Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Sandy  Froman :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why You Should Care About Parker v. District of Columbia
by Sandy Froman
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


There is a case working its way to the Supreme Court that might settle one of the biggest unanswered questions in constitutional law: Does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to own a gun? Whether or not you own a gun, this is a case you should care about.

I’m not just saying that because I’m the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association. (Last month I completed my two-year term as president and nine years as an officer of the NRA.) I’m also saying it as an attorney who’s been arguing cases in federal court for more than 30 years, and who understands how a clear precedent on a constitutional question can determine the outcome of a case.

There is a case moving towards the High Court that will likely give us such a precedent on your right to own a gun – a precedent that is either good or bad, depending on your point of view. That case is Parker v. District of Columbia.

I often get asked why there is such a passionate debate on whether the right to own a firearm is a civil right. Everyone agrees that the Constitution speaks about firearms. The Second Amendment speaks of, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The disagreement is over what those words mean. Most people believe what is called the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, meaning that all law-abiding, peaceable citizens have the individual right to own firearms. The opposing interpretation is called the collective rights view, meaning that the Second Amendment is only a right of state governments to arm their National Guard units.

Polls show that more than 70% of Americans (correctly) believe that they have a civil right under the Constitution to own a gun. But in America we don’t decide constitutional controversies by taking a poll.

Only federal courts—and ultimately the Supreme Court—have the power to interpret the Constitution in a binding way. The Supreme Court has never spoken definitively on the scope or meaning of the Second Amendment. And the Court’s silence has allowed cities and states to enact broad, sweeping laws hostile to gun ownership.

The worst of these laws is the District of Columbia gun ban. If you live in our nation’s capital, you cannot have a handgun or a readily-usable rifle or shotgun in your own home for self-defense. No ifs, ands or buts. It is a near-blanket prohibition on firearms and self-defense.

That brings us to the Parker case. The named plaintiff, Shelly Parker, lives in the high crime area of DC and has been threatened by thugs and drug dealers. She wants to be able to protect herself and she sued the city government over the gun ban. It’s shocking to realize that in one of the most violent cities in America, a woman is denied the tool that might save her life.

But it’s the law in the District, so she took the District to court.

On March 9, in a landmark ruling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the DC gun ban as unconstitutional in a 2-1 decision. The DC Circuit Court held that the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s civil right to own firearms, adopting the individual rights view, and invalidated the DC law.

As you would expect, the DC government is appealing the ruling. Earlier this month DC petitioned for what is called an en banc rehearing. That means that all eleven eligible judges on the DC Circuit would hear the case, instead of the usual three-judge panel. As you read this we are waiting to see if the circuit court grants or denies that petition.

Regardless of whether the full DC Circuit Court hears the case en banc, the losing party will certainly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. And without going into all the legal rules and reasons that help determine whether the Court takes a given case, let me just say the odds are good that the Court will take this one.

This case is monumental. Already the DC Circuit Court opinion—if left untouched—will totally change gun ownership rights in the District of Columbia. And the DC Circuit is one of the most respected and well-credentialed courts in America. Its opinions and rulings have a major impact on courts and lawmakers all over the country.

But as important as the DC Circuit is, it pales in comparison to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court takes this case, it could have a huge impact all across our land.

There’s so much more to be said regarding this case. I’ll have more to write on this once the DC Circuit decides whether to rehear en banc. In the meantime, this is a case you want to be watching. There’s a lot at stake, not just for gun owners but for all who believe in upholding the Constitution and enforcing our civil rights.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Sandy Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America, only the second woman and the first Jewish American to hold that office in the 136-year history of the NRA. The views expressed are her own and not that of any organization.

Be the first to read Sandy Froman's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Criminals
While reading this article, I couldn't help but think how your basic criminal thug was hoping that the D.C. gun ban was upheld. They're probably putting their pillaging on hold until the court takes away all gun from law abiding citizens. Then it's open season.

Full Moon for Mass Shooters?
Ever notice that it seems any time conditions are ripe for a movement one way or the other on gun rights, these nutjobs come out of the woodwork and shoot places up. It happened in the late '80's & '90's when the Democratic Congress was all fired up about restricting gun ownership & the most rabid antigun groups were in full flower. It happened in Colorado on the eve of a concealed-carry law vote and an NRA national convention. With a Repub Congress that wasn't likely to pass any new antigun laws, we seemed to have a long stretch of relative peace. Now we have a Demmie Congress again, a landmark case is headed to the Supremes, and sure enough this freak shoots up Virginia Tech (plus a few other shootings happened too). It's almost as if on cue.

