do they constrain and punish the people who aren’t doing the criminal shootings, and how is this related to how I run my home? Why am I discouraged from acting in self-defense?
[Many social programs which are adverse to the nation a hundred ways are based on a fairly thin theory of violence, policies which impact how we run our homes, and which are somehow tied in to the gun laws one way or another. Repealing gun laws restores how we run our homes.]
For candidates genuinely interested in fighting crime, this is an interesting opportunity to determine which way to go as officials on the weapons debate: do we discourage ownership of weapons and resistance to crime by depressing personal authority and sovereignty, or do we encourage carrying weapons as a personal responsibility to the community in the absence of first responders (which is very often the case)? This is an opportunity for non-gun owners to discover for themselves which is best for the nation.
As I’ve written, states which operate CCW permits understand that they do not really authorize, they affirm, right to carry, and simply have an organized program for it. The important point is that irrespective of their belief system, they have not regretted placing their trust back into the hands of the people they serve. It’s praiseworthy. It works and it works well.
Remember that the MSM largely characterize a self-defense act as violent while much of law enforcement offices (not officers) see no crime in self-defense and view the gun owners not as adversaries, but as supporters and allies. And why not?
The Stand Your Ground laws are on the increase, as they call for perfecting one’s sovereignty by making someone acting in self-defense immune to civil lawsuit so their life cannot again be held hostage by civil litigation of the original belligerent. The anti-gun nuts characterize the Castle Doctrine as Make My Day laws – a disingenuous reference to Dirty Harry – and thereby join the criminal in harassing the honest. Don’t think for a second it is otherwise. The anti-gun groups hate this country. They just hate it.
Many states affirm right to carry while others require the applicant to show cause. More than 80 million people and then some (many of whom are adult constituents) would much prefer officials to drop this requirement for an applicant to convince officials of your goodness (or need) and join other states in affirming right to carry over disarmament based on recognition of the individual as the higher authority of the community. Many states see it this way and affirm concealed carry as an expression of this proper understanding. In these states, friends, you don’t have to convince someone of need – show cause – to exercise a civil right. Reasonable?
[Paramedics and other medical professionals endorse citizen CPR because EMS cannot always arrive with a life-saving response time of under three minutes. RTC states fully understand the crime analog of this; that law enforcement cannot arrive with a life-saving response time, either, plus the fact that police have no such duty to protect individuals, anyway. Okay. Given that, what’s the smart thing to do for your loved ones?]
Now here’s something in the news every household ought to know. For every household looking for information upon which to adjust their best informed decision on household safety planning, here is something for you to look at:
The Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms reports an interesting observation: an FBI Study that answers some interesting questions for heads of households on this subject is being ignored by the MSM. As I said, they join the thugs who kill people.
BELLEVUE, WA – For more than two months, a damning report on a five-year study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation about how cop-killing criminals ignore gun laws and where they get their guns has languished in the shadows, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms revealed today.
“The public has a right to know the contents of this report, which was revealed to the International Association of Chiefs of Police last year,” said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. “According to the Force Science News, research focused on 40 incidents involving assaults or deadly attacks on police officers, in which all but one of the guns involved had been obtained illegally, and none were obtained from gun shows.”
Why isn’t the MSM reporting this? Isn’t it significant that to so-called ‘gun show loophole’ is a lie? What do you think the rest is if thousands of such reports are analyzed? Isn’t it important that the so-called ‘loophole’ is found by the FBI to be untrue? Isn’t it interesting that gun owners knew all along it was untrue?
It’s again demonstrated that crooks not only ignore laws, but that they’re not even getting their weapons in the way the anti-gun crowd has said they’re getting their weapons. Why, then, impose more restrictions on the people who aren’t criminals? Check out the story here.
Meanwhile, New Orleans is found to be in contempt of court for refusing to return weapons taken against the law following Hurricane Katrina. Nation of laws?
