As I'm sure you know by now, the United States Supreme Court has decided to hear the District of Columbia V Heller case in early 2008. The case should begin in March and a decision on the case should come by sometime just before summer, perhaps in late June.
The District of Columbia asserts that the Second Amendment was solely intended to give the states a "right" to arm their own militias. Do they have a leg to stand on?
SaveTheGuns.com Quotes of the Month
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788
"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
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46
"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
James Madison, In his autobiography
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution June 8, 1789
"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 Second Amendment
SaveTheGuns.com Gun Safety Tip of the Month
NEVER allow your children to mishandle a gun or play around with it, simply because you know it is unloaded. This is not an acceptable way of getting children familiar with firearms. A police officer in my in-laws family was killed by his son many years ago because he was allowed horseplay with an unloaded handgun.
He regretted his flawed training methods for about a minute or so between the time his son shot him in the chest and the moment he passed away. NEVER allow horseplay with an unloaded firearm at anytime. DO NOT MAKE THIS MISTAKE.
Please contribute this month if you have not done so before.
NRA Membership Recruiter Corner
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR017807
Santa says "Give an NRA Membership as a gift this year, it's a great idea and it saves me some time."
As you may already know, SaveTheGuns.com is one of thousands of NRA Membership Recruiters across America. As an NRA Recruiter, I'm officially a subcontractor for the National Rifle Association of America and not an employee.
I make a small commission whenever you join, renew or give an NRA Membership as a gift. Please use the link above for all your NRA Membership needs. If your NRA Membership expires within four months, I encourage you to renew your membership early using my convenient link that lands right on the appropriate page at the National Rifle Association.
I have written a Web page with more information on membership in the National Rifle Association. It has a list of benefits as well as membership options and prices. For your convenience the above NRA Membership link is there as well.
http://www.savetheguns.com/nra_membership.htm
P.S. Remember, my link goes directly to the NRA Membership check out page. Using my special link is a lot more convenient than trying to find the page yourself.
As of this issue of the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter, I've recruited 155 NRA Members through this link.
I want to be one of the top NRA Recruiters for the nine (9) state northeast district of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Please use my convenient links for all your NRA membership needs and pass it around to others.
Contributions to SaveTheGuns.com
Please use the following convenient link to securely use a credit card online to give SaveTheGuns.com a voluntary contribution:
http://www.amazon.com/paypage/P3GXU3PIEM5ST1
To write me a personal check, it's almost as easy!
Write out a personal check made payable to Marc H. Richardson. Sign it and put it into a stamped envelope addressed to:
Marc H. Richardson
P.O. Box 424
Shapleigh, ME 04076-0424
My contributors have kept this informative Web site going for more than seven years. Become a contributor today... please? Active contributors are the only thing keeping www.SaveTheGuns.com online.
Thank you very much for your support!
$5.00 in contributions were received since the November 2007 issue of the Minuteman Monthly.
Item of the Month
An Amazon.com Gift Certificate is really the easiest way to do Christmas shopping. There's almost anything you can think of in more than forty (40) major categories, in fact there are literally millions of items. Use the following text link. I have an Amazon Gift Certificate banner on the left side of every page above the navigation bar at www.SaveTheGuns.com as well.
Amazon.com Gift Certificates
Minuteman Monthly Newsletter Aiming Point
Does Washington D.C. have any chance of persuading the Supreme Court of the United States of America that the Founding Fathers meant to solely include a state's power to form its own militia within the Bill of Rights?
If you want a single word answer, it's NO!
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788
The Founding Fathers very clearly intended the Bill of Rights to be a strict limit upon the power and reach of the government over the people of the United States. They knew well that every government seeks to gain more power and authority for itself over time. It was and still is the case. All governments eventually become too powerful, burdensome and overbearing until they are overthrown and reformed into something more tolerable by the people.
Does it make any sense that a people who came to America seeking freedom for their families, who carved a life out of a harsh wilderness and then shook off the yoke of oppressive British rule, would then give the "right" to bear arms only to those who were acting in an official capacity in an organized state militia? No, of course not. History proves this is simply not so. In fact, it is a laughable and frankly ridiculous assertion.
Does Washington D.C. claim that every women, all the physically disabled persons and every man over the age of 60, had no right to bear arms because they were not qualified for service in the state militias at the time? The mere notion is ludicrous and frankly insulting.
The very spark that began the Revolutionary War on April 19, 1775 was when British troops attempted to seize a store of arms and ammunition from the Massachusetts Militia. This is established historical fact and is hopefully still taught in most public schools. My own ancestor was in the Massachusetts Militia at the time.
The vast historical record itself is clear and convincing evidence that the Second Amendment was intended, like most of the Bill of Rights, to be a right of all individuals. They believed that the right of self defense was a right that belonged to all human beings, but they also knew that government always seeks more power and authority for itself wherever it can.
The District of Columbia asks America to believe that in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights the Founding Fathers gave individuals the rights to religion, speech, press and assembly. Then they took a hard turn and detoured into making sure the states had the power to create and maintain their own militias, then they took another sharp detour from that and continued on with more individual rights such as those to be secure against unreasonable searches, rights against self incrimination and the right to a trial by jury among others.
The Founding Fathers had no trouble differentiating between the powers of the states and the rights of the people in the Constitution. To claim that the term "the people" in the first, fourth and ninth amendments means the general population of the United States, while the same term used in the Second Amendment refers to the powers of a state is patently preposterous.
The Second Amendment says "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and there seems to be no 'wiggle room' in that clear statement whatsoever. The United States Supreme Court over the years has 'found' 'rights' within the text of the Constitution that are not clearly present. For instance, in Roe V Wade, the SCOTUS found a right to lawfully end a pregnancy within some contrived 'right to privacy'.
In early 2008, the SCOTUS will have the chance to bring clarity and light to a right that is clearly visible in the Bill of Rights.
"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)
The concept of an armed population keeping the peace is an Anglo-Saxon tradition that went back more than 800 years at the time. But did the Founding Fathers ever hint at the notion that only those who serve in an active state militia had the right to bear their private arms?
NO!
"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President. Source: Eighth Annual Message, November 8, 1808
"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
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
Samuel Adams
"...It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control...The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them."
Samuel Adams
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
If the Founding Fathers ever entertained the idea that only men aged 17 to 60 who served in an active and organized militia had the right to bear arms, they kept it a very closely guarded secret and never spoke of it to each other and never wrote that idea down anywhere, at anytime.
