Proposed Amendment, The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012, Michigan

I faxed the following letter to a number of Michigan legislators this morning.  It isn't the first time I have contacted them about this proposed amendment, which I wrote over a year ago, and now I am bringing it here to try to build support for it.  The amendment states:

Except as provided by law, the right to carry a pistol for the defense of one’s self shall not be infringed by an employer, commercial or corporate entity, place of public accommodation or education.

I know that many business people will take issue with this, because I have debated this with them in the past.  Oh, well.  I have been a small business owner, and I hope to have a new business up and running in the near future, and I still believe what I say in this letter.  If you believe what this letter says, I have included a slightly different version of the letter to send to your Michigan state legislators in Lansing.  At this time, no legislator has submitted this amendment for consideration because it won't be popular with their business owner supporters.  I'm hoping that a flood of letters from Michigan residents will convince them to finally submit it.  Links to their contact information can be found here: Michigan Legislator Contact Links

I have been advocating for this amendment to PA 327 of 1927, The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012, for some time, and I am going to continue advocating for its consideration and passage.

I named this proposed amendment in honor of Benton Harbor pharmacist Jeremy Hoven, who was fired from his job after using his personal firearm to stop a robbery of the Walgreen's Pharmacy by which he was employed.  Video from the store's security cameras, which appeared in many news reports nationally and can still be seen on YouTube at the following URL, Walgreens Pharmacist Shoots It Out With Robbers - YouTube, shows the aggressive nature of the attack perpetrated by the two gun-carrying thieves, which gave Mr. Hoven cause to fear for his life and that of his co-workers, yet he was fired for violating Walgreen's corporate non-confrontation policy.

No business entity or corporation should have the right to prohibit an employee or customer from defending themselves.

At the base of this debate lies the argument that businesses, offices, and other such locations are the "private property" of the individual or corporation by which they are owned; it is therefore inappropriate for the government to mandate that such places allow firearm owners to carry their legally owned firearms with them.

This is a false premise.

It is the obligation of the state to protect the civil rights of its citizens.  It is for this reason that businesses and corporations face a myriad of requirements governing everything from access to the premises or restroom facilities to choices in hiring.  These requirements exist to protect such civil rights as equal access, speech, or religion, just to name a few. All of these are rights that are protected, either explicitly or implicitly, by the Bill of Rights, and many of the requirements levied on businesses and corporations would be considered violations of the civil rights of the property owner if he or she was exercising their rights in their capacity as a private citizen.  For instance, laws governing hiring on behalf of a business would be a violation of the First Amendment right of association if they were applied to a private citizen, mandating that such an individual must associate with others with whom they have philosophical, ideological, or moral disagreement.  Yet, it has been recognized that the state has a compelling interest in infringing the rights of a private citizen or corporation in the conduct of their business.

The right to self-defense enshrined in the Second Amendment is no less a civil right than speech, religion, association, due process, or any other civil right protected by the Bill of Rights.

In fact, in no less than ten (10) Supreme Court decisions, it has been established that self-defense - personal security - is not merely the right of the private citizen, it is their obligation. In no case was this obligation expressed as clearly as in the United States Supreme Court case, City of Castle Rock, Colorado v Gonzales:

"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole. It is a well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection" (emphasis added).

With such a well-established legal basis for the civil right and obligation to self-defense contained in the Second Amendment, the state has a compelling interest in mandating that businesses and corporations - places of public accommodation, commerce, manufacturing, etc. - recognize and accommodate the right of their employees and customers to bear their legally-carried firearms.  That laws mandating the accommodation of civil rights exist is an explicit recognition that businesses and corporations are not truly "private property," nor do they possess the same civil rights as those possessed by natural, human private citizens.  They are places of public accommodation, commerce, manufacturing, etc., not private property as is one’s personal residence.

The case of Mr. Hoven shows what can happen when businesses and corporations are allowed to force their employees or customers to accede to the personal beliefs of the business owner or the corporation.  Thankfully, the outcome in this situation was not as tragic as has been the case in a myriad of other situations that occur every day in businesses and other places of public accommodation that have been allowed to take away the Constitutional right of their employees and customers to bear their legally-owned firearms in their own, Supreme Court mandated, personal defense.

The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012 deserves to be considered and passed for the protection of employees and customers - your constituents - across our state.