Let’s start a pilot program of suspending all gun laws, a moratorium on all new gun laws, and the suspension of certain weapons charges not violence-related. Why? Because anti-gun laws adversely affect even the non-gun owner households and our way of life.
The idea is this: when officials recognize personal independence as they affirm in many states at this time, certain things happen, things the Left doesn’t want to be proven: lives are saved and crime goes down because violence is de-escalated by the victim who refuses to be a victim. Personal authority already exists to do this, and it has been silenced, misled and covered up by the MSM among other groups who have an interest in keeping violence up.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and when independence shines through, as it was meant to shine through for the safety of the nation, it discredits the concept of banning weapons. People can defuse and de-escalate many, many personal attacks so that, often, no one at all gets hurt. Too many politicians depend on your getting hurt for their cause to endure, and that stinks. It just stinks. Too many social programs written on a theory of violence hurt innocent persons, too, and that stinks.
What about someone getting hurt in the pilot program with so many guns around? Well, there are two answers: One, there are already many guns around, and there’s no problem except with the thugs. There’s also a problem with knives, beatings, rapes, abductions… you get it.
But primarily, why don’t you let us worry about that? I can say this with confidence and call the Left’s bluff, because for all the dire forecasts of violence with weapons in the hands of citizens, none has come true. Where right-to-carry is affirmed, there is no increase in violence, no hot-heat shootings, no trigger-happy spouses or road rage, and none of the dire predictions of the left. After decades, the right-to-carry, shall-issue states speak for themselves as a model for the entire nation. None of the predictions of the left has come true. None.
And there’s no gun show loophole.
The opposition is afraid of one thing: that they and their programs won’t be needed. They’re already unwanted and questioned, but when independence shines through, it’ll be proven that they’re really not necessary to cure social ills, either. The armed citizen is a safeguard against such stupid, imposing, unneeded programs.
It’s time for Congress to investigate this pilot program nationwide as a response to violent crime as an issue. The answer is, of course, liberty and recognition of the citizen’s sovereignty.
Understand, members of Congress, that we do not take the law into our own hands – we are the law.
Nothing could recognize that better than repealing all gun laws.
They're perfectly able to get M60s now.
Considering their goals, you think a little prohibition will stop 'em?
I'm in. How can we make it happen?
2008 Pilot Program: Repeal All Gun Laws For Five Years that conflict with Individual RKBA.
Which is pretty much all of them. The only ones I'd keep are those that increase the punishments for using a firearm during the commission of an actual crime.
Carry a brace of suppressed Uzi's in a nice set of cross draw holsters? Go for it. Want to mount that M-2 in the bed of your truck? Why not?
It's something we never should have stopped doing. 9-11 wouldn't have come close to going down the way it did had even a small fraction of those on board been armed. Same for these mall shootings. Same for most crime out there.
Bump for later reading...
MindBender26 wrote:
What was this fool thinking... or drinking?
Unlike fools with bent minds, he's thinking that our 2nd Amendment should be supported & defended as our law of the land.
Judges are not immune to reality or common sense (well......) so let's try to examine a possible reversal of Miller.
If being a member of a "reserve militia" is universal, as in Presser, then it is in fact universal without exception. Does it allow convicted child molesters to posses weapons so they can kidnap more children? Does it allow Al Quida members to camp outside my front door on a public street with a loaded 20mm mini-gun pointed at my bedroom? Does it allow visiting wives to bring pistols to their inmate husbands at a state prison?
It goes further. If all are members of a militia, then what was to stop a 2000 member ultra-liberal anarchist militia, called "Gore's Gator Garrison" from marching on Tallahassee or Washington to upset the 2000 Florida vote?
What would stop them? JimRob's Rebel Rifle Regiment?
Understand, I am very pro-gun. Have been a CCW holder / NRA Life Member since three days after I returned from second tour in RVN.