Citizen disarmament, as an agenda, is not really about preventing an armed popular revolt or uprising. Citizen disarmament is all about increasing a sense, as well as the reality, of dependence on the continual presence and scrutiny of government. If we don't let government monitor and surveill us 24-7, if we don't let government dictate our comings and goings, why, they won't be able to protect us from the crazies and criminals among us. The idea is that we wouldn't be able to protect ourselves, either, therefore we should feel threatened going out from under Nanny-state's wing.

Heartening
I find it heartening to even see this come up before judges. Are there enough people pushing for more common sense legislation to make a difference? It seems to me the laws work for those that don't need them but are innefective for those that do.

Ms Froman states that
"The opposing interpretation is called the collective rights view, meaning that the Second Amendment is only a right of state governments to arm their National Guard units." This interpretation is only done by the anti-gun crowd who have absolutely no interest in upholding the Constitution OR in going through the process for changing it. Their only objective is the total elimination of firearms by the average person. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda can torture that meaning out of a plain English sentence.

The only other way to torture this meaning out of the plain and clear English of the sentence is to use the "slippery slope" interpretations of the liberal Supreme Court. Miller outlawed sawed off shotguns because the Army supposedly didn't use them. So if you believe in Stare-Decisis and mission crepe you can torture some more meaning. (Note that Stare-Decisis originally was intended only for the common law)

Here is what an expert English professor says about the 2nd Amendment sentence.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

The other side of this case, not mentioned by Ms Froman, is that no case has incorporated the 2nd Amendment into the States (via the 14th) yet. This amendment and parts of the 5th are still considered Federal only.

Personally, I do not necessarily think that it is time to take this to the Supreme Court yet because we still don’t have a majority of justices who believe the Constitution is what is says. My belief is that it will be a toss-up of a ruling because even Scalia appears to be averse to upsetting long held local laws. A correct ruling on this case would eliminate laws in MA and NY also. It could very well be that the majority will hold that the 2nd Amendment is for Federal laws only and that States may rule as their individual Constitutions permit.

Vic
That link was absolutely outstanding. Definitely a keeper. Why not ask an expert on language to interpret the meaning of words in a sentence. We would ask a plumber about plumbing, a doctor about anatomy, etc. Stunningly direct and to the point. Everyone that supports gun rights should have this jewel in their intellectual arsenal.

To Scottie
Thanks

I'll take that arguement.
Vic writes: Ms Froman states that
"The opposing interpretation is called the collective rights view, meaning that the Second Amendment is only a right of state governments to arm their National Guard units."

=================================================

Most state contitutions establish the Militia in Article 8 look up the one for your own state. Invariable the state will describe the militia as:

The militia shall be composed of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of twenty-one and forty-five years, except such as are exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state;


Nowhere does it say anything about the "National Guard". Using the claim that the 2nd Amendment applies only to those belonging to the Militia (all males between 21 and 45) means opening the floodgates to all kinds of weapons to all kinds of people.


Apparently the FEDERAL Governemnts agrees with most state constitutions since Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 311 further stipulates that the militia consists of all able-bodied males aged 17 to 45, both citizens and those who have declared their intent to become citizens, and of female citizens who are officers of the National Guard. It also specifies that the militia consists of two classes: the organized militia and the unorganized or reserve militia.

2nd amendment
the only thing that the dc gun ban does is make it safe for the thugs and criminals.if i was a criminal i would pray that the gun ban would be upheld ,only law abiding people pay any attention to it anyway

And I 2nd....
...Scottie's comment.

Ms Froman
As an NRA member, I want to thank you for the fine job you did over your two year tenure as NRA president. Your thoughtful and well reasoned commentary in the 'First Freedom' issues were features I looked forward to reading each month.

It seems incredible that we are debating the clear meaning of the BILL OF RIGHTS that was meant to have NOTHING to do with what governments could do but what they COULDN'T do and what citizens COULD. This is how liberals have stifled speech in the political marketplace, persecuted Christianity and have zeroed in on our right to self defense. They can find privacy rights, abortion rights and taxation rights when it suits them but dare we call owning a gun for self defense and not perverted sex (name your own) a basic, inalienable right, and listen to them howl.

Thanks again, and keep close to the organization that needs your kind of leadership.

Acetate
I get the First Freedom every month, but I am not awared that Ms. Froman is no longer the president. Who is the current president?

H-D
Attorney, John C. Sigler. Read

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=9339

for a description.