Sincerely,

Version for you to send:

I am asking you to support an amendment to PA 327 of 1927 called The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012.  A copy of this proposed amendment has been sent to a number of legislators, including the Senate and House leaders, but they have not seen fit to submit the amendment for consideration.  I hope you will.

This proposed amendment was named in honor of Benton Harbor pharmacist Jeremy Hoven, who was fired from his job after using his personal firearm to stop a robbery of the Walgreen's Pharmacy by which he was employed.  Video from the store's security cameras, which appeared in many news reports nationally and can still be seen on YouTube at the following URL, Walgreens Pharmacist Shoots It Out With Robbers - YouTube, shows the aggressive nature of the attack perpetrated by the two gun-carrying thieves, which gave Mr. Hoven cause to fear for his life and that of his co-workers, yet he was fired for violating Walgreen's corporate non-confrontation policy.

The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012 simply states, 

Except as provided by law, the right to carry a pistol for the defense of one’s self shall not be infringed by an employer, commercial or corporate entity, place of public accommodation or education.

No business entity or corporation should have the right to prohibit an employee or customer from defending themselves.

At the base of this debate lies the argument that businesses, offices, and other such locations are the "private property" of the individual or corporation by which they are owned; it is therefore inappropriate for the government to mandate that such places allow firearm owners to carry their legally owned firearms with them.

This is a false premise.

It is the obligation of the state to protect the civil rights of its citizens.  It is for this reason that businesses and corporations face a myriad of requirements governing everything from access to the premises or restroom facilities to choices in hiring.  These requirements exist to protect such civil rights as equal access, speech, or religion, just to name a few. All of these are rights that are protected, either explicitly or implicitly, by the Bill of Rights, and many of the requirements levied on businesses and corporations would be considered violations of the civil rights of the property owner if he or she was exercising their rights in their capacity as a private citizen.  For instance, laws governing hiring on behalf of a business would be a violation of the First Amendment right of association if they were applied to a private citizen, mandating that such an individual must associate with others with whom they have philosophical, ideological, or moral disagreement.  Yet, it has been recognized that the state has a compelling interest in infringing the rights of a private citizen or corporation in the conduct of their business.

The right to self-defense enshrined in the Second Amendment is no less a civil right than speech, religion, association, due process, or any other civil right protected by the Bill of Rights.

In fact, in no less than ten (10) Supreme Court decisions, it has been established that self-defense - personal security - is not merely the right of the private citizen, it is their obligation. In no case was this obligation expressed as clearly as in the United States Supreme Court case, City of Castle Rock, Colorado v Gonzales:

"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole. It is a well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection" (emphasis added).

With such a well-established legal basis for the civil right and obligation to self-defense contained in the Second Amendment, the state has a compelling interest in mandating that businesses and corporations - places of public accommodation, commerce, manufacturing, etc. - recognize and accommodate the right of their employees and customers to bear their legally-carried firearms.  That laws mandating the accommodation of civil rights exist is an explicit recognition that businesses and corporations are not truly "private property," nor do they possess the same civil rights as those possessed by natural, human private citizens.  They are places of public accommodation, commerce, manufacturing, etc., not private property as is one’s personal residence.

The case of Mr. Hoven shows what can happen when businesses and corporations are allowed to force their employees or customers to accede to the personal beliefs of the business owner or the corporation.  Thankfully, the outcome in this situation was not as tragic as has been the case in a myriad of other situations that occur every day in businesses and other places of public accommodation that have been allowed to take away the Constitutional right of their employees and customers to bear their legally-owned firearms in their own, Supreme Court mandated, personal defense.

The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012 deserves to be considered and passed for the protection of employees and customers - your constituents - across our state.

Sincerely,

A Brief Theology of the Christian and the Vote...

Although we do not live in a theocracy here in the US, as Christians our primary citizenship is in Heaven.  We are bound to honor the laws of Heaven first and foremost, and they take precedence over any civic duties required of us as citizens of the US.  So while we reside in a democracy here on earth, the laws that govern our lives are theocratic in keeping with the nature of the government of our Heavenly home.  

