Where the "Gun Problem" exists...

Yup.  That about sums it up.

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,

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 

An Open Letter To Michigan Governor Rick Snyder...

Gov. Rick Snyder

Michigan State Capitol

Lansing, MI

Sir,

Today has been a trying day for many, especially the families of those killed and wounded in Newtown, CT.  Our sympathy and prayers go out to them and for them.

But make no mistake, at the end of the day there is no equivalency between SB 59 and what happened in Newtown.

What happened in Newtown is about a person who lost touch with reality, killed his mother, stole her firearms, and then took out his rage on defenseless children and school faculty.  None of the more than 20,000 laws on the books nationwide regulating firearms and their users could have prevented that.

But the deaths of so many children and teachers was preventable.

You see, until 1990, as a nation we averaged about one firearm-related school attack a year, going back fifty years or more.  But in 1990, something changed.

We passed the federal Gun Free School Zones Act (GFSZA).

I am not so naive as to believe that this is the ONLY consideration, but the GFSZA, by declaring schools to be completely gun free, had an unintended effect: it left everyone in schools defenseless against a determined attack.  Since 1990, there have been 225 firearm-related incidents at school nationally, resulting in more than 700 casualties (deaths/ injuries/hostages); 183 of those attacks have occurred since the 1999 Columbine attack.  By completely disarming faculty and staff, the GFSZA guaranteed the highest concentrations of defenseless, soft targets available to someone out for blood.

Something else has happened in those intervening years: numbers of law enforcement officers have declined, resulting in longer response times when such incidents occur.  Grand Rapids, MI, has seen serious reductions in our law enforcement numbers; we are about to lose seventeen more officers, and most of those who are retained will be re-deployed to night hours.  You can imagine what this will do to a daytime emergency response time, which now stands at 18-20 minutes per the Crime Prevention Office of the GRPD.  Detroit’s 911 response time is well in excess of twenty minutes.

How does this affect the outcome of an active shooter incident?

According to a report written by former Kalamazoo news reporter, Brendan Keefe (now in Cincinnati, OH), entitled “When Seconds Count: Stopping Active Killers,” a report based on the conclusions drawn in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, observed, “Based on the Virginia Tech data, experts determined the first officer on scene should make entry immediately with an aggressive attack on the shooter. Every minute the officer waits for back-up, another three or more people could die.”  That’s while the officer is waiting for backup.  How many victims died while waiting for officers to respond to the 911 call in the first place?  This is the problem inherent in an approach that is based on sheltering in place and waiting for law enforcement to respond.  And that is what they discovered in Connecticut today - every minute it took for officers to respond resulted in more dead and wounded.  By the time officers arrived on scene and finally effected an entry, nearly all of the fatalities had already occurred - eighteen children dead, two others wounded who would die at the hospital, and nine adults killed, including the gunman, who killed himself.  It was said in an interview with the commander of the Newtown Police that officers responding to the scene “rescued” many children and adults.  While I do not mean to take anything away from the officers, the sad fact is that they “rescued” no one.  “Rescued” would indicate that they encountered the gunman as he carried out his attack, interposed themselves, and neutralized him.  This was not the case.  It is more accurate to say that officers escorted the survivors out of the building.  Killings that could potentially have been prevented occurred because no one inside the building was allowed to exercise their right to self defense.  As Frederic Bastiat observed in his treatise, The Law, self defense is the most basic of all rights: “Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person...” (Frederic Bastiat, The Law, first published in 1850, copyright 2007, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Alabama).

It is said that nature abhors a vacuum.  In this context, that means that the drawdown of law enforcement must be counterbalanced in some other way - and that is where SB 59 becomes so critical.

SB 59 gives responsible adults on the scene the ability to protect themselves AND those for whom they are responsible, whether those are family members, children in a school, or co-workers.  These are people who have already proven themselves, who have been background checked, taught and tested, who typically spend more hours on the range becoming familiar with their firearms than most law enforcement officers.  These are people who deal with trying situations and people on a daily basis in areas other than pistol free zones without ever drawing a firearm - or even threatening the use of one.  Why people believe that the moment one of these citizens steps into a school, all of that restraint and judiciousness will suddenly disappear continues to mystify me.  They have proven themselves.

Many of those who oppose this measure will insist that merely posting signs is an adequate deterrent.  As I have already indicated, referring to the utter failure of the GFSZA to accomplish its stated goal, this also fails the test of reason.