Gun Control
The vexing question of Gun Control has again become subject of debate. I know that comparisons are odious, but this is as good a time as any to compare the Swiss Confederation with the City of Oakland in California. Switzerland has all the potential of a nasty little Bosnia. It is inhabited by two mutually antagonistic races, the Latin and the Teutonic. Further, it is linguistically divided into three mutually antagonistic nationalities, the German, and French & the Italians, and the German & French-speaking parts are religiously divided into two mutually antagonistic Christian denominations, the Roman Catholic and the Calvinists, and to top it all off, every male between the ages of 20 through 50 after having finished his mandatory military services must keep an assault rifle with 20 rounds of live ammunition at home and be prepared to arm himself and report to his assigned position at a few hours notice—a minuteman in fact.

Bearing this in mind it is reasonably to assume that Switzerland, a nation of about 7 million is awash in blood, but in the year 2005, there were less than 40 murders committed there whilst in the City of Oakland, California with a population of less than 400,000 the butcher's bill was 114.

Why the difference? Could it be that Switzerland is a bourgeois democracy (dreadful words, so debased by Marxian venom that I scarcely dare use it) with its concomitant values of sobriety, thrift, obedience to the rules they themselves have voted into law, and above all the fact that they are the government, whilst in Oakland, governed by Utopian Marxists (no, I will not call them Liberals) with all its gun controls the results of which are that there are 'hoods where guns rule at night.

Of course, there might very well be other more pertinent explanations, if so; I'd like to hear about them.

On a more personal level, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and our local law enforcements solve less then 25% of all murder cases (how many of these result in a conviction is another matter) and in the cases of break-ins, they don't even pretend do investigate them.

Which brings me to another point. We all are familiar with the Wild West and its gun-totting inhabitants. The cowboys and the miners didn't pack irons because it was a macho thing to do; they did so because the law simply was not strong enough to protect them. However, since the 1890s an unspoken agreement was reached. The populace-at-large would disarm and the authorities would protect them. This accord began unraveling since the 1970s, and it seems to me, at any rate, that we might have to protect ourselves again; as the old adage has it: 'I'd rather be judged by twelve than be carried by six.'

E. David Litvak


A brilliant comparative
A brilliant analogy from Vic's previous link. Where in here does this say the people cannot have books or must have Gov't permission to own them? Whether the electorate is well educated or not, there is nothing in here to imply that books are dependent on the schooling, but rather that schooling is dependent on the books!

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

It is absolutely comparable and it cannot be read to in any way prevent the ownership of books under any circumstances.

A kit to have handy
Lengtha of 8" PVC Pipe and appropriate end caps
Solvent to install end caps
Some argon or other inert gas
Some Vasoline
A good GPS device
A trip to a remote location for a "picnic"
A good digging shovel
Courage and patience.


edl
I've raised the issue of Switzerland in the past to counter some of the 'gun control' idiocy myself. I guess those Swiss must be exceptional people in that they never covet their neighbors goods - or could it be that they know there's an armed person on those premises that knows how to shoot. Same thing for killing someone else - chances are he'll never make it to trial.

Oakland, a gun control haven of course, had a tenue under Jerry Brown as Mayor since 1998. What was surprising was that Brown, running on an anti-crime/pro-police campaign which resonated with the business and Black community, followed through after he was comfortably elected.

And, low and behold, a murder rate that averaged 160/yr through the '90s decreased to 68 in 1999. But when he started to incur the wrath of the criminal gang element and their liberal advocates, his response was to ease off the law and order policy and up went the murder rate.

There's a peculiar thing about socialists: they never completely trust anyone but the hardcore criminal element. I suppose it's because they understand and identify with them and what's more, they respond to them. Their gun control is always aimed squarely at the law abiding. They know full well their laws have no impact on criminals but this is also a group they can deal with. In positions of power, they control enforcement, prosecutions and the prison doors themselves.

For socialists, an armed electorate is always a problematic exposure that is best neutralized if possible. That's why they push so adamantly for gun control despite the carnage a disarmed populace invites.

Now consider what position Jerry Brown now holds in CA - Attorney General. Q.E.D

A Peculiar Attitude
There is a peculiar attitude on the part of those denizens of the darkside known as liberals that the law-abiding have no right to protect themselves from the lawless.

Years ago, my step-daughter and a friend decided to leave Colorado and try big-city life in Boston. I gave each a cannister of pepper spray -- and it literally saved one of them from rape and perhaps death when one of the creeps liberals love tried to drag her into the bushes.

She sprayed the s.o.b., and the cops came -- and they confiscated the pepper spray! Better, I guess, in their eyes that she had been raped and murdered than defend herself.

This is pure madness.

Edl: Great post, but much too logical for the liberal mind to comprehend.

Vic is mistaken
As is Ms Froman.
(any relation to the sausage king of Chicago?)

