Court says individuals have right to own guns

Court says individuals have right to own guns

Decision is justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history

MSNBC and NBC News

updated 10:14 a.m. PT, Thurs., June. 26, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said.

The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

'Landmark victory'
The ruling quickly became fodder for the presidential race. Sen. John McCain lauded the decision in a written statement, calling it a "landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States."

The Republican presidential hopeful criticized his rival Barack Obama's stance on the issue, saying the Democrat had refused to sign a statement calling for Thursday's ruling.

"Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly," McCain said.

Senator Obama said the decision "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

"As president, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters and sportsmen ... We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals," Obama stated.

The White House praised the ruling.

"We are pleased by the Court's decision upholding Americans right to bear arms. We look forward to reading the ruling in detail," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

The issue had caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Dissenters vs. supportersJustice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

Court 'aware' of problemsScalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second

D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second

Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms

and

that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that

firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for

self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but

does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative

clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it

connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
By Marti

As a person who tends to lean more to the left on most issues, I have to draw the line in the sand when it comes to the 2nd Amendment to our Bill of Rights.  This one amendment, more than any other signifies our freedom.  This is the marker that separates us from other countries and societies.  We have the freedom and the right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to defend ourselves…..even from our own government. 
The repeated calls for repealing the 2nd Amendment, or efforts to diminish its intent, usually come after yet another disturbing incident that was allowed to go totally out of control, and then incessantly broadcast by what is supposed to be our news sources until we reach a point of saturation.  This is quickly followed by calls for disarming American’s. 
Let’s make one thing perfectly clear here; If someone is intent on killing you or several of you, not having a gun will not stop them.  People are poisoned, stabbed, strangled, beaten to death, set on fire and die from multiple causes inflicted by another individual every day of the week.  This is not because American’s have the right to own guns.  
I find it odd that more people die each year from drunk drivers than from gun   incidents.  Yet no one calls for another prohibition.  There are no passionate pleas to ban alcohol; no diatribes on how alcohol consumption is killing innocent people.  Besides, this might infringe on YOUR rights. 
The right to keep and bear arms is not the cause of rampage killings. It’s the individual who decided to kill other human beings who is the cause.  A gun can kill no one until an individual picks it up and uses it.  Just like knives can’t stab anyone unless someone picks them up and uses them as a weapon.  In a fatal car crash resulting from drunk driving……who or what is at fault; the vehicle or the driver?   
The flaw in all the arguments for banning private gun ownership is that somehow by taking away this right, everything will be just peachy.  It won’t be.  The same individuals who are intent on inflicting injury or death to others will simply find some other means of getting the job done.  People are the real threat……not the weapons they choose.  Taking away the right to own guns does not and will not reduce that threat.   
When the Bill of Rights was assembled, the second most important issue to the founders was this right to keep and bear arms.  Of all the other rights enumerated, this was paramount in establishing a free society.  They also knew that it is only when government has worked secretly against its own people they become afraid of them and seek to disarm them.   
The 2nd Amendment is the lynchpin of our freedom.  As a nation we identify ourselves as free people by virtue of the fact that we can keep and bear arms if we choose to.  And it is exactly this reason that so many want to see it repealed.  The loss of this right would be psychologically devastating as so many would see it for what it is…..the true end of our freedom.   
Right now the major source for attacks on the 2nd Amendment, are being directed through the United Nations.  Yesterday, Senator Obama put a bill on the floor of the senate called the Global Poverty Act.  This act would mandate not only a 7% tax on our GDP, but also calls for the banning of small arms.  Small arms and weapons includes, hunting rifles and shotguns, not just handguns.  
Attacks on the 2nd Amendment have come from all quarters.  The efforts to paint it as “all liberals want to ban guns, and all conservatives don’t” is just more staging.  The fact is, our government wants us disarmed; its just that no one wants to be seen as the perpetrator of this unconstitutional infringement on our rights.   
Using the UN to implement the disarming of America also makes us vulnerable to international law as opposed to our own sovereign laws.  International law does not recognize the right of the individual to defend himself, claiming that to do so is a crime in its self.   The UN also claims that this ban is necessary to protect women and children, and those who wish to commit suicide. 
This would be the same UN that sits by idly while hundreds of thousands die as a result of genocide.  Where are there concerns about women and children and the suicidal then?  While the UN twiddled its thumbs, nearly 500.000 Rwandan’s were clubbed or hacked to death with machete’s and knives.  For some unknown reason the UN has not called for the banning of either machete’s or clubs, or even for large knives.   
The real aim of the Global Poverty Act and its intent to disarm America is to make sure that we have no way to fight back against the planned overthrow of our Republic.  And as Americans, we most likely would. For those who disagree with this, don’t worry about it.  Once the North American Union is established we won’t have any rights at all, much less the 2nd Amendment.  One of the first things that will be done after the merger is complete is to abolish the bill of rights and then to disarm the public….. leaving you completely at the mercy of the military and local law enforcement.   
I live in central Minnesota which has a heavy Democrat base.  In all the speaking I do to groups on various subjects, the issue of gun control invariably comes up.  No one that I have come in contact with supports gun control or bans.  The idea that “liberals” across the board are in total support of this gross infringement on our Bill of Rights is one of those carefully constructed arguments intended to divide us.  It is our government collectively that wants us disarmed, comprised of Democrats and Republicans alike. 

We the people of the United States

We the people of the United States

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

“Government by the people for the people”

Yj Draiman

We have the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms and Defend Ourselves - 2nd Amendment

We have the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms and Defend Ourselves - 2nd Amendment

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is a right not a privilege, just like you have the right to live and breath.