The same report authored by Mr. Keefe referred to yet another discovery made in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting:

“The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks.  In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits.  Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.  Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.  The psychological profile of a mass murderer indicates he is looking to inflict the most casualties as quickly as possible.

Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event. They may select schools and shopping malls because of the large number of defenseless victims and the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed. As soon as they're confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves.”

Simply stated, posting a property guarantees nothing.  Signs, like locks on doors, prevent nothing when the attacker is determined to inflict harm

In closing, I would like to leave you with a though expressed in 1764 by Cesare Bonesana, the Marchese Beccaria, in his manuscript entitled, Of Crimes and Punishments (Originally published in Italian in 1764, Translated from the French by Edward D. Ingraham. Second American edition.  Philadelphia (No. 175, Chesnut St.): Published by Philip H. Nicklin: A. Walker, printer, 24, Arch St., 1819.):

“A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave'; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty?  It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.” (bold added)

Mr. Governor, we can be proactive and restore the individual’s right to protect himself, or we can continue to wait for police to arrive on scene and count bodies later.  We may not be able to completely prevent every situation such as the one that took place in Newtown; at the very least, restoring the right to self defense gives us the ability to prevent incidents of such magnitude from happening.  

I urge you to follow through on your promise to sign this legislation; restore our right to defend ourselves - wherever we may happen to be.

Sincerely,

From the Brady Law to the GFSZA - 22 Years of Gun Control "Successes"...

Senator Levin,

Thank you for your recent response to my letter regarding your stance on firearms control.

I would like to take a moment to address some of the "successes" you quote in your letter.

You stated in your letter that, from 1994 to 2008, the Brady Law has kept 1.6 million firearms out of the hands of "potentially dangerous individuals." You are quite proud of that fact. According to a Denver Post article dated 12/19/1999, each year 12.6 million firearms are sold in the US; that number has gone up in recent years, but for the sake of discussion, let's use that number. This means that, for the fourteen year period to which you reference, more than 176,400,000 firearms were sold in the United States. Using your number of 1.6 million, this means that the Brady Law, for which billions of dollars were spent to facilitate its implementation and enforcement, has been successful in keeping 0.9% of all purchasers from legally acquiring a firearm. You're right! That is something to be proud of, and certainly justifies the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars to implement and continue enforcing.

There is one slight problem with your figures, however. A 0.9% success rate over fourteen years hardly explains the huge drops (over 20%) in "gun violence" that you attribute to the Brady Law. A better indicator of success would be the FBI data that show a direct correlation to the number of firearms legally purchased by Americans in the exercise of their Second Amendment rights to bear arms for their own defense, and the dramatic drop in "gun violence." When criminals know that there is a high probability that the person they might attack is armed, the likelihood of carrying through with the attack decreases dramatically. I believe this is what you used to refer to as "Mutually Assured Destruction" in the bad ol' days of the cold war nuclear arms race.  The fact that an armed citizenry lowers the probability of a criminal attack has been well-known for centuries. Cesare Bonesana wrote the following in 1764:

"The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons."

That gun control (or arms control) does not work has been a well-known fact for over two hundred years.

Your letter raises another issue, one that you consider a success, but which, you stated, you want to see expanded. Your letter states that in 2008, 9.9 million background checks were run for firearms purchases, producing 147,000 rejections. You consider it a success that 147,000 "potentially dangerous individuals" were denied the ability to legally purchase a firearm. The math, however, once again shows us that the background checks mandated by the Brady Law stopped a whopping 1.5% of purchasers from legally obtaining a firearm. Considering the billions we spend for enforcement of the Brady Law, the results are statistically insignificant.  But let's take a second to consider the TRUE achievement of Brady with regard to this statistic.  147,000 "potentially dangerous individuals" were denied the ability to purchase a firearm through channels that were trackable.  Did it prevent them from purchasing firearms through other, perhaps illegal, sources.  NO.  So in the final analysis, Brady has prevented NOTHING.

