 My Personal
Firearms Philosophy |
| My Personal
Firearms Philosophy |
I am putting my thoughts on firearms on this page and I want to discuss what I think is right about firearms regulations as they stand today and what I feel is wrong with them.
To start off, I feel that we have more freedoms in this country than anywhere else in the world. The freedom to own and bear firearms is a big part of that. In a truly free society there would be no reason for carrying a gun except for the hunting and sporting purposes that many guns are designed for. Unfortunately, we do not live in those times. We have serious problems in this country with violent crime. We have people who fear their government and we have people who just simply hate other people.
Our crime rate, particularly crimes of violence, is much higher than it was back in the good, old days. Yes, there has been a recent downturn in those rates. We are at the point where the rates are down to levels not seen since the early 1960s. Some of that can be attributed somewhat to more states passing concealed weapons laws. Still, despite that downturn no longer can people in many places in this country leave their doors unlocked. Many of our streets are unsafe, some times and some places, even during daylight hours. This is particularly true in the ghetto urban areas.
Violent crime is also changing its face. In the early days of the gangsters, like the Mafia or La Costa Nostra, collateral damage of civilians or police was usually avoided. There were exceptions, of course, but, in general, that rule was followed by the gangs of that era. The new gangs of today, like the Jamaican or Russian gangs, are much more violent and ruthless and less discriminating over who is a target and who is not in their turf wars. Drive-bys and muggings have become more commonplace. Violent crime today even includes 'wildings' where a group of goblins will specifically look for individuals to rob or harass. Home invasion robberies where intruders force their way into a home are becoming more common. Once inside, they rob, and perhaps, rape and kill the occupants.
But then, don't we have the police to protect us? After all, aren't the words "Protect and Serve" are written on the sides of many city's police cars? Most people do not realize that the Supreme Court has declared the purpose of law enforcement is to protect society as a whole, not act as bodyguards for specific individuals within that society. What does this mean to you? It means that your personal protection and the safety or well being of your loved ones falls entirely upon you, no one else. Some people solve this problem by building a defensive shell around themselves and do not venture out into the night. For many others this is not a possible solution. They may live in a high crime area and not be able to afford a way out. Others may have to go into high crime areas as part of their job or they may simply refuse to let the street scum control their enjoyment of life. Unfortunately we have become a society where we can call 911 for an ambulance or a cop or call Domino's for a pizza and you know who will arrive first. I hear a lot about reliance on 911. Let me be blunt. In some the surrounding area where I live, 911 response is measured in days. They come to outline the body with chalk. a recent example includes a woman who went from door to door in her neighborhood screaming for help. Some folks called 911. By the time the police got there, she was gone, having been stuffed in the back of a van by three young men. She was found out in the desert the next morning stabbed and burned alive. 911 didn't seem to be much of a help to her.
We have also our government, particularly the alphabet soup groups, that is not trusted by a growing number of its citizens. Some of the latest polls show that over 80% of the people polled do not have complete trust in their elected representatives to govern correctly. Too many laws are being passed that erode the Bill of Rights, particularly those passed to fight the Drug War. Laws such as asset seizure based on tips and innuendo where you must prove in court that your property is innocent. The Bill of Rights does not apply to property which is why you will see cases like US v 1234 Main Street or US v 24 cases of wine. No-knock entries without proper warrants are becoming more common. As are screw ups which cause storming the wrong house due to a mistakes on the addresse. There is really no recourse for damage repair due to searches for drugs that turn up nothing. We have legislators who seem to feel that the state and federal supreme courts are unnecessary since when if the majority of the people seem want this type of legislation passed how could it be unconstitutional? Read Patriot Act, Total Information Awareness (TIA), Carnivore and, in many different guises, Patriot Act II. Even Clinton took the stance that people will have to give up freedoms in exchange for security. Not for me.