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46
However, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says that it's a "myth" that the Second Amendment provides for a right to own guns separate from a well-regulated militia. They say that it is a "myth" due in large part to a campaign of "misinformation" supported by those who are opposed to "common sense gun laws".
This "campaign of misinformation" that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence speaks of, comes from people like myself who attempt to constantly remind Americans of what the Founding Fathers actually said concerning private ownership and carry of firearms. I would propose instead that the Brady Center is the one perpetuating a campaign of myth and misinformation, especially noting that NONE of the Founding Fathers ever mentioned that the Second Amendment applied only to those who are qualified and currently serving in an active state militia.
Nowhere in the historical record is it mentioned even once that arms were intended solely for those who were in active service in their own state's militia. It makes even less sense when you consider that there were no supermarkets back then. At the time, even elementary school aged children went out with their muskets to bring wild game to the dinner table.
The notion that the right to bear arms was strictly limited to participation in an organized state militia is feeble-minded foolishness at best. I can see where a small preschool child without any formal education could come up with such an idea. But for an adult who has hopefully been through at least a grade school education, one would have to be a complete moron to believe such an idea that goes wholly unsupported by American history and jurisprudence.
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large, is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
Let us for a moment consider Alexander Hamilton's quote right above this text. Did he say the best we can hope for concerning our various state militias is that they be properly armed, or did he say "...the people at large..."?
Washington D.C.'s amusing and ludicrous contention that the second item in the Bill of Rights, directly after the right of religion, speech, press and assembly, includes only a state-run organized militia and the power to form one without federal authority, should have been laughed right out of court. It amazes me that someone with even a cursory and superficial education in American history could come up with such an absurd defense of Washington D.C.'s openly unconstitutional 31 year old handgun ban.
When we look at the Bill of Rights as a whole, the setting of the Second Amendment reinforces its individual nature. The Bill of Rights was almost entirely a declaration of individual rights, and the Second Amendment’s inclusion therein strongly indicates that it, too, was intended to protect personal liberty. The collective right advocates ask us to imagine that the First Congress situated a sui generis states’ right among a catalogue of cherished individual liberties without comment. We believe the canon of construction known as noscitur a sociis applies here. Just as we would read an ambiguous statutory term in light of its context, we should read any supposed ambiguities inthe Second Amendment in light of its context. Every other provision of the Bill of Rights, excepting the Tenth, which speaks explicitly about the allocation of governmental power, protects rights enjoyed by citizens in their individual capacity. The Second Amendment would be an inexplicable aberration if it were not read to protect individual rights as well.
Parker V District of Columbia
But, with all of American history on our side... With all of the Founding Fathers agreeing in concert with our view of the Second Amendment...anything can happen. Just look at what the SCOTUS decided in Kelo V New London and eminent domain...
What I expect will occur with D.C. V Heller is a very narrow and very carefully crafted decision that will return some form of Second Amendment rights back to law abiding residents of Washington D.C. but under voluminous restrictions and that's about it.
It's my belief that the United States Supreme Court will carefully tread on this decision so as to not completely eradicate gun control laws from the public arena. Many current gun control laws and many proposed gun control laws will be held up to the light emanating from this decision. I believe it will be so narrow and craftily evasive, that the issue of gun control will still be debated afterwards.
The U.S. Supreme Court has no interest in my opinion, to wipe 20,000+ gun control laws off the books in all fifty states. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen...
But what if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the Parker Case and gives the green light for states and cities to limit the right to keep and bear arms as they see fit? What if federal, state and local governments can then regulate private arms to their heart's content? Will we see confiscation of private arms without proper compensation? Will we see a breakdown of civil order? Will we see a further dismantling of the Bill of Rights? Will property rights then disappear? Think about it and then... JOIN OR REJOIN THE NRA TODAY
Maybe, just maybe if the U.S. Supreme Court tells the American people that they have no right to own and carry privately held firearms, the vast majority of inactive, do-nothing gun owners will get angry enough to have their voices finally heard. Then maybe 95% of gun owners will be actively supporting the Second Amendment, instead of 95% of them sitting on their hands as they do today.
Closing Comments
Thank you for taking the time out of your day to read the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter. I encourage you to pass it on.
You may use this newsletter as you see fit. You may post it, blog it, print it, forward it and publish it. The only thing I ask is that somewhere in your material, make sure the URL www.SaveTheGuns.com appears prominently.
Thanks,
Marc Richardson
Owner/Founder
www.SaveTheGuns.com
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American..."Tench Coxe
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Sources of Crime Guns and How To Curtail Them
Hello again, yes it's been a while, but I've been very busy trying build and maintain three other domains in addition to http://www.savetheguns.com/ all by myself. Time does seem to get away from me when I'm too busy. I apologize for the lack of posts.
All too often I hear politicians say that "we've got to get guns off the streets", yet all the politicians can come up with is gun control regulations that have to be obeyed by lawful, upstanding and honest gun owners. Law abiding gun owners don't commit violent crimes with their guns. With that in mind, I think most gun control is aimed at the wrong people and I have some solutions that most politicians either have not thought about or have ignored on purpose.
You see, lawful and honest owners of firearms are not peddling their cherished firearm collections to crack-addicted miscreants on darkened street corners. However, with anti-gun politicians, anti-gun advocates and their misinformed rhetoric, you'd think that this was the case.
I've stated it in a previous blog, but I suppose it's time to post it again. The actual sources of firearms that are used during the commission of a violent crime are very important to examine. Crime control measures that are intended to diminish violent crime committed with firearms almost never focus on these specific sources, but rather are misdirected toward firearm ownership in general.
This of course is not only a clear violation of the Bill of Rights, but it's completely useless in terms of preventing violent crime. I believe that we can and should have policies in place that affect the actual sources of guns used during the commission of a crime, while leaving the honest gun owner completely out of the loop.
Okay Marc, you might say, where do criminals get their guns if they're not buying them from sincere and trustworthy gun owners? I'm so glad you asked... This is the focus of this latest blog post, so let's get right to the meat and potatoes and cut through the crapola shall we?
According to the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ), there was a study of 18,000 state and federal prisoners and the goal was to determine where they obtained the firearms that they used to commit crimes with. This study and other studies that have been done since then all come up with approximately the same percentages and sources. Here is what they found:
39.6% of guns used in a crime come from friends and family of the convict.