I could go on to address the other issues you raise in your response, but there really is no need. The number of incidents in which high capacity magazines have been used in relation to the total number of incidents involving firearms that occur each year in the United States is, once again, statistically nearly non-existent. You are once again proving the truthfulness of the adage, “hard cases make bad law”; you have successfully used a relative handful of incidents to drive your ideologically-flawed agenda to implement bad laws in an effort to nullify the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

Sir, it is time that you acknowledge that the gun control laws that you have helped enact are, in fact, abject failures. The Brady Law has prevented a statistically meaningless number of individuals from legally obtaining firearms. The Gun Free School Zones Act not only has not prevented anything, it has resulted in over 700 casualties since its initial enactment in 1990 because it guarantees that no one can effectively defend themselves within these zones, and must wait twenty or more minutes for police to even arrive on scene - effecting an entry takes even longer. It is time to repeal these laws, and allow the American people to defend themselves as  the Second Amendment states is our RIGHT, and the US Supreme Court has stated in more than ten (10) rulings is our individual OBLIGATION.

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,

Letter to my Legislators to Repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act

October 12, 2011

Rep. Justin Amash, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Carl Levin

Washington, DC

To My Legislators:

HR 2613 was sent to the Judiciary Committee in July of 2011.  This bill to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) is critical for the safety of our citizens across the nation.  The simple fact of the matter is that the GFSZA has done nothing to DISCOURAGE illegal weapons in school zones across the nation.  In the 21 years that have passed since the initial passage of the GFSZA, the percentage of students carrying guns to school has dropped only two percentage points, from 7.9% to 5.9%, and there are no objective data to prove that this drop is anything other than a societal shift completely unrelated to the GFSZA.  During the same time period, however, there have been 217 gun-related events in areas covered by the GFSZA resulting in 627 casualties (deaths/injuries/hostages).  The objective data clearly demonstrate the failure of this legislation.

Not only does the GFSZA not prevent weapons from being carried on school property, it also insures that anyone faced with a weapons-related situation while on school property is completely defenseless.  The average person is forbidden to carry a firearm on school property.  Those who are licensed by their state to carry must, under the terms of the GFSZA, do so openly but may not actually fire the weapon in self-defense within 1,000 feet of a school property without facing criminal charges themselves.  So not only are persons on school property forbidden to defend themselves, anyone living in the surrounding neighborhood is also forbidden to use a legally-owned firearm to even protect their own property - a blatant violation of the protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  According to the research, waiting for police to respond as one’s only legal recourse under the GFSZA does nothing but insure that the body count will be significant.  For every minute it takes police to respond to a weapons-related situation, another three casualties can result.  In a city like Detroit, where the average response time to a 911 call is 24 minutes just to arrive on-scene, the results of the GFSZA would be nothing short of disastrous.

Finally, as was already alluded to, while the GFSZA is in-line with current interpretations of the Commerce Clause, which has been turned into Congress’ license to grab unlimited power, something that was never intended by the framers of the Constitution, it is a blatant violation of the protections that were demanded by the legislatures of the States that ratified the Constitution and were enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  The Preamble to the Bill of Rights clearly states this concern:

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)

The Second Amendment is there for a reason, and blithely overriding its clearly-defined protections is something that should NEVER happen.  In elevating the commerce clause as it has to give itself power to regulate anything merely by asserting that something was provided by way of interstate commerce at some point in its history, Congress has shown the fears of those delegates to be very well-founded; Congress has turned misconstruction and abuse of its power into a highley-developed art form.  Congress is using the Constitution to violate the Constitution.  The Second Amendment clearly states that citizens have the right to bear (carry) firearms.  It does not define the nature or origin of that firearm, nor does it relegate the carry of that firearm to defined spaces.  And in that respect, under the clearest declaration of protection accorded by the Second Amendment, the GFSZA is a gross violation of the  protections that were demanded by the Conventions of the States.

It is time for the GFSZA to be repealed.

Sincerely,

HR 2613: Time to Repeal the Gun-Free Zones Act of 2009

From Congressional Record S7920-7921

THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1995

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, with my colleagues Senators Specter, Simon, Feinstein, Bradley, Lautenberg, Chafee, and Kerrey, we rise today to introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995. This common-sense measure, which replaces the original Gun Free School Zones Act, is needed to send a strong message to teachers, State law enforcement officers and State prosecutors: the Federal Government stands behind you and will support you in getting guns out of our school grounds....Mr. President, this bill is a practical approach to the national epidemic of gun violence plaguing our education system. In 1990, the Centers For Disease Control found that 1 in 20 students carried a gun in a 30- day period. Three years later, it was 1 in 12. Even worse, the National Education Association estimates that 100,000 kids bring guns to school every day. How can Congress turn its back on our children when their safety is being threatened on a daily basis?......

With these words, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, a revision of the original 1990 bill, was voted upon and eventually signed into law.


