An Open Letter To Sen. Feinstein....

Senator,

I am not from your state, but I have contacted my own legislators numerous time over the years regarding proposed gun control measures.  Since you are the one spearheading this legislation, I now contact you directly.

For the record, I am one of the millions of firearms owners who does his own research and who speaks for himself.  I am a Constitutional Constructionist.  The Preamble of the Bill of Rights, which records that the Bill of Rights was passed by a veto-proof two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and ratified by a supermajority of the legislatures of the States, states its purpose as follows:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution (emphasis added).

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."

While federalist justices may choose to ignore the clear meaning of this document, its intent is clear:  the amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights supersede the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses of the Constitution - placing the Second Amendment beyond the power of the federal government to infringe upon the right enumerated therein.  This is the explicit, stated purpose of the Bill of Rights.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports make two things crystal clear: 1) Murder and other violent crimes have diminished to historic lows even as firearms ownership and carry increases to historic highs.  2) The states with the most murders and other violent crimes are those that have implemented the strictest gun control measures.

Additional research performed by criminologists tells us that, despite the recent spike in mass shootings, such events have been on the decline since the '90's:

"And yet those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.

"There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.

Society moves on, he says, because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are "one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms."

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning."

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-article-1.1221062#ixzz2JI3eCAdw

Senator, I STAND OPPOSED TO THE GUN CONTROL MEASURES YOU HAVE PROPOSED.  I will do everything in my power to bring together the grassroots support necessary to keep your proposals from being realized.

Respectfully submitted,

Ft. Hood Attack Labeled "Workplace Violence" by Administration....

From Stars and Stripes, 10/18/2012. Despite the conclusion of a bi-partisan Congressional report and an FBI investigation concluding that the Ft. Hood attack was domestic terrorism, he administration has now classified the Ft. Hood shooting as an act of "workplace violence", not a terrorist attack. 

With this classification, "...the victims do not get combat-related special compensation that provides disability pay for medically retired service members." This also affects their ability to obtain physical therapy, and medical and psychological treatment relating to the attack, and prevents them from receiving the Purple Heart.To call this a travesty is an understatement of gargantuan proportions. Our service members deserve this support regardless of whether the enemy is foreign or domestic. Take a moment to contact your legislators in DC and let them know what YOU think about this.

And then pass this along.  If this doesn't make your blood boil, I don't know what else will.

Ft. Hood shootings want attack called terror

The Bill of Rights v. the Clauses

The battle lines are being drawn.  The fields of battle are varied, but they share one commonality: whether they concern federal abortifacient mandates, gun control, or the health mandate, all represent conflicts between enumerated Constitutional rights and the big three clauses - the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses of the Constitution.

A number of states have initiated legislation to reassert their rights under the Tenth Amendment to nullify federal legislation that conflicts with those rights.  The typical federalist answer is that the big three clauses trump the rights of the States or the People.

Here is my response to appeals to the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses: 

"The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.  

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, THAT FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES SHOULD BE ADDED: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.  

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution..." (all caps added). 

 
The stated intention of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the abuse of power by the federal government by restricting the very clauses to which many in Congress have appealed. Simply stated, the Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights SUPERSEDE the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses - regardless of whether federalist-minded judges agree with that truth. The Bill of Rights was ratified by a veto-proof two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, which was absolutely necessary because Washington was opposed to many of the provisions it contained (it is interesting to note that the Preamble of the Bill of Rights says nothing about the President SIGNING it, only that it was ratified by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and by a three-quarters supermajority of the legislatures of the States). Why? Because the provisions of the Bill of Rights  would have served to diminish the absolute power of the federal government. George Washington's circular letter to the governors of the States and his retirement address both declare his unswerving belief that this would be detrimental to the future of the country, that an absolutely supreme, all powerful, centralized government to which the States and the People were in absolute subservience was the only way to insure our future. We can see where Washington's beliefs have taken us as our Constitutionally-enumerated rights continue to be eroded by a power-hungry government that represents its own interests and agenda.

Remember: the United States was created by the States.  The principle established in the Bible is that the potter has power over the clay.  It is inappropriate for the clay to say to the potter, "Why have you made me this way?"  So it is supposed to be in the relationship between the States and the federal government.  The States created the federal government.  The States, therefore, retain the power to determine the extent to which federal authority is allowed to go.

John Stossel, ABC News - The Myth that Gun Control Reduces Crime

George Washington and the loss of Constitutionally-enumerated Rghts...

The problem we face today with the unbridled attacks on our Constitutionally-enumerated rights is that those who were sworn to uphold the Constitution - going all the way back to George Washington - hijacked it.

From the very beginning of our government a war has been fought.