39.2% were obtained through illegal sources, such as on the street, through the illegal narcotics trade and through robberies and burglaries of homes and gun stores.
8.3% were purchased fraudulently through a legitimate and properly licensed retail outlet. Mostly these came through lying on required forms and paperwork and providing false identification. Only about one percent (1%) of all gun dealers sell guns to felons either negligently or knowingly.
3.8% of guns used during the commission of a crime come from pawn brokers for the same reasons as other retail outlets.
1.0% of them come from yard sales, flea markets or personal sales, where a gun owner unknowingly or knowingly sells a gun to a felon through a face-to-face sale without any kind of background check at all.
0.7% of guns used during a crime come from sales at a gun show.
The remaining 7.4% of guns that are used during the commission of a crime are unknown and could not be determined by the study. Logic dictates that this 7.4% that is unknown, is from illegitimate sources that cannot be tracked by state or federal entities and was not revealed by felon interviews.
When you closely examine this very important study, you can clearly see why gun control laws aimed at general firearm possession have almost no affect on the criminal mind or the felon's sources of firearms. Okay Marc, you've convinced me that you know what you're talking about. What can we do to diminish sources of guns actually used in criminal activity, while leaving the good guy out of the loop entirely?
The first thing we should consider is much harsher penalties for a family member or friend who knowingly provides a gun to a felon. Giving your brother, cousin, nephew or son a handgun, when you know that he's up to no good, should result in serious penalties that would make someone think twice about doing something that stupid.
Next, is "on the street" sales and sales through their illegal narcotics trade. Most of the time, from what I've seen, gun charges are dropped in favor of getting a more significant penalty for narcotics dealing. This is a colossal mistake in my opinion.
Most violent criminal activity comes from felons who are trying to get money for drugs or who are on drugs during the commission of the crime. Since most violent criminal activity is drug related in some way, these firearm charges should never be dropped, but should play a major role during the process of criminal charges and convictions.
Okay, next we have burglaries of homes and robberies of firearm dealers and sporting goods stores. These comprise the lion's share of the second 40% in my opinion. Firearms that result from burglaries and robberies are very quickly turned around and sold off to criminals who are willing or inclined to use them to do harm to others. Firearms that are stolen in this way are not held onto and hoarded by the burglars, they are quickly turned around for cash or narcotics.
What we can do to curtail this source is actually quite simple, but mostly overlooked by legislators and prosecutors. A five (5) year prison term should be imposed in addition to a home burglary, per firearm if a gun was taken. In addition, a robbery of a sporting goods store or firearm dealer would result in an additional penalty of five (5) years per firearm stolen. I.E. commit a robbery of a gun dealer and steal ten guns and you're in the clink for the next fifty years!! Period. Negotiation complete.
Ignorant teen aged neighborhood thugs would leave the home owner's gun collection right where it is and take only their other valuables if they knew each gun would result in a five year additional prison term. We MUST affect the criminal mind, as well as the actual sources of these "crime guns".
Next on the list is the fraudulent purchase of firearms at retail. These sources comprise 12.8% of guns actually used during criminal activity. If you add gun dealers, pawn brokers and gun shows together, you get 12.8%.
Again, about 99% of these retail purchases come from providing false identification and falsifying state and federally required documents. According to what I've read from the F.B.I., B.A.T.F.E .and other federal agencies, about one percent (1%) of Federal Firearm License (FFL) holders and gun retailers either knowingly sell to felons or do not run names properly through the National Instant Check System (NICS) or do not keep good transaction records.
Some anti-gunners insinuate that most retail firearm purchases from felons happen through this very small portion of rogue gun dealers. But real-world statistics from federal agencies indicate that only 1% of all gun dealers do not care who they sell guns to. Even though this is a small percentage of gun dealers, these scoundrel dealers should be punished appropriately.
The attempt by felons to provide false identification at retail to purchase a gun can be reduced by better firearm retailer identification policy and procedure. Most gun owners can easily provide two forms of picture I.D., such as a driver's license, concealed carry permit or an employer-issued I.D. card. There should be no excuse for providing a firearm at retail to a violent felon.
Lastly and least important on the list are firearm sales that are completed at gun shows. Of all guns that are used during the commission of a crime, only seven tenths of one percent (0.7%) come from gun shows. There has been much undue attention focused upon gun shows as of late, while 99.3% of actual crime guns come from other sources. This statistic to me is maddening!
The anti-gun crowd seem to claim that gun shows are arms bazaars for violent felons and this is simply not the case at all. In addition to that, the term "Gun Show Loophole" is thrown around as if everyone knows what they're talking about.
The truth is that there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole". If a citizen is in the business of selling firearms, they have to have a Federal Firearm License (FFL). FFL holders are required by law to run a prospective firearm purchaser through the National Instant Check System. In states that require a firearm identification card or concealed carry permit to purchase a gun, a valid permit is required in place of the NICS check.
Now that I've addressed how to curtail the actual sources of "crime guns", lets move onto another subject. Let's promote legislation that will affect the criminal mind. Most legislation promoted or supported on the state or federal level is not aimed at the violent felon, but is rather aimed at general firearm possession and sales by the public, in my opinion, this is the definition of insanity.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Some evidence shows that this is not really a quote from Benjamin Franklin, but it's wise just the same. Major gun control legislation has been on the books since the National Firearms Act of 1934 and gun control has not diminished rates of violent crime at all.
If anything, rates of violent crime since the promotion of gun control laws has increased and not decreased. In my opinion, that's because gun control laws are focused on guns and not criminal activity, the actual sources of "crime guns" or the mind of the violent felon.
The violent drug addicted felon, serial rapist, gang member or hot-headed convict is already committing the worst crimes known to mankind and they do not concern themselves with laws that regulate firearm possession, transfer, storage and carry.
That is why we have to work on diminishing the actual sources of "crime guns". But diminishing these sources is not where we should stop. We also have to affect the decision making process of the criminal mind as well.
Just as we should add five (5) years onto a burglary charge when a gun is stolen, we should also add prison time onto a violent criminal act if a firearm was possessed, brandished, discharged or used to injure a victim while committing a crime.
Adding civil penalties and/or prison time onto a criminal act if a firearm was used in any way, would affect the criminal's decision making process and leave the law-abiding gun owner completely out of the loop of crime-control efforts.