This bill constitutes yet another power grab based upon the perceived authorities granted congress under the now-infamous Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  Since nearly everything has an effect on interstate commerce, congress has seized upon this clause as a nearly infinite source of ever-expanding federal power.   But one must ask whether this Act, implemented with the stated goal of reducing gun-related violence in schools, has actually achieved its goal in the twenty-plus years that have passed.  One must further ask whether the Act is truly in-line with the expressed intent of the Constitution.


First, let's address the Act's efficacy.


The earliest numbers this author was able to obtain relating to the prevalence of firearms on school property were published by the CDC in 1993.  According to the statement quoted above, 1993 was a much worse year for guns on school property than 1990, the year the Act was originally signed into law.  The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance report issued by the CDC reflecting a reporting period from February through May of 1993 indicated that "...22.1% of students nationwide had carried a weapon (e.g., a gun, knife, or club) during the 30 days preceding the survey."  Of the 22.1% of students, the report indicates that 7.9% (one-third) had carried a firearm.  Skip ahead now to the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance report published June 4, 2010.  The data for this report indicated that, "Nationwide, 17.5% of students had carried a weapon (e.g., a gun, knife, or club) on at least 1 day during the 30 days before the survey....Nationwide, 5.9% (roughly one-third, added) of students had carried a gun on at least 1 day during the 30 days before the survey."   Intellectual integrity dictates that we acknowledge that there was a small  decrease (5%) in the number of weapons in general, and firearms in particular (even smaller percentage, 2%) in the twenty-plus years that passed since the signing of the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) in 1990.  The number of weapons overall has decreased slightly while the ratio of weapons in general to guns in particular has remained constant.  But the question that must be addressed is this:  how much of this increase is actually attributable to the GFSZA, and how much of this is simply a naturally-occurring societal shift?  Unfortunately, the anti-gun lobby has been so gung ho to prove their case that no one seems to have actually addressed this question.  When a similar downward trend was observed in Michigan relating to an increase in the number of citizens holding concealed pistol licenses (CPLs) and a decrease in violent crime (a 14% decrease in 10 years, versus only a 2% decrease in firearms carried on school grounds since the GFSZA was initially signed into law 20 years ago!), opponents were quick to assert that this trend could not conclusively be linked to the increase in CPL holders.  Given the lack of any objective data to the contrary, this author must make the same assertion regarding the coincidental link between signing the Act in 1990 and the decrease in guns on campuses.


Given the considerable resources that have been made available to establish the GFSZA, one would expect to see a much more substantial decline in both the number of weapons making it to school grounds and the numbers of shootings that have resulted; a 2% firearms reduction over twenty years is hardly something about which to exalt, and as has been noted in other posts, the GFSZA has hardly prevented the mass shootings it was designed to forestall.  Since the Act was initially signed into law in 1990, there have been at least 217 gun-related incidents on the premises of educational institutions, resulting in 627 total casualties (deaths/injuries/hostages).  This means that, if we add the 2% reduction back in (the reduction from 7.9% to 5.9%), the GFSZA MAY have prevented a total of 4 additional events and 12.5 casualties in twenty years.  You be the judge: just how effective has this Act been?


Efficacy, however, is only one consideration.  Constitutionality is the other consideration.


As has already been observed, the US Congress has transformed the Commerce Clause of the Constitution into its own personal power bank.  But at what cost to other provisions of the Constitution?


When the Constitution was first ratified by the legislatures of the States, great concern was expressed because of the lack of protections it provided to the individual citizen.  Having just seceded from an all-powerful monarchy, there was justifiable fear that, in time, the US could become a mirror image of Britain, with total power resting in the hands of an unaccountable centralized power structure.  As it has turned out, their fears, which led to the ratification of the Bill of Rights, were justified.  The Commerce Clause has been used to subjugate all other provisions of the Constitution - freedom of speech, assembly, and chiefly, the Second Amendment right to bear arms.  While the Commerce Clause can be interpreted in such a way as to provide congress with nearly inexhaustible authority, the Second Amendment explicitly guarantees the right of citizens to provide for their own protection by carrying firearms - no interpretation is necessary.  Take a good look at the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights:

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)

The Bill of Rights does not limit the nature or origin of the firearm, nor does it place any restrictions on the location in which a firearm may be carried.  History tells us that legislators used to carry firearms into the chambers of Congress - something that has been explicitly outlawed in the interceding years.  This basic right, accorded by both God and Constitution (see author's post, A Theology of Church and Personal Protection), has played an integral role in the development of our country, providing protection from totalitarian rule not available to other countries.  While Congress may be able to argue that the GFSZA is in line with their own understanding of the Commerce Clause, it is most certainly a violation of the explicit protections provided in the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment restricts the Commerce Clause - not the other way around.