Unfortunately, as a conservative lawyer, I do see some problems with assuming we have an absolute constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms. If the 2d amendment didn't have that "militia" clause, it would be much simpler.
The other amendments do not have such a qualification. The 1st Ammendment doesn't "open criticism of government is essential to proper operation of a Republic, therefore the right to free speech shall not be infringed." If it did, I could certainly criticize my local city commissioners, but what about my comments about the idiotic choices of the judges on "American Idol?"
As you can see, absolutist positions can be a very slippery slope.
You have that 'problem', not me. -- A militia of the people is necessary to the security of a free state; thus, -- no infringements on arms; -- IE; no unreasonable regulations.
I realize that Presser v. Illinois, 1886, held that we are all members of a "reserve militia" and therefore the several states should not interfere with gun ownership. But "Miller" SCOTUS, 1939 held that there is no constitutional right to own a sawed-off shotgun.
SCOTUS 'rulings' cannot change the Constitution. You should know that as a lawyer.
You can go several ways is reviewing Miller. Did the Court so decide because a sawed-off shotgun is not a weapon commonly used by an armed army/militia? (If so, then lots of guys walking point in RVN might disagree!) Was their thinking that Miller was not a member of a "well regulated militia," therefore he had no constitutional right to posses that weapon, and perhaps any other?
One of my jobs as a lawyer/Investigative Reporter was to have viewers look beyond the instant case and see the practical applications of a law or decision.
One of your jobs as a lawyer is to support & defend the Constitution as written. -- The practical application of Miller permits infringements. -- As a conservative lawyer, you see some problems with assuming we have an "absolute" constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms. --- I see some problems with that assumption. -- No right is absolute.
Judges are not immune to reality or common sense (well......) so let's try to examine a possible reversal of Miller. If being a member of a "reserve militia" is universal, as in Presser, then it is in fact universal without exception.
False premise on your part. Being a member of a "reserve militia" is ~not~ universal, as you claim Presser established.
Does it allow convicted child molesters to posses weapons so they can kidnap more children?
No, that's hyperbole.
Does it allow Al Quida members to camp outside my front door on a public street with a loaded 20mm mini-gun pointed at my bedroom? Does it allow visiting wives to bring pistols to their inmate husbands at a state prison?
More hype.
It goes further. If all are members of a militia, then what was to stop a 2000 member ultra-liberal anarchist militia, called "Gore's Gator Garrison" from marching on Tallahassee or Washington to upset the 2000 Florida vote?
Being laughed off the street? Get real.
What would stop them? JimRob's Rebel Rifle Regiment?
JR once posted:
"___ Yes, I support the Second Amendment. And I make no bones about its purpose or to whom it applies. It was not put in place so Bill and Hillary Clinton could go duck hunting with a shotgun or so Barbara Steisand could carry a derringer in her purse to stave off overzealous fans. It's there because the founders wanted to ensure that we the people (ie, individuals) should remain armed to defend ourselves from a government gone bad. As far as I'm concerned, we should be allowed to park fully operational Sherman tanks in our garages and commute via fighter planes (if we wish). Now, personal nukes capable of taking out large cities.... hmmmm.... I don't know if I want to trust some of the crazier antiwar libs with those.
1,219 posted on 04/17/2003 5:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Understand, I am very pro-gun. Have been a CCW holder / NRA Life Member since three days after I returned from second tour in RVN. Unfortunately, as a conservative lawyer, I do see some problems with assuming we have an absolute constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms. If the 2d amendment didn't have that "militia" clause, it would be much simpler.
That militia clause 'reasoning' has been a cloak to hide behind for anti-gun statists since day one of the Republic.
The other amendments do not have such a qualification.