"The other side of this case, not mentioned by Ms Froman, is that no case has incorporated the 2nd Amendment into the States (via the 14th) yet. This amendment and parts of the 5th are still considered Federal only.
"

Maybe by you. But by the 2nd Amendment, they are not Federal or State, but UNIVERSAL.

Vic cannot keep me from carrying or owning arms any more than can the Feds or the State.
It is an ABSOLUTE.

"This case is monumental. Already the DC Circuit Court opinion—if left untouched—will totally change gun ownership rights in the District of Columbia"

No it will not. The right remains the same; an absolute right for the individual citizen to keep and bear arms, as granted (along with all other rights) by God. The ability to exercise the right might well be changed, however.

Your English expert
is wrong as well, when he presumes that "well-regulated" means "subject to regulations of a superior authority". He concludes that based upon his (possibly flawed) understanding of history, not his knowledge of English. The phrase 'well-regulated militia' is nonsensical if you think that it means "the militia should be regulated well." Remember, from history, that Paul Revere did NOT say "the Redcoats are coming!". He said "the REGULARS are coming!".

"If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'"

'Abridged' does not mean 'infringed'! They are similar in meaning, but not identical. Abridged, for one thing, implies a limitation upon the gov't, keeping it from legislating the right away. But infringed means the local 7/11 can't keep you from carrying your gun inside, as well.



Yeah, Vic
That was definitely a keeper.

To jdw
My point was NOT that I think the States should have the authority to regulate gun ownership. My point was what the Supreme Court has done in the past with regard to the 2nd amendment. Originally the bill of rights ONLY applied to the Federal Government. The States could and did do anything that their own individual constitutions allowed them to do. Hence NY had severe gun control laws early in it's history. MA had a government-supported religion/church until the mid 1800's.

Over the years following passage of the 14th amendment with the dubious passage "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." the courts individually incorporporated certain other amendments into State applicability using the “liberty” portion of the text. The 2nd Amendment and parts of the 5th dealing with Grand Juries have NOT been so incorporated.

SO yes, the right to keep and bear arms may be endowed by the creator, however, the U.S. Constitution ONLY guarantees protection against Federal encroachment.

As far as what “well regulated militia” meant, it has no impact on the right to keep and bear arms. That was the POINT of the paper!

Liberal season
The first commenter states:
"While reading this article, I couldn't help but think how your basic criminal thug was hoping that the D.C. gun ban was upheld. They're probably putting their pillaging on hold until the court takes away all gun from law abiding citizens. Then it's open season."

No. When guns are outlawed, "Liberal" season begins. If it doesn't, just get down on your knees and pucker your lips for whatever they decide to stick in your face.

And it's a natural right, not a 'civil right.'

I haven't been a member of the NRA for years because of their political game playing and pandering to our enemies. They had to have their lawyers look at the most recent assault on our Liberty, the legislation introduced by McCarthy et al in the wake of the Blacksburg event. The NRA needs to fire its shysters and spend its money on organizing and training the unorganized militia. But they don't have the balls for that do they?

And here's my letter to ms. Froman that I still haven't gotten answer to:

In re. to your WND column:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55148

Pres. Froman,

I haven't been a member of the NRA since the early nineties or before, I think maybe for only a year or so long ago. Let me tell you why.

In 1994 or so I attended a pro-gun rights seminar in Gatlinburg, TN where I listened to Tanya Metaksa explain how the NRA gave money to political candidates it favored. If those candidates lost NRA lobbyists immediately offered money to their successful opponents. That alone was enough to turn me off to your process, a process I can only hope has ceased.

The NRA seems to have improved somewhat over the years and taken a slightly harder line against our enemies in this war, and it is a war. To ignore that fact is a grave mistake. However many 'freedom' or 'pro-gun rights' activists do not yet seem to realize this as they keep kowtowing to the mainstream news media as if what those propagandists say/write has any basis in reality.

It is an even bigger mistake to treat anti-Liberty politicians as anything but what they are, our enemies. I have been told of numerous instances in which the NRA supported candidates that local activists knew better than to support.

With that being said I noted a couple of things in your column. The fact that the NRA was founded by Union Generals is nothing to brag about. They had just participated in a war that ended our Constitutional Republic and turned it into an empire where states that had volunteered to participate lost their ability to say "No, we've had enough." The South was right and it wasn't about slavery. The second war of independence was won by the bad guys.

Secondly you brag the NRA has trained all sorts of military and police personnel, not a bad thing in itself. But when will you begin training the force that most needs to be trained? The empire’s soldiers are locked in numerous engagements in various foreign locales and will not return home soon regardless of what promises are made by our elected demagogues. Our borders are as porous as a sieve and our large cities are plagued by crime and gang warfare. In Los Angeles the Mexican gangs are systematically running the black gangs out of their old haunts.