"Do not punish or deny the rights of the masses for the sins of the few"

This applies to any and all rights and privileges stated in the Constitution of the United States.

The Second Amendment is one of our most cherished. The right to keep and bear arms is what keeps government subservient to its citizenry. Without the right to bear arms, we would have anarchy in the streets, the criminals would still have guns, and violent crime would escalate.

Thomas Paine:

"Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."

We plan on exercising these rights to the fullest extent of the Constitutional Law.

Our society today is brainwashed that when some people abuse their constitutional rights we must punish all of society and revoke that right and privilege.

When some one uses a weapon, any weapon, gun, knife, pick, ax, saw, car, etc. they get prosecuted, when convicted, they are sentenced not all the people of the country.

Abuse by some people has been going on since creation and will continue till the end of time. We must control and punish the abusers, not the whole society.

Case and point is the punishment society is taking today due to terrorism. Since governments are helpless to fight and control terrorism they punish the masses in the name of safety and cause extreme economic hardship and the loss of our constitutional liberties.

There are Nations that under their Laws citizens are permitted to posses firearms. Check out some of those countries. Crime rate has not increased. Abuses happen, the abusers are punished and not the rest of society.

It is a known historical fact that the Criminal will always find a way to get a weapon.

Restricting the average citizen from having a weapon to protect himself and his family, leaves the door open to the criminal to violate those citizens, due to the knowledge that the average citizen has no weapon and cannot protect himself and his family.

A weapon is a tool like any other tool and should be used properly.

A knife, pick, ax, saw, car, etc. is also a tool that must be used properly. It is not outlawed, is it?

A car in today's society is an absolute must. Do the citizens of this country know how many people are killed and injured by automobiles every year, it amounts to thousands, which is much less than with guns.

And to those who would say this was but a "temporary violation" for the greater good, Ben Franklin admonishes;

"THOSE WHO WOULD GIVE UP LIBERTIES TO OBTAIN FREEDOM DESERVE NEITHER.

  Folks, we live in dangerous times, a government that does not trust its citizens to bear arms, is a government not to be trusted by its citizens.

As the threat to all of our liberties continue basically unabated, remember the words of the great political philosopher Edmund Burke; "The only way for evil men to prosper is for good men to do nothing."

The right to keep and bear arms should be of great importance to all Americans, if we are to remain a free country we MUST NOT let this right be taken from us

 Remember, freedom isn't free.   God Bless you, and God, please bless the United States of America.

By: YJ Draiman, Northridge, CA

PS

The Supreme Court ruled on the Heller case at the end of its term in June, 2008. The Court, which found for Heller in a close 5-4 decision, wrote that the 2nd Amendment did, in fact, protect an individual right. While the court was careful to note that the case did not call into question any laws that regulate guns, it did state, unequivocally, that Heller and his fellow petitioners had a right to own guns in their home. The Court also ruled that while reasonable regulation may be permitted, the requirement that guns be locked and disassembled was not reasonable.

Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms
Tuesday, June 29, 2010;

MCDONALD v. CHICAGO Syllabus

The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense. Pp. 5–9, 11–19, 19–33.
The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates.
The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an "avalanche" of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.
But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."
The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.

Gun Control - Statistics on Gun Ownership

Gun Control

Statistics on Gun Ownership

40% of all US homes have guns

81% of Americans say that gun control will be an important issue in determining which Congressional candidate to vote for.

91% of Americans say that there should be at least minor restrictions on gun ownership;

57% of Americans say that there should be major restrictions or a ban.

Child-Safety Locks

In 1996, 140 children died after being accidentally shot.

About 1,500 children are hurt by guns every year.

"Trigger Locks" require entering a combination to use the gun (or some other locking method); they are intended to reduce inadvertent use by children or other unauthorized users.

Background Checks

The "Gun-Show Loophole" means that there are no background checks when purchasing guns in a private transaction.

Guns sold at gun shows through dealers ARE subject to background checks; only those sold privately are not.

Right to Bear Arms

The Supreme Court ruled in 1939, in a case called "US v. Miller," that the 2nd amendment only protects guns suitable for a well-regulated militia -- for example, sawed-off shotguns can be banned because they're not "ordinary military equipment".

Since 1939, the Supreme Court has not heard any further 2nd amendment cases; the most recent ruling, in 1997, overturned part of the 1993 Brady Bill, but did not address 2nd amendment rights.

Hence, gun control issues are primarily the subject of Congressional legislation.

Gun Control Buzzwords

The biggest component of the Gun Control debate is whether existing gun laws are sufficient, or whether more gun laws are needed.

Liberals and populists generally favor more gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "more registration" or "more licensing" to describe seeking further restrictions legal ownership; or "close the loopholes" and "restrict access" for further restrictions on illegal ownership.

Moderate liberals and populists will generally favor more restrictions on ownership while paying lip-service "sportsmen's rights" or respecting "the right of self-protection." A moderate compromise is to "extend waiting periods" before allowing ownership, to perform "background checks" of varying degrees of severity.

Conservatives and libertarians generally oppose gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "Second Amendment rights" or "allow concealed carry". A call for "instant background checks" pays lip-service to gun-control advocates: it sounds like a restriction, but means allowing purchasing guns on the spot.

Moderate conservatives and libertarians oppose gun laws while acknowledging that restrictions are inevitable. Look for buzzwords like "enforce existing gun laws," which implies not passing any NEW gun laws. Similarly, "more strict enforcement" of gun laws implies a pro-Gun Rights stance, unless it is accompanied by a call for new gun laws.

Centrists and moderates from both the right and left generally support restrictions on juvenile access to guns, especially in the wake of tragedies like Littleton and other gun-related deaths.