Whether in science or sociology, there is always a point at which an experiment must come to an end.  The objective data tell us that we have reached that point with the GFSZA.  It is time for the Judiciary committee to bring HR 2613, which would repeal the GFSZA, to the floor of the House of Representatives for an up or down vote.  If our Representatives truly wish to do right by their constituents, they will see that the GFSZA experiment comes to an end.


   

A Theology of Church and Personal Security.....

One of the hot button topics of our day is the idea of allowing concealed carry in churches.  For some, this represents the ultimate expression of paranoia.  After all, the church is the one place where one should feel safe.  For others, the idea of allowing firearms in the church seems to fly in the face of implicit trust in God for our protection.


And yet, while Jesus did in fact teach that there are circumstances under which we turn the other cheek,  there is a Biblical basis for armed church and personal security.


Going back to the Old Testament, 1 Chronicles 9 details the decision made jointly between King David and the Prophet Samuel to establish a temple guard corps, a select group of men entrusted with the physical security of the tabernacle (and later, the temple), its treasuries, and its utensils.  These men guarded the entrances of the House of God to insure both the sanctity of the meeting place and the security of those taking part in the worship activities.  They accounted for the utensils used in the worship ceremonies, checking them in and out each day.  They guarded the finances and foodstuffs.  So while God is ultimately responsible for the defense of His house, David and Samuel recognized that we live in a fallen world in which God expects us to take those actions that are consistent with security and protection.  This is a principle laid out in Proverbs: "The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it."  A literal translation of the term, "hides",  indicates covering one's self,  taking those steps that are consistent with protecting one's self from impending trouble or danger.


OK, but that was the Old Testament.  The New Testament tells us to turn the other cheek.  Again, this is true.  As was stated earlier, Jesus did teach that there are circumstances under which turning the other cheek is the most appropriate response.  But the same Jesus who gave this teaching also commanded His disciples to arm themselves for their own protection.  Luke 22 gives the account of the hours preceding the crucifixion of Jesus, specifically, the time He spent in the Garden of Gethsemane immediately preceding His arrest.  An interesting exchange took place between Jesus and His disciples in verses 35-36:  

And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" 

They said, "Nothing." 

He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 

Notice what isn't - and then what is - covered here.


Jesus began by reminding the disciples that when He sent them out on an earlier missionary quest, everything was to be provided for them.  They were to take nothing with them - no   money, knapsack, sandals.  Not even their staves.  This is significant.  The staff wasn't just to assist them in traversing the rugged terrain, it was also a means of defense.  The reformer John Knox was known to have been a master of the staff, and he is reputed to have laid out a number of highwaymen during his years of travel.  But for the disciples, for their first quest, everything was completely in the hands of God. With His impending death, however, something changed.  I don't claim to fully understand why the change was necessary; God is still, ultimately, the one who provides everything, including protection, for us.  I simply acknowledge that something changed.  As Jesus readied the disciples to live in a world in which He was no longer physically present with them, He gave them a new mandate - with one significant addition.  Going forward, they were to make provision for funding, clothing, shoes -- and personal protection.  This last addition was so important that Jesus, the same one who taught us to turn the other cheek, commanded His disciples to sell some of their clothing if necessary to provide it.  His command had nothing to do with forestalling or repelling His impending arrest and death; the soldiers were already on their way at that moment.  Jesus understood that He was sending His disciples into a fallen world that was going to go from bad to worse, and that, while God is ultimately in control, there is still a human responsibility to provide for our own defense.


Is God ultimately the one who provides our protection?  Absolutely.  Did God entrust human government with the responsibility of providing a level of protection?  Again, the answer is yes.  Romans 13 teaches this clearly.  And yet, none of this negates our personal responsibility to provide for the protection of ourselves, our families, and our churches.  So when human government continues to diminish the level of protection it provides, more of that responsibility falls on the individual.  Thankfully, we live in a country whose Constitution explicitly recognizes that God has granted us the right to defend ourselves.  The right granted by our Constitution to bear arms in our own defense is consistent with the command given by Jesus Himself.