On one side stood Jefferson, Madison, and the Anti-Federalists. They believed (indeed, Jefferson and Madison, the two main authors of the Constitution, explicitly worded the Constitution with these goals in mind) in a small, general purpose government with a set of very clearly defined authorities. Having just won a war against a large, centralized government, they were rightfully concerned about the possibility of seeing a similarly all-powerful, centralized government being established in the US - so much so, that when Jefferson and Madison drafted the Bill of Rights (which passed both the US AND State legislatures with a supermajority), they included these words in the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

On the other side stood Washington and the Federalists. They believed strongly in a centralized, all-powerful government (John Adams actually believed the US needed its own king). Washington's own beliefs regarding the correct interpretation of the Constitution were stated in the circular letter he sent to the governors of the states on the eve of his retirement from public office:

"...to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated ⎯ whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress or not ⎯ yet it will be a part of my duty and that of every true Patriot to assert without reserve and to insist upon the following positions: 

That unless the States will suffer [permit] Congress to exercise those prerogatives [that] they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution [Articles of Confederation], everything must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion;

That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States that there should be lodged somewhere a Supreme Power [executive] to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration.

That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State with the late [recent] proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue;

That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independence of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly..."

Washington stood for a centralized, all-powerful government, which, according to his letter, required that the People and the States "...forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community." Where the Bill of Rights reserved the majority of powers to the People and the States, Washington called on both entities to concede more of those powers and authorities to the federal government whenever the legislature called upon them to do so. To resist such a request or to take steps to limit (or diminish) the supreme authority of the federal government was a crime that "...will merit the bitterest execration [hatred and contempt] and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country."  In other words, the Tenth Amendment was to be ignored in favor of the Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution.  It was Washington who declared that revolution as a means of changing a tyrannical government was no longer an option since the founding of our republic:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

The meaning was clear: revolting against a monarchy, as HE had done, was a good thing, but the AMENDMENT was the only proper way to effect change in a republic.  By taking revolution off the table as a legitimate means of changing a government that had become so corrupt that it could not be changed by means of legislation or amendments, he also nullified the Second Amendment - which was intended by Jefferson and Madison to be a safeguard against a corrupt and tyrannical government.  Sam Adams, in the aftermath of the failed rebellion led by Shay, was even more blunt in his opinion of revolting against a republic:

"In monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

Again, it was justified when THEY finally resorted to revolution; for anyone else, revolution constitutes treason.  The federalist understanding of the Constitution nullifies the Second Amendment, and with it, the right to bear arms for anything but hunting.

And since Washington was the first President of the US, who also appointed the first Supreme Court justices, the Federalist interpretation of the Constitution is the one that became the norm for the government. It is the understanding under which our legislature and the President operate to this day, and it is this hijacked interpretation of the Constitution that permits the federal government to confiscate more of the rights that were Constitutionally enumerated to the PEOPLE whenever the urge hits, all in the name of the "Necessary and Proper" clause and national security.

No, the problem we face today is the direct result of the federalist interpretation of the Constitution that was institutionalized by none other than George Washington himself.  That our nation's capitol is named for Washington is appropriate; his interpretation of the Constitution set the stage for what is happening today.  The resulting mess is his to own forever.

I support the goals outlined in this letter; I urge you to do the same.  Contact your legislators and urge THEM to oppose any legislation that would un-Constitutionally ban or limit ownership of firearms, accessories, or ammunition.

Open Letter to Members of Congress:

In coming weeks, you will face pressure from the Obama administration and others to implement a ban on semi-automatic firearms and certain ammunition feeding devices, and to pass laws requiring private gun transfers to be processed via the National Instant Check System.

Yet the “assault weapon” misnomer is a myth perpetuated by gun control advocates who seek to confuse the public about the difference between millions of semi-automatic firearms, which are functionally identical to hunting rifles, and military “assault rifles,” which are machine guns virtually unavailable to the public since implementation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

The truth about modern rifles

The modern rifles Senator Dianne Feinstein has, by her own admission, waited decades to ban differ from others primarily by cosmetic features such as barrel shrouds, threaded barrels, flash suppressors, pistol grips and adjustable stocks – things which do not affect function. The notion being promulgated by gun control advocates that such features increase lethality by allowing guns to be “fired from the hip” is absurd: Any firearms expert will attest that rifles can only be effectively utilized from the shoulder.

Although you are being told that ammunition used by modern rifles is excessively destructive, in truth it is ballistically inferior to common .30-06 hunting ammunition and was selected by the military not for its lethality, but instead for light weight and low recoil.

And when you hear how “high capacity” magazines increase mortality in mass shootings, understand that Seung-Hui Cho carried no fewer than nineteen magazines for the Virginia Tech rampage, and that nearly all mass murderers who use guns carry multiple firearms, rendering magazine capacity moot. Like the misnomer “assault weapon,” the “high capacity” designation of more than ten rounds for magazines represents nothing more than an arbitrary limit set on devices which have been in common possession since the early Twentieth Century.

Moreover, attempts to process private gun sales through the National Instant Check System represent nothing less than a stepping stone to national gun registration; under the Clinton administration, the FBI retained NICS transaction records in violation of the Brady Act, creating a defacto national registration system.

Most outrageous, however, is Sen. Feinstein’s proposal to regulate “grandfathered” modern rifles under the National Firearms Act. Doing so would not only entail registering millions of existing firearms, but would represent unprecedented expansion of police powers through the BATFE by requiring millions of gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed like common criminals. Because a large percentage will refuse to comply, the scheme, if implemented, will make felons of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Semi-auto ban: No impact on violence

Neither have such laws been effective. From 1994 to 2004, the previous ban on semi-automatic firearms and magazines had no impact on school shootings, which actually increased during that period. Indeed, some of the worst school shootings, including Columbine High School, took place during the ban.