We have people in this country who simply hate other groups of people who may be different from them for one reason or another. It may be religious, it may be color or ethnicity or it may be moral beliefs like pro choice or pro life. We have churches being burned for no apparent reason other than the color of the attendees. We have abortion clinics being bombed and doctors being shot in the name of saving the children. This to me is like screwing for virginity. We have hate signs being spray painted on homes or freeway underpasses keeping company with the gang signs delineating turf.
The bottom line is that for whatever reason, many more people are now arming themselves as a result of this environment. This, in itself, brings problems along with it. As more and more people become involved with firearms one would think that the number of deaths by firearm would increase in this country. Fortunately, that has not happened. We have seen a drop in violent crime to levels not seen since the 60s while the number of firearms has continued to rise. It is an interesting dichotemy. We need to do all that we can to keep that happening and the answer to that is education. Education about firearms safety, about the responsibility of owning firearms and about the following part of the Constitution:
I personally feel that the Second Amendment should apply to all levels of government however, the Supreme Courts disagreed with me and stated that the protections of the Bill of Rights only applied to the *Federal* government. See Barron v. Baltimore - 1803 and US v Cruikshank - 1876. The Cruikshank ruling virtually gutted the Fourteenth Amendment. Since then, the Supreme Court has developed an "Incorporation doctrine" that "incorporates" or applies certain portions of the Bill of Rights on a case by case basis. So far that the USSC has ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment passed the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment protections on down to state and local governments. It has not done that in regards to the Second Amendment so they are not prevented from passing firearms restrictions laws. (See Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove - 1981) You need to check your own state constitutions and statutes to see how that affects you and your ability to use a firearm in self defense. Here are the links to the Arizona Constitution and to theArizona Revised Statutes searchable index.
I personally feel that the Second Amendment applies only to *personal* firearms or small arms. IMHO, these would be the firearms (and their modern equivalents) that were "in common use at the time" (US v Miller - 1939) by the general population. This would include all weapons from those days through present times that were intended to be carried by one individual as a personal weapon and for which there was a counterpart back in the days of yore. These firearms would include rifles, shotguns and sidearms (and, thusly, their modern counterparts) as these were carried by the majority of the people back then. This means that, IMHO, the so-called "assault weapons" would be perfectly legal as would be full automatic weapons such as 'select-fire' or full automatic rifles, shotguns, machine guns and sub machine guns. It would also include short barrelled shotguns and rifles. You only need to pay a tax per the NFA (National Firearms Act - 1934) pass a background check, be signed off by local law enforcement in some areas and possess a license. (I will cover "assault weapons" later). I do not believe that the Second Amendment gives me carte-blanche to all weapons possessed by the military. I do not have the right to an F-16, land mines, missiles or nuclear weapons. I do have the right, however, for whatever personal gear or weaponry that is used by the current military. That would include night vision goggles or binoculars, MREs, fatigues, camp gear, etc..
Who do I feel should be able to carry a firearm?
I believe that the carry of firearms is a right of virtually all citizens in this country or those who have indicated an intention to become a citizen. I believe, in general, that carry should be based on the Vermont style. In Vermont, the firearms restrictions state that carrying of a firearm with intent to commit a crime is a crime, in and of itself. Any other purpose is "No Harm, No Foul".
In my opinion, there should be no differentiation on whether that carry is open or concealed. That is how it should be until an individual abuses that right. The onus should be placed upon the bad guys, not the good ones. However, I also believe that there *some* exceptions to who can carry.
I do not believe that anyone under the age of 18 (21 for a handgun open or concealed) should have the right to carry a firearm unless they are under the supervision of a responsible adult *and* are engaged in a hunting or shooting sport or are en route to or from the location where that activity will take place. If they are en route, all weapons in the possession of the minor shall be unloaded.
I do not believe that anyone convicted or currently under indictment for a *violent* felony should be able to carry a firearm until that right has been restored by a court of law. I have no problem with *non violent* felons having a right to carry.