We should add:
All too often I hear politicians say that "we've got to get guns off the streets", yet all the politicians can come up with is gun control regulations that have to be obeyed by lawful, upstanding and honest gun owners. Law abiding gun owners don't commit violent crimes with their guns. With that in mind, I think most gun control is aimed at the wrong people and I have some solutions that most politicians either have not thought about or have ignored on purpose.
You see, lawful and honest owners of firearms are not peddling their cherished firearm collections to crack-addicted miscreants on darkened street corners. However, with anti-gun politicians, anti-gun advocates and their misinformed rhetoric, you'd think that this was the case.
I've stated it in a previous blog, but I suppose it's time to post it again. The actual sources of firearms that are used during the commission of a violent crime are very important to examine. Crime control measures that are intended to diminish violent crime committed with firearms almost never focus on these specific sources, but rather are misdirected toward firearm ownership in general.
This of course is not only a clear violation of the Bill of Rights, but it's completely useless in terms of preventing violent crime. I believe that we can and should have policies in place that affect the actual sources of guns used during the commission of a crime, while leaving the honest gun owner completely out of the loop.
Okay Marc, you might say, where do criminals get their guns if they're not buying them from sincere and trustworthy gun owners? I'm so glad you asked... This is the focus of this latest blog post, so let's get right to the meat and potatoes and cut through the crapola shall we?
According to the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ), there was a study of 18,000 state and federal prisoners and the goal was to determine where they obtained the firearms that they used to commit crimes with. This study and other studies that have been done since then all come up with approximately the same percentages and sources. Here is what they found:
39.6% of guns used in a crime come from friends and family of the convict.
39.2% were obtained through illegal sources, such as on the street, through the illegal narcotics trade and through robberies and burglaries of homes and gun stores.
8.3% were purchased fraudulently through a legitimate and properly licensed retail outlet. Mostly these came through lying on required forms and paperwork and providing false identification. Only about one percent (1%) of all gun dealers sell guns to felons either negligently or knowingly.
3.8% of guns used during the commission of a crime come from pawn brokers for the same reasons as other retail outlets.
1.0% of them come from yard sales, flea markets or personal sales, where a gun owner unknowingly or knowingly sells a gun to a felon through a face-to-face sale without any kind of background check at all.
0.7% of guns used during a crime come from sales at a gun show.
The remaining 7.4% of guns that are used during the commission of a crime are unknown and could not be determined by the study. Logic dictates that this 7.4% that is unknown, is from illegitimate sources that cannot be tracked by state or federal entities and was not revealed by felon interviews.
When you closely examine this very important study, you can clearly see why gun control laws aimed at general firearm possession have almost no affect on the criminal mind or the felon's sources of firearms. Okay Marc, you've convinced me that you know what you're talking about. What can we do to diminish sources of guns actually used in criminal activity, while leaving the good guy out of the loop entirely?
The first thing we should consider is much harsher penalties for a family member or friend who knowingly provides a gun to a felon. Giving your brother, cousin, nephew or son a handgun, when you know that he's up to no good, should result in serious penalties that would make someone think twice about doing something that stupid.
Next, is "on the street" sales and sales through their illegal narcotics trade. Most of the time, from what I've seen, gun charges are dropped in favor of getting a more significant penalty for narcotics dealing. This is a colossal mistake in my opinion.
Most violent criminal activity comes from felons who are trying to get money for drugs or who are on drugs during the commission of the crime. Since most violent criminal activity is drug related in some way, these firearm charges should never be dropped, but should play a major role during the process of criminal charges and convictions.
Okay, next we have burglaries of homes and robberies of firearm dealers and sporting goods stores. These comprise the lion's share of the second 40% in my opinion. Firearms that result from burglaries and robberies are very quickly turned around and sold off to criminals who are willing or inclined to use them to do harm to others. Firearms that are stolen in this way are not held onto and hoarded by the burglars, they are quickly turned around for cash or narcotics.
What we can do to curtail this source is actually quite simple, but mostly overlooked by legislators and prosecutors. A five (5) year prison term should be imposed in addition to a home burglary, per firearm if a gun was taken. In addition, a robbery of a sporting goods store or firearm dealer would result in an additional penalty of five (5) years per firearm stolen. I.E. commit a robbery of a gun dealer and steal ten guns and you're in the clink for the next fifty years!! Period. Negotiation complete.
Ignorant teen aged neighborhood thugs would leave the home owner's gun collection right where it is and take only their other valuables if they knew each gun would result in a five year additional prison term. We MUST affect the criminal mind, as well as the actual sources of these "crime guns".
Next on the list is the fraudulent purchase of firearms at retail. These sources comprise 12.8% of guns actually used during criminal activity. If you add gun dealers, pawn brokers and gun shows together, you get 12.8%.
Again, about 99% of these retail purchases come from providing false identification and falsifying state and federally required documents. According to what I've read from the F.B.I., B.A.T.F.E .and other federal agencies, about one percent (1%) of Federal Firearm License (FFL) holders and gun retailers either knowingly sell to felons or do not run names properly through the National Instant Check System (NICS) or do not keep good transaction records.
Some anti-gunners insinuate that most retail firearm purchases from felons happen through this very small portion of rogue gun dealers. But real-world statistics from federal agencies indicate that only 1% of all gun dealers do not care who they sell guns to. Even though this is a small percentage of gun dealers, these scoundrel dealers should be punished appropriately.
The attempt by felons to provide false identification at retail to purchase a gun can be reduced by better firearm retailer identification policy and procedure. Most gun owners can easily provide two forms of picture I.D., such as a driver's license, concealed carry permit or an employer-issued I.D. card. There should be no excuse for providing a firearm at retail to a violent felon.
Lastly and least important on the list are firearm sales that are completed at gun shows. Of all guns that are used during the commission of a crime, only seven tenths of one percent (0.7%) come from gun shows. There has been much undue attention focused upon gun shows as of late, while 99.3% of actual crime guns come from other sources. This statistic to me is maddening!
The anti-gun crowd seem to claim that gun shows are arms bazaars for violent felons and this is simply not the case at all. In addition to that, the term "Gun Show Loophole" is thrown around as if everyone knows what they're talking about.
The truth is that there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole". If a citizen is in the business of selling firearms, they have to have a Federal Firearm License (FFL). FFL holders are required by law to run a prospective firearm purchaser through the National Instant Check System. In states that require a firearm identification card or concealed carry permit to purchase a gun, a valid permit is required in place of the NICS check.