Positive mentions of the NRA (the National Rifle Association, the largest pro-gun rights lobbying group) implies support of gun rights, while opposing the NRA or "taking on the gun lobby" implies support of gun restrictions.

Amendment II to the US Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (1791)

Gun Control Viewpoints

Gun Control Viewpoints

Viewpoints

How I See It

I think two of the basic differences between people who are gun-control advocates and the people who are gun-rights advocates is the way they view reality and the way they perceive our constitutional rights. The people who advocate gun control also advocate intrusive laws, such as requiring child safety locks, storing guns in safes or strong-boxes and some have even advocated the idea of periodic "surprise" searches of gun owner's homes -- in direct violation of the 4th amendment -- to ensure guns are not available to children.

In contrast, most gun owners support not only the 2nd amendment, but they support the 4th amendment's restriction on searches along with all the other guarantees in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. An individual gun owner may not agree with your "free speech" advocating more gun control, but will defend your right to say it.

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
William Jefferson Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993.

Therein lies the first significant difference. Most gun owners, including the majority in the NRA, believe that all of our rights are important, while the gun-control advocates only believe in some of those rights. How else could they support and defend President Clinton's orders for invasive, intrusive "gun sweeps" in federal housing projects and subsidized housing?

The Reality Question:

From my perspective, gun control advocates don't seem to understand how swiftly crime can occur and how little time they have to summon the authorities. I performed an experiment for this article, by dialing another phone and letting it ring 4 times. Even using an auto-dialer, it took 30 seconds to ring four times. Four rings may not be unusual in your community's 911 system - or you may get a recording to stay on the line if things are busy.

Students:Set a timer and sit there doing nothing for 30 seconds to see how long
that really is. Repeat, but this time have another student bang on a desk or door,
shouting loudly for 30 seconds.

Of course, now add from two to eight minutes for what's called a "good" response time and see how long you have to wait for help to arrive. This is illustrative of the problem inherent in relying on others for your protection.

Another difference is that gun control advocates tend to "worry" about someone with a gun suddenly "going off" on a murder spree. This theme is repeated frequently and is a favorite argument. Yet they don't seem nearly as concerned about people going off with automobiles (and drowning their children) or knives (and hopping a rail car to escape) or even the most common weapons - hands and feet.

You may also have noticed a tendency with die-hard gun-control advocates to become emotional when their arguments are countered by logical or legal points. I've even encountered abusive language from them when arguing against their viewpoint. Instead of debating or asking for clarification on a point, we will hear emotional arguments like "Oh fine, you'd let everyone walk around with live bazookas and nuclear weapons!" Or "So you're in favor of just anyone at all buying any kind of gun to shoot up a school yard full of kids!" Such statements are, of course, rhetorical and absurd. No one supporting the 2nd amendment seriously advocates either of these positions. However, when I've used their tactics by saying something similarly absurd, like "So you believe a 98 pound young woman who is raped, beaten and knifed by a 230 pound man wasn't serious about her defense if she got hurt." The normal reply is that a gun wouldn't be any use because "a man that big would just take it away from her" - I guess we really see how "liberals" feel about the competence of women.

I have tried to track down some of the "facts" used by the gun-control proponents, sometimes spending many hours pouring though available government documents. Not too surprisingly, I've found that many of their "facts" cannot be verified. In some cases, government statistical groups are combined in some fashion to create a "statistic", but they never respond to requests for a source or calculation method. The "mythical" sound-bite used by President Clinton of "13 children a day" being killed by firearms is the classic example. In order to obtain that figure, one has to consider persons from 18 to 24 years of age, people old enough to be soldiers, get married or sign contracts, as "children". And since the accepted, dictionary, definition of "children" includes only those who are pre-adolescent, that means we eliminate the 13-17 year olds and arrive at a figure close to 1.7 children per day. While you may feel that your 14 year old is your "child", remember that Mr. Clinton carefully selects and parses his words as a lawyer, so the dictionary definition of child should stick, even if we have to argue what the "definition of is is."

Semiautomatic assault weapons are only slightly less deadly than machine guns. Pulling the trigger on these guns fires a single bullet, but also automatically loads the next bullet into the chamber, so that the user can fire up to 30 bullets in five seconds by repeatedly pulling the trigger.
     --HCI "assault weapon facts" web page.

What trash. Go try it sometime. Try firing a semiautomatic rifle at the rate of over 300 rounds per minute. Keep in mind that the fully automatic M-60 machine gun (used in Vietnam) fires at the rate of 550 rounds per minute. The .50 caliber Browning machine gun fires at 450 - 550 rounds per minute.

I have also noticed that websites of gun-control groups have a tendency to produce some "facts" then add to those facts some "case studies" which give a narrative example, such as a story about someone being killed. Yet these carefully selected stories never mention gang connections or that a significant portion of "youth homicide" victims are gang-members. Nor do these stories ever indicate that the "victim" was killed by an abused spouse. For many years, the National Rifle Association has run a column in their membership magazine called The Armed Citizen which reprints news articles about self-defense with a firearm. Each entry must be from a newspaper with the paper's name and date. The NRA has never had enough room to run all the submissions they receive, yet it generally covers one or more magazine pages.

Constitutional Rights:

Another of my peeves with pro-gun-control people is the way they are willing to completely trash the constitutional rights of others. And I'm not speaking only of the Second Amendment here, either! They are willing to subvert the freedoms in the entire Bill of Rights to achieve their goals. By way of contrast, most gun owners will defend the rights of all Americans to speak out on issues (even gun control), to worship the religion of their choice, to have a fair trial and so forth.

Sarah Brady is the chairman and national spokeswoman for Handgun Control, Incorporated and she too had indicated her disdain for the constitutional rights of gun owners who are otherwise law-abiding.