Despite predictions from gun control advocates that violent crime would increase after the ban expired, it has actually dropped: According to FBI Uniform Crime Reports, between expiration of the ban in 2004 and the most recent for which data is available (2011), violent crime dropped by 17% and homicide, by 15%.

Meanwhile, weapons use in homicide has remained unchanged and, significantly, use of rifles (including those targeted for bans) declined slightly from 2.7% of homicides in 2004 to 2.5% of homicides in 2011. Clearly, rifles of any type, including those with features targeted by semi-auto bans, are rarely used in crimes.

‘Gun Free School Zones Act’ increased killings

What does appear to have impacted school shootings was implementation of the latest version of the “Gun Free School Zones Act” (GFSZA), which is associated with a dramatic increase in school murders.

Between the first significant school shooting, in 1966, and enactment of the 1996 GFSZA, media summaries reveal 8 shootings with 134 victims killed or wounded – a rate of 4.3 victims per year. Between 1996 and 2012, the review finds 62 shootings and 367 victims – a fivefold increase to 23 victims per year. Yet, during the same period, FBI Uniform Crime Reports indicate homicide nationwide dropped by 14%.

While media summaries may not be comprehensive, the GFSZA has clearly been an abject failure. 

Worse, evidence suggests it may actually create “kill zones” which attract violent predators.

Researchers John Lott and William Landes, then at Yale and the University of Chicago, respectively, studied multiple victim public shootings. Said Lott, “Gun prohibitionists concede that banning guns around schools has not quite worked as intended—but their response has been to call for more regulation of guns. Yet what might appear to be the most obvious policy may actually cost lives. When gun-control laws are passed, it is law- abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them.”  Examining data from 1976 to 1995, they discovered that mass homicides in states adopting concealed handgun laws declined by 84%, deaths plummeted by 90% and injuries by 82.5%. Crediting the reductions to deterrence (even suicidal maniacs avoid armed victims), Lott and Landes called their findings “dramatic,” concluding: “[T]he only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws.”

Coalition position

Members of the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban demand that Congress refuse to use lawful gun owners as political scapegoats and instead reduce school violence by:

•   Defeating any attempt to pass gun control including, but not limited to, banning semi-automatic firearms or magazines, or requiring private gun transfers to be registered through the National Instant Check System; and
  
•   Repealing the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1996. 
  

No ‘compromises’

Some will urge you to “compromise,” perhaps even the National Rifle Association. The many thousands of gun rights supporters represented by the Coalition, however, regard “compromise,” as our opposition defines it, to be a process in which we lose slightly fewer of our rights than under the original proposal. Consequently, any legislation which registers or bans firearms; limits magazine capacity; registers private transactions through NICS; or restricts time, place or manner of self-defense is unacceptable.

Members of Congress who support gun owners by opposing all gun control will, in turn, benefit from support by Coalition organizations. Members of Congress who support gun control by any means, procedural or substantive, will be targeted for defeat by Coalition members. They will be subject to picketing, leaflet drops at events in their districts, phone and mail campaigns, and political action committee opposition. NRA ratings and endorsements will have no impact on Coalition actions.
In coming weeks, we look forward to working with you to reduce school violence by allowing lawful citizens in schools and elsewhere to defend themselves against violent predators.

Respectfully,

The National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban

Signatories

National Organizations:
The Firearms Coalition
Jeff Knox, Managing Director
Chris Knox, Director of Communications
Gun Owners of America
Larry D. Pratt, Executive Director
Rights Watch International
F. Paul Valone, Executive Director
Second Amendment Sisters
Marinelle Thompson, President
Lee Ann Tarducci, Director of Operations
USRKBA.org
Dave Yates, Co-founder Dave Van, Co-Founder

State-level organizations:
Arizona Citizens Defense League Dave Kopp, President

Arkansas Carry
Steve Jones, Chairman
Florida Carry, Inc.
Sean Caranna, Executive Director Richard Nascak, Executive Director
Grass Roots North Carolina F. Paul Valone, President
Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, Minnesota Joe Olson, President
Gun Owners of California
Sam Paredes, Executive Director
Gun Owners of Maine
Shane Belanger, Executive Director
Gun Owners of Utah
Charles Hardy, Public Policy Director
Gun Owners of Vermont
Gary Cutler, Legislative Director
Michigan Gun Owners Jeff LaFave, President

Montana Shooting Sports Association Gary Marbut, President

New Hampshire Firearms Coalition Jonathan R. Evans, Esq, President
New Jersey 2nd Amendment Society Frank Flamingo, President
Nebraska Firearms Owners Association Wesley Dickinson, President
Oregon Firearms Federation Kevin Starrett, Executive Director
Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights Paul Velte, President
Virginia Citizens Defense League Philip Van Cleave, President
West Virginia Citizens Defense League Keith Morgan, President
Western Missouri Shooters Alliance Kevin Jamison, Press Officer
Wisconsin Carry, Inc Nik Clark, Chairman/President