Now that I've addressed how to curtail the actual sources of "crime guns", lets move onto another subject. Let's promote legislation that will affect the criminal mind. Most legislation promoted or supported on the state or federal level is not aimed at the violent felon, but is rather aimed at general firearm possession and sales by the public, in my opinion, this is the definition of insanity.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Some evidence shows that this is not really a quote from Benjamin Franklin, but it's wise just the same. Major gun control legislation has been on the books since the National Firearms Act of 1934 and gun control has not diminished rates of violent crime at all.
If anything, rates of violent crime since the promotion of gun control laws has increased and not decreased. In my opinion, that's because gun control laws are focused on guns and not criminal activity, the actual sources of "crime guns" or the mind of the violent felon.
The violent drug addicted felon, serial rapist, gang member or hot-headed convict is already committing the worst crimes known to mankind and they do not concern themselves with laws that regulate firearm possession, transfer, storage and carry.
That is why we have to work on diminishing the actual sources of "crime guns". But diminishing these sources is not where we should stop. We also have to affect the decision making process of the criminal mind as well.
Just as we should add five (5) years onto a burglary charge when a gun is stolen, we should also add prison time onto a violent criminal act if a firearm was possessed, brandished, discharged or used to injure a victim while committing a crime.
Adding civil penalties and/or prison time onto a criminal act if a firearm was used in any way, would affect the criminal's decision making process and leave the law-abiding gun owner completely out of the loop of crime-control efforts.
We should add:
- 5 years of prison if a gun was possessed during the commission of an aggravated assault, rape, robbery or murder.
- 10 years if the gun was brandished.
- 15 years if the gun was discharged.
- 20 years if the gun was fired and used to injure or kill.
The next thing I would like to address in this blog post is just as important. First, we need to focus upon diminishing the actual proven sources of where "crime guns" come from. Secondly, as I've noted, we need to specifically punish the law-breaker for choosing a gun to aid him/her in committing the crime.
Thirdly, I would like to discuss what has come to be known by "Three Strikes and You're Out".
Recently in Connecticut, a family was devasted by Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes. They were charged with six capital felony counts in the deaths of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters during a home invasion. They previously were charged with assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery and arson.
These two vicious criminals have criminal records that stretch all the back to their youth. One of them had more than twenty (20) criminal convictions on his record. That's more proof that our criminal justice system is not merely in need of repair. Our criminal justice system is broken.
Think about it for a moment.... If our criminal justice system was completely broken and useless to society, what symptoms would we see? I think we would see violent criminals with a dozen or even two dozen serious crimes walking around free. Am I wrong?
A few years ago near my home, a Rhode Island homeowner was forced to shoot a violent criminal in his home. The violent felon broke into a home, made threats with a deadly weapon and the homeowner grabbed a personally owned firearm and shot the intruder dead in his tracks.
But that's not the most shocking and troubling thing at all. The most troubling and frankly appalling part of that story is that the intruder had twenty nine (29), yes that's not a typo, twenty nine serious criminal convictions.
Enough is enough. I've had it! I know you've had it as well. The chances are that the reader of my blog posts agrees with me. I'm "up to my eyeballs" in frustration and unmitigated anger that there are violent criminal thugs walking around free with literally dozens of criminal convictions.
Do you know who first pushed the "Three Strikes and You're Out" idea on a national scale? I'll bet you don't know that it was the National Rifle Association. That's right, the NRA was the first group on a national scale that pushed "Three Strikes..." legislation.
I don't know about y'all, but I'm frustrated and angry beyond words that our criminal justice system is so impotent, subverted and broken that there are convicts prowling in our neighborhoods with more than two dozen criminal convictions.
In the story above, where the family in Connecticut was invaded and the wife and two daughters were killed, the convicts were literally hiding in the bushes outside the family home for days studying the movements of the family as if they were lions in the African tundra stalking an f'ing zebra!!!
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
It's time to pass both national and state-wide legislation that allows ONLY three murders, rapes, robberies, burglaries or aggravated assaults and then it's prison for the rest of their natural lives.
So to briefly recap this blog post.... We must focus on diminishing actual sources of crime guns, add specific penalties to a crime if a gun was chosen to commit the crime with and we must keep habitual violent thugs behind bars as if they were vicious animals in an f'ing human zoo.
It's about time that we get serious about real crime control and leave the failed, impotent and unconstitutional gun control laws to rot in the graveyard of terrible ideas.
Thanks for listening! Until next time...
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Why Gun Control Does Not Work
Minuteman Monthly Newsletter
Issue 67
February 2007
Welcome to this issue of the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter. This is the monthly communication from my Web site at www.SaveTheGuns.com. Thank you for reading this month's issue and for passing it on to a friend.
Major U.S. gun control legislation has been around since before the National Firearm Act of 1934. This act put strict restrictions, taxes and fees upon short-barreled shotguns and fully automatic machine guns. There has been more than 25,000 local, state and federal laws and ordinances regulating firearm ownership, carry and transfer ever since.
Why then, with 25,000 gun laws, don't we have the safest country in the world? Why hasn't gun control put a stop to violent crime committed with firearms? To find out why gun control is a terribly ineffective method of reducing crime, not to mention that it's unconstitutional...
Read On...
SaveTheGuns.com Quotes of the Month
"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."James Madison, In his autobiography
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."James Monroe (1758-1831), 5th US President
"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
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98
SaveTheGuns.com Gun Safety Tip of the Month
The gun safety tip of the month for this issue of the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter is to positively identify a threat in your home as a true threat before you draw and fire upon them.
Many hundreds of people have been shot by mistake in a home because the homeowner misidentifies a threat. Unannounced sleepovers from unfamiliar guests have resulted in tragedy. Don't let this happen to you.
Perhaps a friend of your teenage son and your son decided it would be best for him to sleep at your house tonight without telling you or your wife... You wake up to find a total stranger in your home trying to find the bathroom... Think about it...
Never assume that a person you don't know in your home is there to do you harm and is deserving of a .45 ACP in the chest. Positively identify a threat as a true threat before utilizing your basic human rights of self defense.
NRA Membership Recruiter Corner
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR017807
As you may already know, SaveTheGuns.com is one of thousands of NRA Membership Recruiters across America. As an NRA Recruiter, I'm officially a subcontractor for the National Rifle Association of America and not an employee.
I make a small commission whenever you join, renew or give an NRA Membership as a gift. Please use the link above for all your NRA Membership needs.