When we find ourselves in situations in which the duties imposed upon us here in the US clash with our Heavenly duties, we must fall back on Paul's teaching in 2 Timothy 2:4: "No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him."  I have struggled with what that verse means for many years.  Notice that the verse doesn't say we do not participate at all; that would be a violation of John 17:15-19 and 1 Corinthians 5:10, because to truly be non-participants, to completely shun interaction with an unregenerate world, we would have to leave the world.  So it does not mean that we completely disengage from ALL activities (particularly political activities, as so many in the church have maintained for so many years) here in this present life.  It means that we need to guard our allegiances; we avoid entanglements - becoming SO involved with the activities of this life that extracting ourselves becomes very difficult, that we lose sight of the ministries to which God has called each of us.  And for some, that ministry means participation in the political process itself.  After all, Romans 13 tells us that government is ordained by God, that officials are ministers of God (Romans 13:1-7).   So God calls some to ministry within the context of politics.  It is illogical to conclude that God ordains government, yet forbids His own to participate in it, that the running of that government is to be turned over to the unregenerate.  But as is true of all other contexts, one must be cognizant of the possibility of entanglement.  When we find ourselves in situations in which there is a clear choice between evil and good (as has been the case in most of the elections up to this point), that decision is easy and we can avoid entanglement.  But when we find ourselves in situations in which we are told that we must choose between two evils - no matter what, or who, they may be - that conflict with God's laws, and we believe it, we have become entangled.  Our only course is to remove ourselves from the entanglement and align our lives with Biblical teaching, regardless of the consequences.  That is the teaching of Acts 5:29: “We must obey God rather than men."  Remember, when given a choice between evils A and B, the Christian still has the obligation to choose the good of choice C.  In the context of this discussion, that means that the Believer exercises his or her prerogative to vote for neither candidate.

And that is where I find myself this election.  

You see, our obligation to obey God's laws, the laws of the country of our true citizenship, supersedes our so-called "obligations" to any earthly authority when those two law-sets come into conflict.  And on that basis, I reject the notion that failure to vote for Romney constitutes a vote for Obama.  I am voting for the truth of God's Word.  

The church in the US has placed itself in a precarious position.  God's Word is our final authority in all matters of faith and living, and yet, all too many Christians with whom I speak have chosen political expediency over the clear teachings of the Bible.  "We live in the 'real world'; we HAVE to vote for one of the candidates."  No, the Real World is Heaven, the world in which our citizenship as Believers resides.  But then again, on that basis, maybe too many who call themselves "Christians" really are living in their real world.

For Christians, then, to vote for either of the major party candidates this year, one of whom supports homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion on demand, and illegal immigration, while the other is the very spirit of Antichrist, a man who believes that he will one day be the god of his own planet, whose primary religious text teaches that neither people of color nor women can ever achieve the highest exaltation offered to white men, is to fulfill the warning of 1 Samuel 8:5-7, 

"...Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.”  But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord.  And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them."

It is time for true believers here in the US to return to their first love, to once again recognize where their true allegiance lies and to disentangle themselves from "civilian pursuits."  It is time for us to recognize that, when society's dictates are at-odds with those of our heavenly, theocratic country, the laws to which we default are those of Heaven.

"Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids to help undocumented residents in federal program"

This is the title of an article appearing on Mlive August 6, 2012.  The Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids, MI, is going to assist the federal government in helping the children of illegals (and, by extension, their families) remain in Michigan under the backdoor amnesty program single-handedly initiated by Pres. Obama.  The Diocese estimates that 7,500 young people (not counting their associated family members) will be eligible for the program in Michigan.

This is interesting.  On one hand, the Catholic Church will fight the federal government with regard to mandatory insurance coverage for birth control (which I also oppose) on the grounds that it is immoral, but on the other hand it will join forces with the federal government to help illegals bypass a legal process for which thousands of other law-abiding, would-be immigrants wait in line for years - which is also immoral. So does the Catholic Church stand for morality on principal, or only when it suits them?

I understand that many of these young people had no say in the decision to come to America illegally. That is the problem with such choices - they affect more than the decision maker/law breaker.

Thousands of American children end up in single family homes, living with relatives, or in foster care every year because of the decisions made by their parents to engage in criminal activities, yet I see no one arguing that these children should be given free education through college, preferential status in employment, or that the need to keep families together should mitigate the legal consequences of their parents' criminal activities. The same government that says that Social Security is going bust, that can't find the money to keep the promises it made to generations of American workers who faithfully paid into the program (which, incidentally, is why Social Security is NOT an entitlement), is bending over backwards to provide the billions necessary to make such provisions for illegals.

I sympathize with these young people, but I stand opposed to any more amnesties.