For three years I trained with the Kentucky State Militia in an effort to share some of my basic infantry knowledge gained as a Marine Reservist. We could have used some of that NRA guidance, training, and support but the militia, that evil politically incorrect word that’s in the Second Amendment is apparently too much for the supreme protector of our ‘rights’ to deal with.

When will the NRA step up to the plate and do what it must to begin training the common people in the skills they will have to use to take our country back. Notice there are no ‘ifs’ or ‘maybes’ in that statement. England is already gone. The cancerous mindset that plagues us has dragged them into the darkness. They are only waiting for the orders to ‘get on the train.’

Those skills must by necessity involve more than a bird suit and paper targets and will undoubtedly create a firestorm of criticism by the mainstream Marxist propagandists who put all their energies into keeping the sheeple stupid.

Will your organization ever develop the courage to face them down or will you allow millions of those you claim to help protect wait with trepidation for the orders to ‘turn them in’ with no real plan or organization for that fateful day that will come?

Many are waiting for your answers. Thank You.

Barry Bright


http://www.willowtown.com/reality/blacksburg.htm

Two comments to posters EDL and JDW
First to EDL:

Great post! All except for the errorneous perpetuation of something that most people believe, but is a complete falsehood.

The "wild west" years of 1870 to 1885 and the major railroad cities of Abilene, Dodge, Caldwell, Dallas and many others, didn't see very many murders at all.

It is largely a complete falsehood made up by Hollywood. The truth is that in the major cities of the west and mid-west during those years, there were a total, a total mind you, of just forty nine (49) murders.

In fact, there were only two cities in two years in that timeframe where murders met or exceeded the paltry number of seven (7). In Caldwell and in Dodge City, in 1877 and 1876 respectively, the total number of murders was just seven.

In fact, even more enlightening to readers may be the fact that in both 1878 and 1879, Dallas Texas had no murders at all. Not even one.

Now that I've straightened that out, let me move on to another comment by JDW.

JDW, in the language of our Founding Fathers, the term "well regulated" meant that something was working well, functioning well and was efficient and able to carry out its duties effectively.

Just as the pendulum on a grandfather clock is called a regulator, the term "...well regulated..." found in the Second Amendment means that its functions were to kept in perfect working condition.

In no way whatsoever did the term mean regulation by legislation.

Now to Ms. Froman, thank you for your service to my NRA! As a Certified Firearm Instructor, Life Member and NRA Membership Recruiter, I thank you for your service.

But even given your experience and expertise in this matter, I must still disagree with you on the matter of Parker. I still do not believe that the SCOTUS will touch it.

The weight of either a positive or negative ruling by the SCOTUS on Parker is too great for them to tackle it. I will be shocked out of my britches if they agree to hear the appeal.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

(don't go to my Web site right now, as I'm having trouble with it this morning)

2nd Amendment
There are purportedly one hundred million gun owners in the United States. There are purportedly 4.5 million NRA members. The NRA fights for the rights of the other 95.5 million gun owners who don't want to pony up the entrance fee into the NRA. Just watch and see the howl of the scalded 95.5 million non members when their right to own a gun is erased. Nuff said

It's our whole judicial system, stupid..
If it worked like it should the citizenry would not have to protect itself by defending (with it's own weapons/means) against the evil perpetrators that seem to be rewarded by the highly ineffective, if not criminal, justice?? system itself.

Just take a look at those elected individuals that determine "what is good for us" by thrusting upon us the ridiculously insane "Hate Crimes Bill" which literally gives carte blanche to any kind of sexual deviation known to mankind. The very fact that we are letting the highly disordered "gay and lesbian agenda" immoral sickophants determine the course we have to follow, in this country, ought to tell you something as to how sick our whole nation has become.

Wake up, America. We the people need to put on the only Armor that can protect us against EVIL and that is the WAY, The TRUTH and the LIFE. Yes, Jesus is our Great Protector. Let's join His Army. He has already won the WAR.

As goes
2nd Ammendment, so goes the whole Constitutional form of government.
Since equal time for opposing opinions isn't allowed by the Lib blowhards most get their info from, we can only expect more of the same mis/dis-information.
In their quest for total subjugation, I wouldn't be surprised to see the same type of censorship applied to all forms of media, including this one.