...I don't believe gun owners have rights."
     -- Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, Incorporated,
        from the Hearst Newspapers Special Report, "Handguns in America" October 1997

If you think about this idea very long it becomes frightening. According to our Constitution everyone has the same rights unless they have been stripped of some through a conviction - also known as "due process". Yet Mrs. Brady claims that equal protection shouldn't apply to a some people. If she can push legislation that denies one group's rights, who will be next to claim that a different group doesn't have rights? Who will be the next target of this discrimination?

The most recent vocalization of this came from Rosie O'Donnell, the comedienne and talk show host. And while many people may dismiss her as another "Hollywood airhead", remember that her stance was apparently so well liked that she was a featured guest leader of the Million Mom March.

"I honestly think - and I am not an expert on the amendments - I think
the only people in this nation who should be allowed to own guns are
police officers. I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think
it's your right. I say 'sorry'. It is 1999, we have had enough as a nation.
You are not allowed to own a gun and if you do own a gun, I think you
should go to prison."
     -- Rosie O'Donnell, April 21, 1999

Through that one statement, Ms. O'Donnell indicates that she favors the government removal of a legal product from the hands of its citizens (without compensation, that violates the 5th amendment) and the summary incarceration of gun owners, thus violating the 6th (trial by jury), 8th (cruel and unusual punishments) and 9th ("other rights") amendments.

But let's suppose, just for the moment, how loud Ms. O'Donnell would be screaming if a famous public figure declared that their opinion was that any homosexual person found alone with a child should be thrown in jail and their property confiscated? Yet, Ms. O'Donnell advocates equally draconian measures against firearm owners with hardly a peep out of the media.

That there are people who think this way is not news to gun owners. Nor should it be news to millions of people of Jewish faith who know first hand what it's like to be a demonized group. Many gun owners are well educated and familiar with the history of how power corrupts the minds of political people. An African-American NRA member once asked me how long I thought it would be before Mrs. Brady's "certain classes" of people excluded African-Americans, or people on welfare or people who home-schooled their children. It was a sobering question.

The Cost-Benefit Question

One argument you'll hear is the damage done by firearms outweighs their usefulness in our supposedly modern society. But is that really true? Let's take a look at this question.

The question itself begs for a cost-to-benefits analysis. A fancy way of saying "is something worth the price?". One the one hand, the anti-gun lobby says the price is too high in both monetary terms and in terms of lives lost or shattered by the use of firearms. They focus on the cost in medical care and lost wages that result when someone is injured by a firearm and the claim is that it runs into the billions of dollars (combined medical and lost wages). This is a steep "cost" hurdle to overcome so the benefits must be pretty high for us to keep them around, right?

Let's talk about a world without firearms. No guns at all, not even for the police. Will this be the utopia that the anti-gun lobby implies waits for us? Not hardly.

A study by Professor Gary Kleck at the University of Florida indicates that civilians alone use firearms somewhere around 1.5 million to 2 million times each year to thwart a crime or to protect themselves. Further, his study indicated that very few of these incidents resulted in death and only a slightly higher number resulted in injury. It seems that most criminals either flee or submit when confronted by a citizen with a firearm rather than risk being shot. What's this mean? This means that without firearms it is likely that a majority of these crimes could be successful! And what is the cost to society for this? I don't have a quantitative answer but condider that in each case a citizen was present which means he or she would be confronting one or more felons while unarmed. What? That's okay because the bad guys would be unarmed too? But would they? It's already against the law for drug dealers to carry guns, but they do. Why wouldn't many of these same criminals be armed with a knife or some other weapon? This would seem to shift the burden of death and injury from the criminal element to the citizens trying to defend themselves or their property. This is not a good trade in my opinion.

We can also draw some parallels from the U.K. here too. In the mid 1990's the British severely restricted firearms after a shooting in Dublane. Handguns were turned in after being banned. Rifles and shotguns, those that are still allowed, must be stored in an "inoperable" condition. The theory was that this way, no one could use the firearm in a moment of rage or anger. Their already tough licensing program was tightened even further, reducing the number of firearms in civilian hands. And what has been the result?

In Britian, the rate of "hot burglaries" (what we call home-invasion robberies here in the U.S.) took an alarming jump. It seems that the criminals figured out that with guns locked up and many people having alarms on their homes the best way was to wait until their victims were home, the alarms were off and then force their way in to terrorize the victims in their own homes. And many of these incidents involve several criminals ganging up on the victim. This does not happen in the U.S. because, as one incarcerated burglar said, stating the obvious, "that's a good way to get shot". We actually saw a wave of this kind of crime here in the U.S. when large numbers of Vietnamese immigrants arrived. People who did not know they could keep guns (after being naturalized) and often kept money and valuables at home. We see that guns form a very real deterrent to crime mainly because the criminals don't know who has a gun in their house or not. A good benefit because otherwise we'd have to add a rise in home-invasion robberies to our lives.

In 1985, the National Institute for Justice reported that:

60% of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."

57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."

Remember a few years ago, around 1995-1997 we were seeing a spate of car-jackings around the country? This crime would quite likley resurrect itself as it would be well known that motorists were defenseless. And these crimes don't always involve just the theft of the car. People have been kidnapped, raped, beaten and robbed as the result of car-jackings. Some states, notably the state of Louisiana, passed laws authorizing the use of deadly force to stop one of these crimes. As news reports started coming out about car-jackers being shot in different states the popularity of the crime declined significantly.