In Nunn v Georgia [1846], the court kept the introductory clause to the Second Amendment firmly in view:
"-- Our Constitution assigns as a reason why this right shall not be interfered with, or in any manner abridged, that the free enjoyment of it will prepare and qualify a well-regulated militia, which are necessary to the security of a free State."(252) Thus:
If a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the State of Georgia and of the United States, is it competent for the General Assembly to take away this security, by disarming the people? What advantage would it be to tie up the hands of the national legislature, if it were in the power of the States to destroy this bulwark of defence?
In solemnly affirming that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and that, in order to train properly that militia, the unlimited right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be impaired, are not the sovereign people of the State committed by this pledge to preserve this right inviolate?...
The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void --"
The 1st Ammendment doesn't "open criticism of government is essential to proper operation of a Republic, therefore the right to free speech shall not be infringed." If it did, I could certainly criticize my local city commissioners, but what about my comments about the idiotic choices of the judges on "American Idol?"
As you can see, absolutist positions can be a very slippery slope.
As we all can see, your use of hyperbole in defense of the militia clause is a "very [amusingly] slippery slope indeed"..
The problem is we are back to that "Militia" argument. "A well regulated militia" is on it's face not an "unorganized militia."
You have that 'problem', not me. -- A militia of the people is necessary to the security of a free state; thus, -- no infringements on arms; -- IE; no unreasonable regulations.
Like it or not, in 2007, it's hard to sustain a claim that all able-bodied men belong to the "reserve militia" when that Militia has no meetings, no measurement of mission standards, no formal structure, no leaders, no rules, in fact, no regulation whatsoever... and a large number of able bodied men are convicted felons or actually in prison.
Dream on. We are all 'militia', and can be called upon to defend our country.
I realize that Presser v. Illinois, 1886, held that we are all members of a "reserve militia" and therefore the several states should not interfere with gun ownership. But "Miller" SCOTUS, 1939 held that there is no constitutional right to own a sawed-off shotgun.
SCOTUS 'rulings' cannot change the Constitution. You should know that as a lawyer.
Actually, no. The Constitution says what SCOTUS says it does.
Dream on. 'Marbury' says different, and has never been disputed by anyone since 1803; -- except you.
That concept goes back to Tanney and before. As a lawyer supporting the NRA, etc., I hope SCOTUS never revisits Miller or Presser, although I am very interested in the DC cases moving forward.
You can go several ways is reviewing Miller. Did the Court so decide because a sawed-off shotgun is not a weapon commonly used by an armed army/militia? (If so, then lots of guys walking point in RVN might disagree!) Was their thinking that Miller was not a member of a "well regulated militia," therefore he had no constitutional right to posses that weapon, and perhaps any other? One of my jobs as a lawyer/Investigative Reporter was to have viewers look beyond the instant case and see the practical applications of a law or decision.
One of your jobs as a lawyer is to support & defend the Constitution as written. -- The practical application of Miller permits infringements. -- As a conservative lawyer, you see some problems with assuming we have an "absolute" constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms. --- I see some problems with that assumption. -- No right is absolute.
Another incorrect assumption. Taking the Constitution "as written" is dangerous.
Dream on. -- It's becoming apparent that you're making an 'argument from authority', having declared yourself as that authority.
For example; if we were to take the Constitution as written, the government could ban Rush Limbaugh, Bortz, Hannity and others. There is no Freedom of the Airways guarantee in COTUS. There is freedom of the Press, but radio uses no presses.
Amusingly wordgame you're playing. The 1st covers radio. Get real.
There would be no guarantees of interstate travel for pleasure. For commerce, yes, but for a tourist trip to Florida, sorry, it's not permitted by Georgia and Alabama unless you pay a $100 tax to drive through their states.
Whatever. Play your game if it makes you happy.
The confidentiality of your medical records? Sorry, I'm suing you and I want your doctor to disclose all he or she has treated you for. No Constitutional guarantees against that.
Try reading the 4th.
Many items on the list of benefits that we now consider Constitutional "rights" are not enumerated. Are you willing to give them up because they are not spelled out in the COTUS.
No, I prefer to read the 9th, which deals with enumeration.