Nor do I believe that a weapon should be carried by anyone who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent or insane. This is one area where we currently have a big problem. Due to privacy issues, some states will not allow those records to become part of a background check. Weston (the man who shot up the Capitol Building) is an example. He was able to obtain a firearm possession ID card from the state of Illinois by lying on his background and the state of Montana not releasing his adjudication on mental illness. It is going to be a very thin line between privacy and background checks for licenses.
How and where should I be able to carry?
I feel that open carry should be the law of the land and *if* a permit is required for concealed carry it shall be via a 'shall-issue' permit. A 'shall-issue' permit means that there would be an instant background check (see my essay on background check) and if no reason turns up (see above) then the permit shall be issued. Again, I feel that there are some exceptions.
I do not believe that guns and alcohol mix. Therefore, I, personally, do not carry in any place that serves alcohol for consumption as their primary revenue source. That includes bars, sport bars and taverns, etc. but does not, IMHO, include restaurants where food is the main course and the alcohol is secondary. For example, I think that someone having to leave their gun at home or in the car to go in and have dinner in a nice restaurant, go into a pizza parlor to pick up a pizza or go into a liquor store to purchase a bottle of booze for home consumption is ridiculous.
Personally, I do not have a problem with someone carrying for a legal purpose while temporarily in a post office or in any other public building except within a courthouse, employment service area, polling place or any private place of business where a "No Firearm" restriction is posted. I have no problem with the employees carrying a firearm while they are working in any of those places.
I feel that whenever there is a restriction to the carrying of weapons in a public building, a convenient place needs to be provided where those weapons can be checked and secured while the individual is there. This should only apply to a government entity not a private business as the government location is the only one in town to conduct those type of affairs. In the private arena, one can always find another place to shop or conduct business. This is a lot more preferable than leaving the gun at home where it provides no protection for the individual while en route or having to leave it in the car where it may become the object of theft. As noted, a person has some relief in this area for a private business as the gun owner does have the option of shopping elsewhere. He does not have that option with government services.
I do not believe in students having guns on school grounds during school hours or during any school activity (such as intramural sports, varsity games, etc) except as part of a scheduled and monitored school activity. That could be a school firearms safety class, a gun club, shooting club or an intramural or varsity sport. Those guns are to be unloaded until the class or activity requires it to be loaded and then loaded only under supervision.
I believe that there exceptions to every rule (except the one about death; when you die, you are dead) and the my rules concerning guns on school grounds also have exceptions. I addressed the ones for the students above. Let me now turn to the parents, teachers and administrators.
If a parent is a normal carrier of a firearm (for example, possess a CCW or in states where open carry is allowed)and they are coming on to the school grounds to pick up their child, I see no reason for that person to have to leave their gun at home. They should be permitted to arrive on the school's parking lot on a temporary basis without any fuss being raised about them being armed.
Teachers and administration folks who carry should have the ability to unload their weapon after arriving on the school grounds, placing the ammunition or magazine in the glove compartment, their purse or briefcase and leaving the unloaded weapon out of sight in their locked vehicle or keeping it in their briefcase as long as there is a place inside the school to secure that case. Upon leaving the campus at the end of day, they can reload or insert the magazine prior to leaving the parking lot for their trip home. If they have Concealed Carry Permits, then they may also carry while at work on the school grounds as long as the firearm remains concealed.
BTW, I do believe that basic firearm safety, such as the the NRA's Eddie Eagle program, should be required in all schools. We do need to do something about the accidental shooting of children by other children. We lost 185 kids that way in 1996. Education is the single greatest and most inexpensive way to prevent reoccurances of those accidents.
I also believe that shooting sports should make a comeback on school campuses and that hunter or firearms safety should be an elective for older students much like drivers education is in most schools.