Summary

The point here is that by abolishing legally owned firearms we would see an increase in crimes, not a decrease. On the order of one or two million additional crimes per year. Certainly there were be fewer deaths by firearms, but this might be outweighed by deaths from beatings, stabbings or other violence. But we'd also have to weigh the cost of people terrorized in their own homes, afraid to answer a knock at the door.

Criminals would quickly figure out that most average (unarmed) citizens can be overwhelmed by even a small group of criminals. Firearms crimes might drop, but we'd see a rise in other crimes, such as assaults and rapes because a group of criminals may be emboldened by their numbers.

Likewise, we'd see "new" crimes being committed. Car-jackings, home-invasions, gang robberies on busses or subways and so on, because the criminals would be secure in knowing that few citizens would be able to stop them.

Cost of abolishing firearms

Between 1 million and 2 million more crimes annually.

Increase in crimes committed by multiple assailants.

"New" types of crimes, such as home-invasion robberies or car-jackings

A shift in injuries and fatalities from the criminals to the citizen.

A rise in "intimidation" crimes where criminals intimidate people to give up their valuables to avoid injury implied by the criminal's demeanor.

And, we have to weigh the costs like the anti-gun lobby wants us to do. What is the loss to society of Joe Dopehead, shot while beating up a woman for the ten dollars in her purse? But in the gun-free society, what is the loss to society because Mrs. Citizen dies as a result of the beating inflicted by Joe Dopehead? Ask yourself which is more likely to have contributed to the good side of our society.

Here are some differences in the opposing viewpoints on other topics and tidbits. I'll let you decide if one side is right or wrong. Hysterical or logical. Paranoid or pragmatic. If you have comments, click the link at the bottom of the page to e-mail me.

Pro Gun Viewpoint

The Amendment does not grant the right, it only limits the government's ability to remove or reduce the right. The right would still exist as part of what are called the natural rights of free men.

Criminals are the source of crime, no matter how they are armed.

Address all crime and not just crime with guns. To date, no gun law has been proven to reduce crime or homicides, not even the Brady Law. 1

Tens of thousands of guns are used only for competitive target shooting, informal target shooting, skill competitions and historical reenactments.

You're safer if you do have guns in your home and are properly trained to handle them safely.

On average, police have visited a home five (5) times before a domestic violence homicide takes place. Further, the majority of these homicides involve the use of alcohol or drugs at the time of the homicide, regardless of the weapon used.

There are estimated to be between 80 and 100 million legal gun owners who have no desire to kill anyone. And by using this logic, journalists are insurrectionists who haven't yet called for overthrowing the government.

Carrying a gun is an enormous responsibility and never taken lightly. Carrying a gun means going out of your way to avoid a confrontation if possible. The statistics from Florida and Texas show lawful gun carrying citizens are much more law-abiding than "average" people.

If you are attacked by a criminal, resisting with a gun is statistically the safest thing to do.2

Calling 911 means the police are still at least several minutes away and the knife wielding thug isn't going to wait that long. Plus the police have no obligation to provide timely protection.

Inexpensive guns offer the poor a method of protection, are useful for backpacking or fishermen. The "Saturday night special" term is racist and demeaning to African-Americans.

A criminal's weapon of choice is whatever kind of gun he can buy. Statistics show that "assault weapons" are used in less than 2% of any gun related crime.

Most hunting rifles have more power and better range than an "assault rifle". But the latter are better for home defense and combating multiple attackers common in urban crime.

The AR-15/M16 is becoming preeminent in the Camp Perry national target matches and the US government deems them suitable for issue to combat troops.

Drug dealers can afford to "throw away" a $90,000 airplane smuggling $10 million in drugs, a $1,000 tax isn't much of a deterrent, except to hard working law-abiding civilians.

Get a clue! Most common hunting rifles are accurate out to 300 or more yards.

The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, isn't about the National Guard that was created by Congress 130 years later in 1917.

The military has tens of thousands of handguns which are issued to officers and aircraft crews.

So-called "assault rifles" DO have a militia purpose which has been used as a test to try to eliminate handguns. Let's get this straight...If it has no militia purpose, citizens shouldn't have one, but if it does have a militia/military purpose, it doesn't have a sporting use? Which version wins?

Crime was lower when guns were easier to buy before 1968, when you could buy a gun with no paperwork and walk out with it. No Form 4473, No Brady Form, No background check, No waiting periods. Before 1968 guns were available through mail order catalogs too.

Such laws haven't historically prevented crime, but have prevented people from buying guns when needed for protection - such as women being stalked and during the L.A. "Rodney King" riots.

Such laws prevent a person from buying both a handgun and a shotgun for self-defense if needed on short notice.

Many people shoot dozens of rifle rounds or hundreds of handgun rounds in a session in order to become proficient. Rifle ammos is packed 20 per box. Shotguns are 25 per box and pistol is 50 per box. Couldn't ammo makers "skirt" such a law by just making the boxes bigger?

This is so silly I love it. Limit the ammo people can have to practice and then proclaim they're criminally negligent for missing their target. This is would put the government into the position of creating the problem in the first place.

The low price .50's start around $1200 up to $6000 or more. They are also very heavy and awkward (starting around 16 lbs and about 3 feet long), making them unsuitable for criminals. But they are suitable for bench-rest shooting competitions where they are most frequently used.

Anything can be wrongfully used. Guns, cars, hammers, ice-picks, computers, etc. Only the person using the tool or device is responsible for how it's used. This is attempting to blame a typewriter for libel or the spoon for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.

Gun makers sell to distributors who sell to retailers who order them for their stores. Guns are sold where there is demand for them. Every time a new law threatens to restrict or prohibit a gun, demand for the type goes up.

Why is it that there are almost no fatalities at shooting ranges and gun shows?

People intent on suicide will switch to bridges, tall buildings or other methods, as in Canada.