Gun Control sic.
Has any one asked the operators of the Virginia Tech University how it feels to be responsible for the deaths of 33 people, seeing that they passed a rule preventing legal, trained concealed carry permit holders(CCPH) from carrying on campus to protect themselves and others from the carnage that occured there? There was at least one CCPH who stated on TV that "If I could have gotten to my gun, I could have stopped the killing." When will the Gun control advocates understand that guns EXIST in this world, and disarming the law abiding public only ascerbates the problem as the KILLERS WILL NOT obey the law!!!!

The Parker case
This case could be the right case at the right time.

The FBI, in its UCR (Uniform Crime Reports) for murder rates (murders per 100,000) in 2005, revealed the following data:

National: 5.6

Texas: 6.2

D.C.: 35.4

Hey!
Where are all the anti-gunners?

Man, I thought for sure this column would bring the gun-haters and whiners out in force, and here all I see are people who agree with me.

Where's the challenge in THAT?

Great column and posts.


Protection
I don't particularly care for guns, however, it's historically true that those who are prohibited from owning guns are often enslaved by their governments, i.e., African dictatorships, the Middle Eastern towel head states, Nazi Germany, etc., etc. The only thing keeping this country from being attacked by outside forces — and by homegrown ones — is our well-armed citizenry. Let's keep the Second Amendment intact and strong.

Short Version
To all those confused gun grabbers:

The first ten amendments to the constitution are commonly called "The Bill of Rights".

Government has NO rights, only powers. The PEOPLE have rights. So, by its very title, the first ten amendments refer to PEOPLES RIGHTS.

Washigton D. C.
I believe this is an exellent article, but I was distrated by the phrase " in a high crime district." As a result of sons who lived in D. C. I have visited there several times. Other than the Smithsonian Institute, where is a low crime district or building in D.C.? Bill D.

NRA Moderation
I am among those who would like to see a bit less compromising with the enemy in the NRA and a bit more standing strong. However, all of us intelligent people must realize that we'll never get it all our way, ever. There will always be a group of cranky people whining. I personally feel there should be no restrictions at all on our right to keep and bear arms. As in permits. But I understand that a lot of people don't like that. Since most people are moderates, or at least think they are, anything big like actually having our full rights recognized would never make it through the system. I'd rather compromise a little than have it all go to the liberals.

LibertarianGirl
That is why I prefer Gun Owners of America.

http://www.gunowners.org/

They don't compromise.

Libertarian Girl and Liberty
I agree with you that it would be great to live in a United States where there would be no restrictions upon the Second Amendment's protection of the right to own and carry firearms.

As an NRA Life Member, NRA Certified Firearm Instructor and NRA Membership Recruiter, I must take issue with the two of you speaking of NRA "compromise".

In a much older America, when there were no roving youth drug gangs, when a single murder sent a shockwave of disgust through the community, where it was rare for a family to not attend church together, when abortion of an unborn child made people want to vomit and when nearly every child could tell you the Ten Commandments of God, America was the kind of place where freedom truly reigned.

The truth about today's America where the Ten Commandments of God are being removed from public display, where an average American cannot tell you what any of them say or even mean, where Bibles and prayer in public school is prohibited, where the divorce rate is approaching 60%, where finding child molesters living in your community is as common as finding a gas station...

At some point, we must realize that today's America is not the America that was intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of citizens do not completely behave themselves, while demanding the full integrity and original intent of the Bill of Rights do not wash with me.

Please consider the following three quotes:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams (1735-1826) Second President of the United States.

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."
Noah Webster 1758-1843

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government. Far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
James Madison (1751-1836) Fourth President of the United States.

You won't find another bigger defender of the Bill of Rights especially in regards to the Second Amendment.

That being said, if the NRA "compromise" that you refer to is our efforts to keep firearms out of the hands of felons and the mentally defective, through the use of a permit system or the National Instant Check System (NICS), it is you who really need to think harder about what you're saying here.

To have an unrestricted Second Amendment, you could have every child molester, committed mental patient, wife beater, drug addict, felon, gang member and so forth being able to freely purchase and carry firearms whereever they went.

We don't live in the America intended for us by the Founding Fathers where religion, morality, integrity, truth and justice played a common role in every family.

The abandonment of traditional Judeo-Christian values, disobedience, disregard and even total ignorance of the Ten Commandments of God are responsible for a degree of lost freedom and liberty in America.

It's time that Americans started looking in the mirror again and began to clean up our collective lives. Then we can begin to regain some of our freedoms that have been lost mainly because of our bad behavior.

"[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) American printer, author, philosopher, diplomat and scientist.

I think the NRA is doing just fine. If we really want our freedom back, we must start acting like it.

Look around at your own neighborhoods. Do your neighbors on any side of you have children in prison? How many child molesters live on your street? How about the next street over where your kids play?