I have written a Web page with more information on membership in the National Rifle Association. It has a list of benefits as well as membership options and prices. For your convenience the above NRA Membership link is there as well.
http://www.savetheguns.com/nra_membership.htm
P.S. Remember, my link goes directly to the NRA Membership check out page. Using my special link is a lot more convenient than trying to find the page yourself.
As of this issue of the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter, I've recruited 92 NRA Members through this link.
Contributions to SaveTheGuns.com
Please use the following convenient link to securely use a credit card online to give SaveTheGuns.com a voluntary contribution:
http://www.amazon.com/paypage/P3GXU3PIEM5ST1
To write me a personal check, it's almost as easy!
Write out a personal check made payable to Marc H. Richardson. Sign it and put it into a stamped envelope addressed to:
Marc H. Richardson
P.O. Box 424
Shapleigh, ME 04076-0424
My contributors have kept this informative Web site going for seven years. Become a contributor today... please?
Minuteman Monthly Newsletter Aiming Point
Okay, here it is Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor Daley and many, many others in local, state and federal positions of authority who believe that gun control laws are effective means of reducing rates of violent crime. If only they can find the right type of gun restriction...
There have been, according to most experts, more than 25,000 local, state and federal laws, regulations and ordinances passed by legislative bodies in the United States alone. The Massachusetts Police Chief's Guide to Gun Control Laws in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is larger than War and Peace and The Lord of the Rings put together.
Why then, with so much gun control, is Massachusetts the eighteenth (18th) most violent state in America? It's the same case in Maryland, California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey.
These gun control capitols of America should be the safest states of all, but they're not.
Maryland has countless firearm restrictions and regulations that apply to lawful gun owners, yet Maryland has the third (3rd) highest rate of violent crime in the country. The law abiding gun owners of California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey are equally frustrated, as their states rank 10th, 11th, 21st and 26th in violent crime per capita, but make gun owners jump through hoops merely to exercise their rights under the Constitution.
The states with the least restrictions upon gun owners are actually among the safest. For instance, the upper New England states of New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine are 47th, 48th and 49th in per capita rates of violent criminal acts respectively. Yet, gun control up here in the northeast corner of the nation means using both hands and a proper and consistent grip.
In Maine, I can carry a handgun openly in public, without a permit, although nobody really does it anymore and many towns have implemented ordinances against it. Concealed carry is more acceptable to the general public in these states. Heck, in Vermont, you can carry a concealed firearm under your clothing without any permit required as long as you're of age to do so. But these three states have among the lowest per-capita violent crime rates in the country.
If gun control was so darn important in reducing rates of violent crime committed with handguns, shouldn't Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire with the state motto "Live Free or Die", be among the most violent instead of the safest?
I'm not saying that if Washington D.C., Detroit and Los Angeles just adopted Vermont's firearm laws, that everything would be fine. But I am saying that at the very least, there is no correlation whatsoever between harsh firearm ownership regulations and low rates of violent crime.
If you take a close look at the state of Alaska for instance, you'd see that they have the highest rates for forcible rapes per capita of any other state, but in Alaska one can lawfully carry a concealed firearm without a permit as in Vermont.
So very few firearm restrictions, doesn't necessarily mean very little violent crime either. Alaska has very few firearm ownership restrictions, but is the 7th most violent state in the nation, mainly because of its colossal number of forcible rapes.
In Washington D.C., handgun ownership has been banned since 1976, but they have the highest rate of violent acts per 100,000 citizens of almost any area in the world.
Gun control legislation as a method of curtailing rates of violent crime has completely failed. The evidence is very clear on at least that point.
Why has gun control completely failed as a method of reducing violent crimes committed with firearms?
The easy answer is actually pretty darn simple:
Violent criminals and those who are willing and/or inclined to commit rape, robbery and murder with a firearm, are already disobeying some of the most basic laws of humanity and are not concerned that they're also breaking a law that regulates firearm possession. That's the easy and quick answer.
The somewhat more involved answer is this:
Violent criminals do not obtain their firearms from properly licensed sporting goods retailers, while filling out all the forms correctly and with proper identification.
According to the United States Department of Justice, around twelve percent (12%) of all criminals who actually used a gun in the commission of a crime, got their gun from any retail source.
About 88% of violent criminals who committed a violent crime with a firearm, got their gun outside of the reach of any firearm regulations. Firearm sales and acquisitions can only be controlled by a government entity or regulation when you have an upstanding licensed retailer and an honest and law abiding citizen as parties in the sale. When neither is involved in the transfer of possession of a firearm, the sale falls outside the reach of state or federal gun control policy.
That makes perfectly good sense doesn't it? When the buyer or the seller have no interest in abiding by local, state and federal law, the transfer of possession of the firearm cannot be controlled by any government policy. Even the biggest liberal secular progressive dimwit can understand that...
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, about 40% of violent criminals who used a gun to commit a crime with, got their guns from family and friends. They were either voluntarily given to them by their family and friends or stolen from them. The study does not differentiate between the two.
Approximately another 40% got their firearms from street purchases, through the illegal narcotics trade and from burglaries and robberies. So we can clearly see that about 80% of violent felons got their guns from sources that lie outside the control of government policy. Of the remaining 20%, here's the breakdown:
8.3% came from retail outlets. Such as major retailers, sporting goods specialty stores and from gun dealers. These purchases were mostly made through falsifying documentation, providing false identification and a small number (about 1%) of licensed (FFL) gun dealers who disregard the National Instant Check System (NICS), don't keep good BATFE records or who knowingly sell to felons.
6.2% came from undetermined sources, but were probably outside the reach of gun control laws, simply by the evidence that they were classified as undetermined.
3.8% of crime guns came from pawn shops, where again, there was false identification, lying on required forms or a very small number (1%) of pawn shop owners who did not follow proper record keeping or NICS procedures.
1.0% came from flea markets and yard sales through private transfers of firearms directly to violent criminals.
About 0.7% of guns actually used to commit a crime came from gun shows. Yet, with this small sliver of seven tenths of one percent, gun shows seem to be the latest focus by dimwitted gun control fanatics. Gun control fanatics it seems to me are not really the brightest lights on the chandelier, if you know what I mean...
Looking closely at the actual sources of guns that were actually used in criminal acts, we can pretty easily see why gun control laws don't work to reduce acts of violent crime. With full realization that violent criminal thugs do not concern themselves with breaking gun laws, why are many in government touting them as effective?