Advertisements play on people's fears to sell products such as security alarms, safes, mace/pepper sprays, auto-security systems, even soap, shampoo, mouthwash and feminine protection products. What's your point?

Police operate in groups, with backup, radios and helicopters armed with infrared/night-vision systems, while civilians face their attackers alone, without backup and often in the dark. 3

In recent years, police officers have been known to murder spouses, families, suspects and others. D.C. police shoot too much, LAPD officers frame suspects, a Philadelphia cop sold police-seized guns for profit, three Chicago officers robbed drug dealers. Why are they more trustworthy? 4

Is that why Washington D.C.'s murder rate is 69 per 100,000 -- due to gun bans and Indianapolis' rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to a lack of gun control?

If the people can't be trusted, why do you trust them to obey such a law?

What happens if a non-gun-owner yells or threatens someone? What are they deprived of? This sounds spiteful and prone to abuse.

Handguns have about 4 controls. Average automobiles have about 20 controls.

While many arguments and articles are written by pro-gun supporters, a growing number of neutral scholars are writing more pro-gun legal articles. In fact, I have never heard of a constitutional researcher switching their viewpoint from individual rights to embrace "collective rights" based on historical evidence. But several researchers have switched to the pro-gun viewpoint.

Unfortunately the judicial history of the 2nd amendment is pretty thin. But this is where our 1st amendment rights were in 1904 until Justices Brandeis and Holmes began accepting arguments about free speech. Prior to then, people could be arrested for what, today, is considered protected speech.

Anti Gun Viewpoint

We need to repeal the 2nd Amendment and get rid of all the guns.

Guns are the source of crime and need to be banned.

Passing restrictive laws against guns will reduce gun crime.

A gun's only purpose is to kill

You're safer if you don't have guns in your home.

If you have a gun at home you'll use it against a family member in a moment of anger or rage.

People who own guns are just murderers who haven't killed yet.

Citizens carrying guns in public will kill each other over minor things like a traffic accident.

If someone wants to rob you, no resistance is the safest course.

In an emergency, dial 911 for help and protection.

Inexpensive guns are poorly made "Saturday night specials", malfunction often, are too inaccurate and the weapon of choice for criminals.

Expensive, $1,200 - $1,500 "assault weapons" are the weapon of choice for criminals.

Assault weapons are too powerful for civilians to own.

Assault rifles are too inaccurate and low powered for militia purposes.

By putting a big tax on guns we prevent criminals from getting them.

Very accurate rifles that can shoot over 200 yards are "sniper rifles".

The 2nd Amendment allows states to have a National Guard

Handguns aren't protected because they don't have a militia purpose.

We can't let people own military assault rifles because you don't need an assault rifle to hunt deer.

The "easy availability" of guns today is the cause of so much crime.

Gun purchases should have a 3, 5, 10 or 15 day waiting (or "cooling off") period.

Gun sales should be limited to one per month.

Gun owners should be limited to only one box of ammunition at a time.

Anyone who owns a gun and uses it but hits an innocent person is negligent and a criminal.

The 50 caliber rifles are excessively powerful "sniper" rifles unsuitable for hunting or sport shooting.

Gun makers should know that their products might be used in a crime and should be liable if they are used to hurt someone.

Gun makers flood the areas surrounding places where guns are banned, creating a market for criminals.

Having too many guns around means someone will get killed.

If we eliminate guns the suicide rate will go down.

Gun makers market their guns to women by playing on their fears.

Only the police need high capacity "clips" for their guns. There's no reason a civilian needs to shoot that many bullets.

Only the police and military should have guns.

We know banning guns works and reduces crime.

People can't be trusted with guns which is why we need a gun ban.

If my gun owning neighbor ever yells at me or threatens me we need a law that allows the police to take his guns away until a psychologist says he's not a danger.

Handguns have too many controls for civilians to learn how to use them properly.

All or most of the "pro-gun" arguments are NRA propaganda or misinformation from the gun-lobby.

All the court decisions to date "favor" the view of gun control advocates.

Footnotes:
1As I was writing this article the Washington Post reported a new study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that the 1994 Brady law has had no effect on firearm homicide and suicide rates.

2National Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1996.

3Indeed it would seem that the police, with their tactics and ability to coordinate groups of officers would have less of a need for high capacity magazines than the civilian who is "on her own" and incommunicado most of the time.

4See this site's page Only The Police And Military Should Have Guns for reasons why the police are not especially trustworthy.
  There you have it. Now you can see some of the opposing viewpoints and how both sides attempt to debate the issue (or claim they debate it). 

Footnotes:

1As I was writing this article the Washington Post reported a new study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that the 1994 Brady law has had no effect on firearm homicide and suicide rates.2National Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1996.3Indeed it would seem that the police, with their tactics and ability to coordinate groups of officers would have less of a need for high capacity magazines than the civilian who is "on her own" and incommunicado most of the time.4See this site's page Only The Police And Military Should Have Guns for reasons why the police are not especially trustworthy.

  There you have it. Now you can see some of the opposing viewpoints and how both sides attempt to debate the issue (or claim they debate it).

Gun Control Is A Failure

---

This editorial statement is in response to this New York Times editorial entitled "Gun Crazy", published March 1, 2008. The NYT editorial missed the point so badly, I finally had to challenge their core belief in gun control as a public policy. I don't expect this will be published by the NYT, but I provide it here for your review.

---

As a public policy, so-called gun control is a failure.

