Skip to comments.Participant Proposal for CREF Annual Meeting (No Investment in gun control advocates)
Posted on 10/27/2002 3:56:50 PM PST by PeterPrinciple
PARTICIPANT PROPOSAL I
All CREF participants can vote on the first participant proposal. Votes will not be tallied separately for each CREF account.
David I. Caplan, 247 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, owning 158.734 accumulation units in the CREF Stock Account, has given notice that he intends to present the following resolution at the annual meeting:
No further funds of CREF shall be invested in any entity brought to its attention that publicly advocates firearm control or firearm prohibition legislation. Participants Supporting Statement
The proponent, David I. Caplan, recommends a vote FOR the proposal and urges all participants to read carefully the following statement before casting their vote.
Firearm control laws impede the ability of the public to defend itself. This problem is exacerbated during sudden emergencies such as September 11, 2001 (9-11) when the police are called away from their normal duties to rush to the site of the emergency. In such times, the public is suddenly deprived of the police protection to which it has become accustomed for safety and security.
Firearm control laws also seriously implicate the Bill of Rights because the right of the people to keep and bear arms is specifically guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Increasingly many scholars and law professors have concluded that the Second Amendment in the federal Bill of Rights guarantees a constitutional right to private citizens. These professors include Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who argued on behalf of Gore in the first Bush v. Gore case in the U.S. Supreme Court. They have come to the conclusion that the Amendments guarantees are not limited to those who are enrolled in a formal, governmentally sponsored militia.
The Amendments opening phrase well regulated militia indicates that unless the individual private citizen had a right to keep ordinary personal firearms, the militia would not be well regulated. In emergencies, private possession of ordinary firearms enables the populace to supplement the effectiveness of either the State National Guards commanded by the State governors or the National Guard of the United States commanded by the President, as selected by the previously armed individuals, and in accordance with the views and promises expressed by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 28. Last year a federal Court of Appeals concluded that the Amendment guarantees an individual right to the private citizen, and not exclusively to the soldier or enlisted member of a governmentally sponsored organized militia.
In addition, scholarly arguments can be and have been made that firearm control laws violate the Fourth Amendment. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, that Amendment is rooted in the famous maxim enunciated by Sir Edward Coke in 1604: Everyones house is a castle and fortress, not only for defense against violence and injury but also for repose.
No matter how you may feel about firearm control laws, these laws teach the enemies of other constitutional rights a dangerous sequence of procedures and methodologies for similarly gradually weakening and ultimately destroying any and all other rights that they dislike. In firearm control laws there lurks a slippery slope for destroying other cherished rights.
For these reasons, proponent recommends a vote FOR the proposal.
Opposing Statement of the Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees recommends a vote AGAINST the proposal and urges all participants to read carefully the following statement before casting their vote.
Proponent has asked participants to consider a proposal that would have CREF stop investing in companies that publicly support gun control efforts. We strongly believe that this proposal, which would require CREF to devote resources to scrutinize the social causes advocated by portfolio companies, is contrary to the interests of our participants. Our position has consistently been that, except for the Social Choice Account, we will not make portfolio investment decisions based solely on a companys record on social issues. We could not operate an effective investment program that gives financial considerations the highest priority if we sought to accommodate the diverse social views of our more than two million participants in this manner. This proposal, which promotes an agenda that we believe may be unpopular with many of our participants, underscores the merit of this long-held position.
For this reason, the board recommends a vote against the proposal.
If passes it is a headache for cref.........wonder how many beers it took this guy and his buddies to think of this?