To recap, here is why gun control doesn't work and only serves to diminish the Bill of Rights and harass and burden honest gun owners.
***Violent criminal thugs do not observe and heed laws that regulate firearm possession, because they're already committing worse crimes and pay no heed to such laws. In addition, they know that most often, illegal firearm possession or firearm possession during the commission of a crime is plea-bargained away or dropped entirely by the District Attorney's office.
***Violent criminal thugs do not customarily get their guns from properly licensed retail outlets where gun control policy is followed through. Only the law-abiding are effected by such laws.
***Violent criminal thugs fabricate documentation, lie, cheat and provide false identification when they get their guns from retailers, pawn shops and others sources.
"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
Since laws that regulate firearm possession, ownership and carry affect only those who obey the law in the first place, what can we do? What steps can we take to diminish guns being used during the commission of a violent crime? How can we diminish gun-crime, without placing any undue burden upon the lawful and honest gun owner?
How can I/We stand here and thrust the Bill of Rights into the faces of politicians, without offering viable and useful alternatives? Violent crimes committed with firearms need to be curtailed somehow. It's indeed a serious problem in many of our larger cities and something needs to change.
It's mostly a social problem, a lack of good fathers, terrible role models, a lack of general public morality and empty churches. It's certainly not the fault of lawful and honest gun owners...
Can we curtail these incidents where firearms are used to commit crimes, while leaving the lawful and honest gun owner out of the loop? I think we can!
We must diminish criminal access to firearms and introduce policies that really affect the criminal mind. These are some steps we can take to actually affect criminal usage and access to firearms, while leaving legitimate and honest gun owners completely out of the loop.
Add significant civil (fines) and criminal penalties onto a friend or family member of a violent felon who knowingly provides a firearm to him/her.
Add five (5) years of federal prison (per firearm) onto any burglary or robbery charge where a firearm is stolen. This additional five year of real prison per stolen firearm must be mandatory and should not be dropped or plea-bargained away. (I.E. Six guns stolen from a home burglary would get thirty years in prison (6X5=30))
Add significant civil (fines) and criminal penalties onto any violent crime of rape, robbery or murder, where a firearm was used or carried as a weapon. (I.E. 5 additional years for gun possession during the commission of a violent crime, 10 additional years for brandishing, 15 additional years for firing it and 20 additional years for personal injury to the victim with the firearm discharge.) We must make criminals think twice about choosing a firearm to commit a crime with.
Prosecute felons who attempt to purchase a firearm through a properly licensed retailer and get caught. It's been illegal for felons to own firearms since the Gun Control Act of 1968, but they're rarely ever punished for the attempt to purchase one. If you choose to be a felon, you have to realize that you're giving up certain freedoms when you commit a crime of violence. As Benjamin Franklin said "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Legislators have to refocus crime control efforts and aim at the felon and the felon's access to firearms and not at firearms themselves or those who lawfully own them.
Concentrating efforts to reduce violent crime upon the violent criminal thug and not the firearm they obtained, would go a long way toward fixing this persistent problem.
Hey Bloomberg, Menino and Daley! Are you listening?
Government must take more careful aim at diminishing actual sources of firearms that are used in crime. They must also promote efforts that affect the criminal mind by increasing penalties for choosing a firearm to commit a crime with, while not providing a way out for these increased penalties. If we're going to be serious about reducing violent crime, we must do away with the plea-bargaining of illegal firearm charges. Most often these gun charges are dropped in a criminal case and violent felons know it....
Let's look at the problem even more simply shall we? Honest and upright gun owners commit no crimes, while violent criminal thugs don't obey laws that regulate firearms. That's the whole reason behind the failures of gun control laws to affect violent crime.
Even the most ignorant dimwit liberal can understand that...
Shine the floodlight upon the violent felon and not the gun in his hand. How's that for being simple and focused?!?!?!
It is only the slow-witted legislator and obtuse leftist who thinks that a hardened violent criminal thug will obey a law regulating firearm possession.
Oh wait a minute, I do have another answer! Let's stop voting dimwit blockheaded anti-gun legislators into public office!
"When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, "just men who will rule in the fear of God." The preservation of [our] government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded. If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the Laws."Noah Webster 1758-1843
Closing Comments
Thank you for taking the time out of your day to read the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter. I encourage you to pass it on.
You may use this newsletter as you see fit. You may post it, blog it, print it, forward it and publish it. The only thing I ask is that somewhere in your material, make sure the URL www.SaveTheGuns.com appears prominently.
Thank you,
Marc
SaveTheGuns.com
Issue 67
February 2007
Welcome to this issue of the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter. This is the monthly communication from my Web site at www.SaveTheGuns.com. Thank you for reading this month's issue and for passing it on to a friend.
Major U.S. gun control legislation has been around since before the National Firearm Act of 1934. This act put strict restrictions, taxes and fees upon short-barreled shotguns and fully automatic machine guns. There has been more than 25,000 local, state and federal laws and ordinances regulating firearm ownership, carry and transfer ever since.
Why then, with 25,000 gun laws, don't we have the safest country in the world? Why hasn't gun control put a stop to violent crime committed with firearms? To find out why gun control is a terribly ineffective method of reducing crime, not to mention that it's unconstitutional...
Read On...
SaveTheGuns.com Quotes of the Month
"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."James Madison, In his autobiography
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."James Monroe (1758-1831), 5th US President
"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
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98
SaveTheGuns.com Gun Safety Tip of the Month
The gun safety tip of the month for this issue of the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter is to positively identify a threat in your home as a true threat before you draw and fire upon them.
Many hundreds of people have been shot by mistake in a home because the homeowner misidentifies a threat. Unannounced sleepovers from unfamiliar guests have resulted in tragedy. Don't let this happen to you.
Perhaps a friend of your teenage son and your son decided it would be best for him to sleep at your house tonight without telling you or your wife... You wake up to find a total stranger in your home trying to find the bathroom... Think about it...
Never assume that a person you don't know in your home is there to do you harm and is deserving of a .45 ACP in the chest. Positively identify a threat as a true threat before utilizing your basic human rights of self defense.
NRA Membership Recruiter Corner
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR017807
As you may already know, SaveTheGuns.com is one of thousands of NRA Membership Recruiters across America. As an NRA Recruiter, I'm officially a subcontractor for the National Rifle Association of America and not an employee.