My take on the Assault Weapons Ban
First let's get one thing out of the way. For the purposes of this essay, I will define assault weapons the same way that they were defined by the media. It is, however, a definition that is very much in error. A true assault rifle is either fully automatic or has the ability to be selectively fired in full automatic mode. (Full automatic mode means that with *one* pull of the trigger, the weapon will continue to fire until either the trigger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted.)
The assault weapons as [mis]identified by the media (and Chuckie Schumer) are semi automatic only contrary to the media soundbytes of AK47s in Iraq. This means that for one pull of the trigger, one shot is fired, period. The trigger must be released and re-pulled in order to fire a second shot. Although a semi automatic weapon may be rapidly fired, it does not approach anywhere near the firepower of a full automatic weapon *or* the Hollywood/media version of an assault weapon. In fact, it fires no faster than a double action revolver.
All full automatic weapons in this country must be registered and the owner must pay a tax and possess a Class III firearms license. (BTW, only one registered full automatic weapon has been used in a crime since the 1934 National Firearms Act.) The problem arises when someone or some group attempts to illegally convert a semi automatic 'assault weapon' to a fully automatic assault weapon. License to do so legally comes from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Without that license, the conversion is, and should be, a crime.
Now on to my feelings about (media) assault weapons.
For the most part, these weapons were medium powered, short barrelled carbines and shotguns for which there are hunting or sporting counterparts in the same power of cartridge. The main 'problem' with these weapons was that they were black, ugly and scary looking to the average person who is not familiar with guns. The assault weapons ban was, and always was, a purely political maneuver that appeals to people who, because of that unfamiliarity with firearms, receive a warm-fuzzy that they are really doing something about crime. The truth, however, per Clinton's own Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics, is that very few crimes have ever involved an assault weapon. Try less than 0.7%.
Certain items turned a sporting weapon into an assault weapon as the ban applies to it. For example, flash suppressors, high capacity magazines, bayonet shrouds, folding stocks, etc. all served to make a normal weapon be viewed as an (media) assault weapon versus a sporting version of the exact same rifle. In other words, the entire Assault Weapons Ban is a restriction based on absolutely nothing more than cosmetics and fluff. The exact same actions are available as sporting arms. The *only* difference is that the sporting arm usually has a nicely finished, smooth appearance with a wooden (or synthetic) stock and looks very pretty while the assault weapon is ugly, has things sticking out from it and looks menacing to the average person. Everything else is *exactly* the same, including ballistics, operation and power of the cartridge.
What happened next is that when Congress passed those laws banning the importation of these weapons, based purely on those cosmetics, they were told by the NRA (National Rifle Association), GOA (Gun Owners of America), SAF (Second Amendment Foundation), JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) and several other pro-gun groups that the weapons that they were demonizing were being demonized purely on cosmetics and that the ban would accomplish absolutely nothing on fixing any real crime problems. Never the less, Congress passed the Assault Weapons Ban. (Hmmm, must have been an election year and they needed warm, fuzzies from their constituencies that they were being tough on crime. What a joke.)
The manufacturers of those banned weapons, realizing that those 'problems' needed to be fixed in order to regain legal acceptance modified their product. Now, under normal conditions, if a manufacturer changed his product in order to conform with new laws, that manufacturer would be praised. (Even some people in Clinton's administration admitted that the manufacturers changing their products in order to meet the letter of the law would be normally be found to be a commendable response much like the automobile manufacturers adding seatbelts and collapsable steering wheels.)
However, in this case, when the manufacturers of these assault weapons modified their product to conform with the law, they became vilified all over again by the Clinton administration. They, and several gun control groups, claimed that those manufacturers were trying to slip through loopholes in the law by modifying their product to conform with the laws passed by our Congress. (Sigh) I guess it all depends on how you wish to slant the idea of conforming with the law. I would hate to think that all of you law abiding citizens were simply finding loopholes so that you would not be arrested.
Oh, well, as we now know, the AWB is dead, long live the AWB!!! Let's keep it that way!!