PS, sorry, but you can't read this message. I forgot, there is no Constitutional guarantee of Freedom of the Internet.
Fine. 'Forget' what you want.
-- I'm off for a week or so fishing in Baja. -- Maybe I'll be able to visit the law school you went to in, -- where, La Paz?
You claim:
Actually, no. The Constitution says what SCOTUS says it does. That concept goes back to Tanney and before.
Dream on. 'Marbury' says different, and has never been disputed by anyone since 1803; -- except you.
Please, your arguments are so far off a legal base as to not be worth replying to.
You mean you can't refute Marbury.
I have tried to explain the legal standings of firearms issues to you. You reply that SCOTUS does not have the power to interpret the Constitution.
No, I claimed that you are wrong in saying that: "-- The Constitution says what SCOTUS says it does. -- "
Scotus can 'interpret' all they want; but they have no power to declare that short shotguns can be prohibited by congress; - just as Congress has no power to make that prohibition.
Where do you think the entire concept of finding an act, law or regulation "unconstitutional" comes from?
We both know the concept comes from our Constitution itself. -- Which cannot be changed except by amendment. -- In effect, you're claiming guns can be prohibited by congressional & judicial fiat.
Please, I'm not going to debate law with you. No disrespect, but you don't have the base of knowledge needed to make legally valid arguments.
What a joke. -- I'm questioning your invalid "base" knowledge about the 2nd, - and you refuse to debate the issue.
Please leave law to (hopefully Conservatives) judges and lawyers. I'll leave the fishing to you.
That's one of Americas ~big~ problems; --- far too much of our law has been left " -- to (hopefully Conservatives) judges and lawyers. --"
Milo, you may be right, -- the lawyers that run State & Fed governments know it all, and would never/ever ignore our Constitution. -- We just have to learn to trust them..
No, I claimed that you are wrong in saying that: "-- The Constitution says what SCOTUS says it does. -- "
Scotus can 'interpret' all they want; but they have no power to declare that short shotguns can be prohibited by congress; - just as Congress has no power to make that prohibition.
Where do you think the entire concept of finding an act, law or regulation "unconstitutional" comes from?
We both know the concept comes from our Constitution itself. -- Which cannot be changed except by amendment. -- In effect, you're claiming guns can be prohibited by congressional & judicial fiat.
The problems that have resulted from the Court's decision that it can hold a law/regulation/etc. to be unconstitutional in Marbury lie primarily, not with SCOTUS, but with the then President and Congress. Had the Prez or Congress said "No, you alone cannot invalidate a law by holding it unconstitutional," what could SCOTUS have done? Send in the SOCTUS Army? The problem is two fold:
Like it or not, we have 200 years of precedence for such SCOTUS holdings.
Nope, -- for nearly 150 years [till 1933], -- we had the right to own & carry most any arm - anywhere.
Secondly, if the courts cannot decide, then who shall?
Our 2nd amendment rights were 'decided' 200 years ago. Congress & the Courts 'decided' they could infringe/ignore them in 1933, and now even the States, and lawyers like you agree.
An ever-changing Congress? A dictator President? Can you imagine "All firearms are legal" under Nixon. "No, they are not" under Carter. "All are legal" under Reagan. "Most firearms are legal" under Bush I. "No firearms are legal. All are to be confiscated unless you are a member of the state National Guard" under Clinton.
?
Why the question mark? -- I support the threads premise, -- having a: "-- Pilot Program: Repeal All Gun Laws For Five Years --"; comply with the 2nd..
Obviously, you don't; -- you accept our existing gun law mess.
20 Muslims, bent on death, destruction and Jihad, funded to the hilt by American oil dependancy, would have no problem getting ANY weopon on earth, so why shouldn't the average Joe have the oppurtunity to at least "level the field". By definition, criminals break laws, and prey on unarmed populations. So I repose your question, What are YOU THINKING??
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.