The moral character of America has degraded to an alarming and frankly disgusting level of depravity. This is why we have lost some freedoms. No other reason remains in my humble opinion.

That's how I see it. I welcome the opinion of others.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

fire at will
Anyone else notice these nutcases only go to "gun free zones" to wreak their carnage? Why dont they burst into a police station, chain the doors shut and start firing and see how far they get?

Parker vs District of Columbia
My feeling is we need more lawsuits especially against not only D.C. but against ALL communities, cities, towns and localities that infringe oagainst our rights of self defense and self preservation. There must be lawsuits against those senators and reprecentitives who do not support the second amendment and our rights of self defense like Schummer, Kennedy Kerry, Pelosi, Bloomberg. etc. You know who they are. Sue them now. Hit them in the pockets. Let them know we do not work for them, they work for us. Fire them now.

BrianR
BrianR asked, "Where are all the anti-gunners?"


They saw all the pro-gun right-wingers and went home to change their pants.

DavidM: Hahahahaha!
A short-term water shortage accompanied by a run on detergent.


Disband the NRA? - Maybe
The letter below was sent to Josh Sugarmann; spokesperson for the Violence Policy Center, (a front for the Brady Campaign).
His email address is: jsugarmann@vpc.org
Other nasty emails to this gun grabber are encouraged.
*************************************


Dear Mr. Sugarmann,
As spokes person for the VPC, I thought this might interest you. It seems we have a common objective. Both of us would like to see the NRA, The National Gun Owners Association, and every other gun lobby disbanded. And I say this as an NRA member. Yes, you read correctly. I’m an NRA member. I and many other members and gun owners would support the disbanding of our organizations, under certain conditions and with the support of organizations such as yours.
I’m sure you’re aware, as result of a recent DC Appellate Court ruling, (Parker v DC), for the first time in its’ history, the Supreme Court will soon hear arguments concerning interpretation of the 2ed Amendment. Most NRA members would gladly see the NRA disband should the Supreme Court ruling include the following:

[“That the 2ed Amendment guarantees an Absolute and Individual Right to bear arms.
That this Right; (with the exception of those unfit by virtue of mental illness, a history of violence or felony convictions), extends to All adult Citizens in All of the U.S.
That the term “Arms” applies to Any firearm typically carried by foot soldiers of a modern army or used for sporting purposes.
That said arms may be concealed or otherwise; and such carriage may not be restricted State or local governments, under any condition; including Declared “States of Emergency”, (except where such carriage constitutes a demonstrated and court sanctioned danger to public safety, such as Court rooms and Commercial aircraft”.]

Should the above precedent setting ruling come about, we would support Strict and Vigorous Enforcement of existing gun laws, Rigid National background checks, and Drastic penalties for violations. And you would see a mass exodus of membership from All gun owner organizations. They’d have no further reason to exist, as our Rights would finally be secure. The Supreme Court would have chiseled these Rights into stone. But we both know you would never support such a ruling, as it would defeat your TRUE AGENDA. So the battle goes on. I suggest you follow this litigation closely, as its’ outcome will effect not only my organization, but yours as well.



American_Pilot
What we need is for some big Law Firm to set up a system where they help people fill out CCW forms and keep track of progress.
They notify the County of what they are doing and to expect a law suit if a crime occures that could have been prevented if the permit had been issued in a timely manner.

Like to see that in NYC or SF?

Here in rural Florida
We are all armed.It is curious, though that we have virtually no vandalism, burglaries or carjackings. The drug dealers are so low profile that they may as well not exist. The Wild West indeed.

The 2nd
Where have all the liberals gone? You must have forgotten that this is a conservative web-site, which liberals are not likely to enjoy.

jonz39
There will probably be some driveby anti-gun posting later tonight.

If you are looking for Libs there are some over on the Jeffrey thread stroking each other.

Sue 4 2ed Amd. Violation
American_Pilot suggests lawsuits against those refusing to honor 2ed amendment Rights.


Great Idea.
I recently contacted the NRA legal dept. and volunteered as a test case, after going through the motions of applying for a CCW permit in California; knowing what the outcome would be, in a so called Discretionary State, which in fact, has an almost total ban on CCW issuance. I’m waiting to hear back. In the mean time I’m doing what I’ve done (Illegally) for the past 35 years. I carry my .45 when ever I leave the house.

Is the 2nd an Individual Right?
It absolutely astounds me that anyone would question the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. While written in older English, the meaning is absolutely clear. The right to keep and bear arms is given explicitly is terms of or relating to the People. Throughout the Constitution, references to the States (in terms of retained rights, et cetera) are clearly stated as pertaining thereto (to wit: the wording of the 9th and 10th Amendments).