The landmark legislation for gun control was the 1968 Gun Control Act which politicians hailed as "sensible" gun control. We were told that it would reduce crimes with firearms and give police the tools they needed to track down criminals. Yet, every year we see increasingly complex restrictions on firearms while crimes with guns continues unabated. Each of these new laws is touted, just like in 1968, as providing police "the tools they need" or they are proclaimed "common sense" measures. In several areas of the country it is nearly impossible to legally obtain a handgun, yet there is no shortage of them available to street gangs and common criminals.

If gun control as a public policy worked at all, we would have lower rates of crimes with guns than in 1968. But, we do not. I think forty years is enough time to prove the theory of "gun control" just doesn't work. As a public policy, it is a failure.

None of these restrictive laws, which now number over 20,000 laws nationwide, have shown, either individually or collectively, any significant impact on crimes committed against people or even crimes committed with guns in general.
A government report showed that the so-called "Brady Bill," touted as a "significant step" in reducing gun crimes, had no measurable effect on crime. We have also seen how the so-called "gun free zones" have turned school campuses into defenseless-victim killing zones.

"Yes, but..." begins the Gun-Control lobby when they go on the defensive. They will tell you that existing laws didn't go far enough or that the laws were compromised in legislative sessions. They'll tell you that if only they could enact comprehensive control - either an outright ban or a court's permission to have a gun - the numbers would show they are right.

Great Britain has, since 1997, had a ban on almost all firearms, especially handguns. Yet, as the 20th Century closed, the UK quietly began arming it's famous "Bobbies" with guns for the first time in over 100 years. One story in the British media described the "gun problem" by saying that in the last ten years there have been more reported gun crimes than in the thirty years before the ban. Our own Washington D.C. banned handguns and operational long guns in the home back in 1976. Since that time, the Capitol's murder rate has been the highest, or one of the highest, in the country. So much for a utopian gun control example.

Only one set of laws shows any appreciable statistical impact on personal crimes. Not too surprisingly, these laws are not restrictive, but liberally permissive in the classical sense. These laws allow citizens with clean records to legally carry concealed firearms after taking the state mandated training. While restrictive "gun control" laws do little or nothing to impact crimes against people, these "shall-issue" concealed carry laws can be shown reduce such crimes.

Why? Because criminals are no longer certain their victims are defenseless. A victim who fights back is fighting for their life, which the criminal threatens in robbery, rape and other crimes. And, they fight to win. With these laws it the criminal who is at a disadvantage, not the citizenry. A 1985 study by the National Institute for Justice shows criminals fear the armed citizen more than they fear the police.

So, what should we be asking our legislators to do? We should be tell them to focus on controlling criminal behavior instead of trying to control access to inanimate objects.

We should also make it clear that criminals can not profit from their illegal actions should they be injured during a crime. If they step "outside the law" by instigating the crime, they waive their rights to civil suits against their victims. To further discourage repeat offenders we should mandate maximum sentencing with no parole after a third conviction to keep the serious criminals off the street.

The Gun-Control Lobby continues to push against a door marked "pull", never quite realizing that even after 40 years, pushing just isn't going to open the door. At least, not until they realize they have been pushing in the wrong direction.
 

---

Return to Taking On Gun Control

Gun Control - Require Licenses or Not?

Start talking about gun control and someone invariably says, "Well, we license cars, boats and planes, and we require people to get licenses for those. Why not for guns too?"

Well, why not?
Simple. Because it's illegal to do so. Unless or until the United States Supreme Court decides that individuals do not have the Constitutional right to own or possess guns, then any law requiring licenses will likely be ruled unconstitutional.

The Bill Of Rights

The Bill Of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, are considered to be a collection of rights guaranteed to the people on which the government cannot intrude. The court has ruled that it sees the words the people in the bill of rights referring to all of the people of the United States and that it is the same "people" referred to in the First (free speech, worship, press) as in the Fourth (searches, warrants) and Fifth (speedy trial, self-incrimination) as in the Second (right to arms).

Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that the government may not require a license to exercise a right. For example, the government may not require people to have a license to practice free speech, or to attend a church. Likewise the government may not require record keeping of those who practice a right or those who participate. Like the post-civil war era poll tax levied on blacks to prevent them from voting, the government may not require the people to pay any fees or taxes to exercise a right. This does not mean that any right is free from regulation or fees however. But the basic right must be unfettered. Claiming the government can't make you pay for a FCC license for a radio or TV station won't work, simply because the Court will remind you that you can retreat to a soap box or print up leaflets (or Web Pages!) and still exercise your right to free speech.

Comparing Cars to Guns

You do not have a right to own a car, or to drive one. There is no constitutional guarantee for you to own or possess an automobile, truck, car, motorcycle, bicycle or even a skateboard. If any of these products were deemed to be illegal you would have no constitutional challenge under the Bill of Rights (except, perhaps, that of due-process before you must give up your vehicle).

With that out of the way, let's do a little comparison. First, let's think about registering guns like cars and licensing gun owners like car drivers. In the first place we'll have to purge a lot of useless laws off the books regarding firearms. Consider:

• There is no waiting period to purchase an automobile.
• Anyone can purchase an automobile as long as they can sign a legal contract to pay for it.
• You are not required to lock up your car and keep it away from children.
• People convicted of felonies or domestic violence can own an automobile.
• Anyone paying cash can purchase an automobile, even if they're under 18.
• You do not have to have a driver's license to buy an automobile.
• The government does not have the power to inspect how you garage your car.
• There is no limit how many cars you can own, or how many you can buy per month.
• The government can't limit the features of your car, such as top speed, fuel capacity, horsepower, etc.
• The government does not limit how many gallons of gas you can buy per month.
• The only penalty for not registering your automobile yearly isn't a felony.
• The government, except for a few states, cannot seize your automobile if you fail to register it.
• You only need to register an automobile if you plan to use it on the street.
• To obtain a driver's license you fill out a written test, provide a birth certificate (and/or INS papers), take an eye exam and a short driver's test to show you can operate the vehicle.
• The fee for a license ranges from about $5 to $20.
• Licenses are good for several years, some states renew automatically; others are lifetime licenses.
• Licenses are only revoked after a court trial for misuse or violating the laws.

