Posted on 01/26/2009 1:55:06 PM PST by neverdem
The right to bear arms is more than a Constitutional right: every human being has the natural unalienable right to self-defense. Cicero said 2,000 years ago, “If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”
The U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, common law, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use arms in self-defense. Right to carry laws respect the right to self-defense by allowing individuals to carry concealed firearms for their own protection.
So many liberal politicians and self-appointed experts want to keep honest Americans from having access to firearms, even though, since 2003, in states which allow concealed carry, violent crime rates have been lower than anytime since the mid-1970s. The reverse logic of this "knee jerk" reaction is astounding and has lead to an outright assault on our basic Constitutional and natural rights. These misguided policies to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens literally mean a death sentence for thousands of Americans.
Look at the facts. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, “[R]obbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.” In approximately 2.5 million instances each year, someone uses a firearm, predominantly a handgun, for self defense in this nation.
In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed.
Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals -- it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade.
In 1987, my home state of Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and the news media predicted the new law would lead to vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner.
But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida’s total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. And Florida is not alone. Texas’ violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law.
Another study makes the moral case for expanding and enhancing right-to-carry laws. A report by John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard of the University of Chicago released in 1996 found "that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths." Further, the Lott-Mustard study noted, "If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly."
Think about it. Nearly 8,000 of our fellow citizens have died between 1992 and 1996 because of the irrational fear that law-abiding Americans would abuse their right to self defense. In fact concealed carry permit holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state has issued 1.36 million permits, but revoked only 165 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.
Laws allowing the concealed carrying of a firearm are on the books in 48 states, in some form. Two-thirds of Americans live in states with right-to-carry laws, their respective state houses and governors recognizing their fundamental right to self-defense. But let me pose a question. Should your natural right to self defense and your Constitutional right to bear arms end when you cross a state line? I think not.
That is why I, along with Representative Rich Boucher (D-Va.) introduced H.R. 197, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. Our legislation proposes a federal law that would entitle any person with a valid state-issued concealed carry permit to carry in any other state, as follows: In a state that issues carry permits, its laws would apply. In states that don’t issue carry permits, the Federal law providing a "bright-line" standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; etc. The bright-light standard in itself is not a license -- the individual would still have to possess a valid state permit issued by their state of residence. It doesn't make sense to me for Americans to forfeit their safety because they happen to be on vacation or on a business trip. This legislation would greatly enhance the safety of this nation's ever-increasing mobile society.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Our society is a violent society. However, the innocent deserve access to the tools they need to defend themselves. By passing H.R. 197, we can help reduce the carnage wrought by armed criminals. Let's give those who decide to take the responsibility of possessing a concealed carry permit a fighting chance anywhere in America.
Mr. Stearns, a Republican, represents the 6th District of Florida in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Close. Personally owned and carried arms can save lives. A "permit" for a Right is as unConstitutional as the bans our political "masters" have foisted off on us.
Do away with the idiotic gun bans, and we wouldn't need "permission" to exercise a Right.
My wife just finished her class. She will have one soon.
Accurate statistics based on reality and the logic of self protection as a right is not the question here. Democrats and liberals don’t care about those things. The real and only reason they want to limit guns and eventually ban them for the common citizen is that they, collectively with other citizens, could possibly prevent total and absolute government domination of its citizens. It is Domination, not Prevention.
Don’t California counties refuse to recognize other California counties CWP’s ??
Or as the popular bumpersticker puts it, “It’s not about the guns, it’s about CONTROL”
Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.”
-Alexander Hope, from the novel “Hope” by L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman
Posted to Craig’s List Personals:
To the Guy Who Mugged Me Downtown (Downtown, Savannah)
Reply to: pers-982078099@craigslist.org [?]
Date: 2009-01-06, 3:43AM EST
I was the white guy with the black Burrberry jacket that you demanded I hand over shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend. You also asked for my girlfriend’s purse and earrings. I hope you somehow come across this message. I’d like to apologize.
I didn’t expect you to crap your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. Truth is, I was wearing the jacket for a reason that evening, and it wasn’t that cold outside. You see, my girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber 1911 .45 ACP pistol for Christmas, and we had just picked up a shoulder holster for it that evening. Beautiful pistol, eh? It’s a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head, isn’t it?
I know it probably wasn’t a great deal of fun walking back to wherever you’d come from with that brown sludge flopping about in your pants. I’m sure it was even worse since you also ended up leaving your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. I couldn’t have you calling up any of your buddies to come help you try to mug us again. I took the liberty of calling your mother, or “Momma” as you had her listed in your cell, and explaining to her your situation. I also bought myself some gas on your card. I gave your shoes to one of the homeless guys over by Vinnie Van Go Go’s, along with all of the cash in your wallet, then I threw the wallet itself in a dumpster.
I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell. They’ll be on your bill in case you’d like to know which ones. Alltel recent ly shut down the line, and I’ve only had the phone for a little over a day now, so I don’t know what’s going on with that. I hope they haven’t permanently cut off your service. I was about to make some threatening phone calls to the DA’s office with it. Oh well.
So, about your pants. I know that I was a little rough on you when you did this whole attempted mugging thing, so I’d like to make it up to you. I’m sure you’ve already washed your pants, so I’d like to help you out. I’d like to reimburse you for the detergent you used on the pants. What brand did you use, and was it liquid or powder? I’d also like to apologize for not killing you and instead making you walk back home humiliated. I’m hoping that you’ll reconsider your choice of path in life. Next time you might not be so lucky. If you read this message, email me and we’ll do lunch and laundry. Peace!
I love happy endings!!!!!!!!
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.The next section, the famous preamble, includes the ideas and ideals that were principles of the Declaration. It is also an assertion of what is known as the "right of revolution": that is, people have certain rights, and when a government violates these rights, the people have the right to "alter or abolish" that government.[69]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.It's as applicable today as it was when written. A little learning never hurt anyone ... -^_^-
Ah, finally a GOOD story from FL (sometimes it feels like all the nuts live here)! At least we have it ALMOST right on gun “control”. Now if we could just get them to allow open carry w/o a permit.......
How about proposing that every state drop any requirement for concealed carry and just allow us to exercise the constitutional rights that are already enumerated in the Constitution? We should not have to have permits. If we are going to have them and have reciprocal laws then every state should be required to issue a CCW upon demand by anyone who passes the background check.
Extreme? Yes, but seeing things like the Obama militia You Tube video, the Mao-inspired childrens' "Dear Leader" rendition, Obama's comment on a "Civilian Force equal in power and funding to the military", the rollout of the "CityYear.org" campaign and his administration's growing intolerance for dissent and discourse are ALL signs of a country about to go down a very very scary and deadly path.
We should not have to have permits. If we are going to have them, then people should have to show ID to buy pens and paper.
There. Fixed it.
Here we have a conflict between the States' Rights doctrine and the Constitution. The doctrine of absolute state sovereignty suggests that a sovereign state can absolutely bar American citizens from bearing arms at all. The 2nd Amendment flatly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. Adding the 14th Amendment and it's clear that NO so-called sovereign state has a right to deny a Constitutional right and Congress doesn't even have to pass a law.
Just another reason to thank Lincoln for ending the nonsense of absolute state sovereignty. State gun laws show that a state government can be tyrannical and out of line also.
Now I have lost a gun to the cause, she took possession of the snubby 38, need to buy a replacement :-)
Bang
I looked at her and said "this guy will be in a shock of a surprise if he tries anything".
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.