If an unadulterated reading of the Bill of Rights wasn't clear enough, simply read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers provide all of the insight needed to understand the mentality and reservations regarding the forming of the new union (USA). Therein, very specific concerns are cited about how to insure that the people could overthrow the new government if it became as oppressive as England had been. The 2nd Amendment was the consensus remedy for that potential problem. The 2nd Amendment definitely has nothing to with hunting for sustenance.

Many liberals that wish to look to the government to protect them, solve all of their problems and hand them money, think that any need for the 2nd Amendment has passed. But the provision was put in place for the future not the present.

In the end, anyone who can read and has in fact read the various documents that I have cited, know that only one conclusion can be reached about the 2nd Amendment. For a court to conclude that the 2nd Amendment is anything but an individual right is ostentatiously legislating from the bench (clearly unconstitutional and unscrupulous, but done commonly).

Liberal anti-gunners.
The gentleman who states he is an NRA member and a member of the VPC is a blatant liar. The reason he is so anti-gun is that he has not been been mugged yet nor a loved one in his family mugged or raped by some stack of pig poo.
I ask that "gentleman" if he had a gun and came home one day and found some one broke into his home and was about to rape his wife or daughter, would he wait until the thug slit her throat with a knife before blowing his brains out???

Mike-Disband the NRA?
Mike,

I understand what you're trying to say there. You wish that pro-gun groups were not necessary. It's true that we all wish that we didn't have to stand and defend our Bill of Rights against those who have previously taken and oath to do the same.

That being said, the NRA will never "disband". Perhaps the GOA, JPFO and others, but not the NRA.

You see the NRA formed just after the American Civil War in 1871. It was for the promotion of gun safety, marksmanship and firearm education.

The NRA is, as you probably know, the world leader in these areas. As an NRA Certified Firearm Instructor who has taught gun safety to more than 500,000 through the Internet, I know of which I speak.

I would like to see the NRA be able to refocus on its original objectives instead of having to defend the Constitution from our very own elected officials.

No, the NRA will never disband, even though I understand your point.

If any reader is interested enough to join the fight, I am an NRA Membership Recruiter and I encourage you to learn more about the benefits and membership levels.

http://www.savetheguns.com/nra_membership.htm

Marc

I'm glad to see the NRA saw the light...
About time the NRA saw the light and stopped trying to derail the case.

The Parker attorneys have posted all pleadings, motions, court decisions, etc. on their web site. Makes for some interesting reading if you're into that kind of thing. The only document not there is DC's request for en banc review.

If nothing else, the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is worth reading.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_pleadings.htm

Interesting NRA Position
I am an Endowment Life member of the NRA and I am puzzled after reading this article. In it, the NRA appears to be endorsing a Supreme Court ruling on Parker. Yet at the same time, they are working behind the scenes to derail it by getting congress to pass the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act". If that bill were to pass, the Parker case would become moot and no ruling would be issued. Why not suspend activity on H.R. 1399 and let the courts have their say?

Disband the NRA?
SavetheGuns.com makes an excellent point in reminding us of the original purpose of the NRA. Only in recent NRA history have much of its efforts have been forced into defense of the 2ed Amendment. Disband. NEVER. But hopefully, if the Supreme Court rules as I've described in my previous post, the constant battle to defend the 2ed Amd. will end.

The battle will never end...
Fellow patriots, the battle will never end. As long as there are people in this country that insist on disarming the general population the struggle will continue.

Even if the SC upholds the ruling on Parker, that won't stop certain politicians from submitting different legislation. (word it differently and try it again).

Our government, if you recall, is made up of three separate but equal branches. The Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. One branch is not above the other, or at least that's how it is supposed to work. It is only in recent history that the Supreme Court has been considered the final say.

Regardless, we the people of the United States, must remain ever vigilant. We need to do more than just vote. We must communicate with our elected representatives to ensure they understand where we stand on the issues.

After all, The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance.

JC


My Two Cents:

I do not think that the District of Columbia will now appeal to the US Supreme Court. "DC City" politicians are Democrats and they would be under heavy political pressure from gun control groups to play it safe and to reform their gun laws as little as possible to accommodate the decision. The Brady campaign is as afraid of SCOTUS as is the NRA. Furthermore, left at this circumstance, the majority of gun laws will remain in effect. DC won't appeal.

And, in passing, I would like to thank those long gone NRA officials who helped draft the California State Constitution WITHOUT a Second Amendment provision in order to keep guns away from the Mexicans and the Chinese.
Thank's. Thank's a lot.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.