Are you still enthusiastic about it? You can see how many so called "gun-control" laws would be abolished by such a scheme. But we have not considered the opposite side of this question. Since you don't have a right to an automobile, the government can impose many laws on their ownership, purchase and use that cannot be applied to guns. But let's stick with guns for the moment and see what you'd have to go through.

Registering and Licensing Cars like Guns

• Convicted felons could not own or drive a car.
• You'd pay for a car, register it and then wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up your car.
• Purchasing a used car from a neighbor requires the same waiting period and you would have to transact the sale through a licensed car dealer.
• You could buy a car, register it but you'd need a special permit to take in on the streets.
• To get the above "street permit" you have to show good cause and be of good moral character.
• Persons convicted of "domestic violence" could not own or drive a car, even if that occurred 30 years ago.
• Cars have to be stored where no child could access it and hurt themselves playing with it.
• In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) you would first need a permit to buy from the police department which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain.
• If you own more than a certain number of cars, the government could enter your home at any time to ensure you stored your cars properly. This is actually a proposed law by Handgun Control, Inc. that would require anyone owning more than 4 guns to have an "arsenal" license and permit warrantless searches.
• If a minor child stole your car and hurt himself or others with it, you'd be guilty of a felony.
• In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) you would have to store your car partially disassembled.
• Failure to register your car would be a federal felony (prevents you from owning another one).
• People under psychiatric care or mentally incompetent could not own or drive a car.
• Some models of automobiles might be banned after you buy them and you'd have to turn them over to the government without compensation.
• "Assault vehicles" look evil and must be specially registered at extra cost. Hummers, 4x4 trucks, Suburbans, Dodge Vipers, Nissan NSX's, and Corvettes are likely targets.
• Cars under a certain size or having certain features could not be imported.
• You could not modify your car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering.
• The government would allow some states or cities to not issue licenses at all, for any reason.
• Cars could not be operated on city streets with gasoline in the tank. (Kinda defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it?)
• In some states (e.g. Virginia, California) you could only buy one car per month.
• There would be no traffic "infractions", all violations would be misdemeanors or felonies.
• It would be illegal to directly buy a car from an out of state dealer or seller.
• Car dealers would have to allow government agents to review their records without a warrant and without notice.
• Car dealers who sell a car to someone prohibited would be charged with a federal felony.
• Car dealers would be subject to being shut down by the government for failure to keep proper records and charged with a felony.
• The inventory of car dealers could be seized and destroyed before a conviction was obtained.

This all sounds pretty silly, doesn't it? Most of these are gun-laws, applied to autos or drivers.

To destroy a right, you first have to control it!

The first step in destroying a right is to control that right and make its use subject to government regulation and/or taxation. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan claimed that the government could tax guns and/or ammunition out of existence. Though I have a feeling that the Supreme Court would rule that plan an infringement on the exercise of that right, just as the poll tax infringed on the voting rights of the post civil war blacks. Imagine the outraged cry from the media if Moynihan proposed that people had to pay a $1500 tax each time they hired a lawyer - in essence, making you pay the government a royalty-fee for exercising your right to a lawyer for a criminal trial.

A license is permission from an authority to do something unusual or otherwise restricted by law. A right is something you have, like breathing, that the government does not give you. According to historical reviews, religious texts and our founding fathers, the right to resist a tyrannical government exists in all free men, as well the right to arms for the purposes of survival, defense of self and of the state. Don't be fooled by the way gun-control people twist the meaning of things however. The Constitution does not grant a right to keep and bear arms because that right pre-dates the Constitution and all other laws of men! The Second Amendment limits the power of the government to restrict or infringe on the right of its people to keep and bear arms!!

Once the government can require a license for you to practice a "right", then that right can also be denied to you by regulations, created by non-elected bureaucrats, to restrict your rights until it is impossible to obtain a license. Another way is to make the licensing procedure and paperwork so onerous that no one would want to obtain a license.

Could We License Other Rights?

Imagine for a moment the hue and cry from the media if the government proposed that all journalists be licensed! Or that a journalist could only write one article per month. Or that a journalist who was an ex-felon had to find another line of work? Why not? We prohibit felons from holding office, don't we? Could the government require that anyone publishing any material reaching over 20 people to get a business license as a "publisher"? That would subject them to other bureaucratic laws and regulations.

What if the government required all clergy members to register their parishioners when they attended church? What if the government required you to get a permit to publish a web page? How about the government requiring publishers to turn over all subscription lists? Or having to register your purchase of a newspaper or magazine?

Do I hear you saying you have a right to those things?

"...we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical
Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual
freedom to Americans ...... And so a lot of people say
there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's
being abused, you have to move to limit it.
   -- U.S. President Bill Clinton, on MTV 3-22-94

Taking On Gun Control

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson

---

A Well-Organized and Armed Militia

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803.
"It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.
"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

---

Every Citizen a Member of the Militia

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.

---

On Civil Rights

The Right to Bear Arms

In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right was protected by the 2nd Amendment.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

Second Amendment References

Thomas Jefferson On The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

Semantic Analysis of the 2nd Amendment

The Embarrassing 2nd Amendment

States also Guarantee Gun Ownership

United States Senate Second Amendment Report

Quotes on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Links, Comments and Feedback

Links to other sources

Other Right To Keep And Bear Arms websites