I make a small commission whenever you join, renew or give an NRA Membership as a gift. Please use the link above for all your NRA Membership needs.
I have written a Web page with more information on membership in the National Rifle Association. It has a list of benefits as well as membership options and prices. For your convenience the above NRA Membership link is there as well.
http://www.savetheguns.com/nra_membership.htm
P.S. Remember, my link goes directly to the NRA Membership check out page. Using my special link is a lot more convenient than trying to find the page yourself.
As of this issue of the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter, I've recruited 92 NRA Members through this link.
Contributions to SaveTheGuns.com
Please use the following convenient link to securely use a credit card online to give SaveTheGuns.com a voluntary contribution:
http://www.amazon.com/paypage/P3GXU3PIEM5ST1
To write me a personal check, it's almost as easy!
Write out a personal check made payable to Marc H. Richardson. Sign it and put it into a stamped envelope addressed to:
Marc H. Richardson
P.O. Box 424
Shapleigh, ME 04076-0424
My contributors have kept this informative Web site going for seven years. Become a contributor today... please?
Minuteman Monthly Newsletter Aiming Point
Okay, here it is Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor Daley and many, many others in local, state and federal positions of authority who believe that gun control laws are effective means of reducing rates of violent crime. If only they can find the right type of gun restriction...
There have been, according to most experts, more than 25,000 local, state and federal laws, regulations and ordinances passed by legislative bodies in the United States alone. The Massachusetts Police Chief's Guide to Gun Control Laws in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is larger than War and Peace and The Lord of the Rings put together.
Why then, with so much gun control, is Massachusetts the eighteenth (18th) most violent state in America? It's the same case in Maryland, California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey.
These gun control capitols of America should be the safest states of all, but they're not.
Maryland has countless firearm restrictions and regulations that apply to lawful gun owners, yet Maryland has the third (3rd) highest rate of violent crime in the country. The law abiding gun owners of California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey are equally frustrated, as their states rank 10th, 11th, 21st and 26th in violent crime per capita, but make gun owners jump through hoops merely to exercise their rights under the Constitution.
The states with the least restrictions upon gun owners are actually among the safest. For instance, the upper New England states of New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine are 47th, 48th and 49th in per capita rates of violent criminal acts respectively. Yet, gun control up here in the northeast corner of the nation means using both hands and a proper and consistent grip.
In Maine, I can carry a handgun openly in public, without a permit, although nobody really does it anymore and many towns have implemented ordinances against it. Concealed carry is more acceptable to the general public in these states. Heck, in Vermont, you can carry a concealed firearm under your clothing without any permit required as long as you're of age to do so. But these three states have among the lowest per-capita violent crime rates in the country.
If gun control was so darn important in reducing rates of violent crime committed with handguns, shouldn't Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire with the state motto "Live Free or Die", be among the most violent instead of the safest?
I'm not saying that if Washington D.C., Detroit and Los Angeles just adopted Vermont's firearm laws, that everything would be fine. But I am saying that at the very least, there is no correlation whatsoever between harsh firearm ownership regulations and low rates of violent crime.
If you take a close look at the state of Alaska for instance, you'd see that they have the highest rates for forcible rapes per capita of any other state, but in Alaska one can lawfully carry a concealed firearm without a permit as in Vermont.
So very few firearm restrictions, doesn't necessarily mean very little violent crime either. Alaska has very few firearm ownership restrictions, but is the 7th most violent state in the nation, mainly because of its colossal number of forcible rapes.
In Washington D.C., handgun ownership has been banned since 1976, but they have the highest rate of violent acts per 100,000 citizens of almost any area in the world.
Gun control legislation as a method of curtailing rates of violent crime has completely failed. The evidence is very clear on at least that point.
Why has gun control completely failed as a method of reducing violent crimes committed with firearms?
The easy answer is actually pretty darn simple:
Violent criminals and those who are willing and/or inclined to commit rape, robbery and murder with a firearm, are already disobeying some of the most basic laws of humanity and are not concerned that they're also breaking a law that regulates firearm possession. That's the easy and quick answer.
The somewhat more involved answer is this:
Violent criminals do not obtain their firearms from properly licensed sporting goods retailers, while filling out all the forms correctly and with proper identification.
According to the United States Department of Justice, around twelve percent (12%) of all criminals who actually used a gun in the commission of a crime, got their gun from any retail source.
About 88% of violent criminals who committed a violent crime with a firearm, got their gun outside of the reach of any firearm regulations. Firearm sales and acquisitions can only be controlled by a government entity or regulation when you have an upstanding licensed retailer and an honest and law abiding citizen as parties in the sale. When neither is involved in the transfer of possession of a firearm, the sale falls outside the reach of state or federal gun control policy.
That makes perfectly good sense doesn't it? When the buyer or the seller have no interest in abiding by local, state and federal law, the transfer of possession of the firearm cannot be controlled by any government policy. Even the biggest liberal secular progressive dimwit can understand that...
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, about 40% of violent criminals who used a gun to commit a crime with, got their guns from family and friends. They were either voluntarily given to them by their family and friends or stolen from them. The study does not differentiate between the two.
Approximately another 40% got their firearms from street purchases, through the illegal narcotics trade and from burglaries and robberies. So we can clearly see that about 80% of violent felons got their guns from sources that lie outside the control of government policy. Of the remaining 20%, here's the breakdown:
8.3% came from retail outlets. Such as major retailers, sporting goods specialty stores and from gun dealers. These purchases were mostly made through falsifying documentation, providing false identification and a small number (about 1%) of licensed (FFL) gun dealers who disregard the National Instant Check System (NICS), don't keep good BATFE records or who knowingly sell to felons.
6.2% came from undetermined sources, but were probably outside the reach of gun control laws, simply by the evidence that they were classified as undetermined.
3.8% of crime guns came from pawn shops, where again, there was false identification, lying on required forms or a very small number (1%) of pawn shop owners who did not follow proper record keeping or NICS procedures.
1.0% came from flea markets and yard sales through private transfers of firearms directly to violent criminals.
About 0.7% of guns actually used to commit a crime came from gun shows. Yet, with this small sliver of seven tenths of one percent, gun shows seem to be the latest focus by dimwitted gun control fanatics. Gun control fanatics it seems to me are not really the brightest lights on the chandelier, if you know what I mean...
Looking closely at the actual sources of guns that were actually used in criminal acts, we can pretty easily see why gun control laws don't work to reduce acts of violent crime. With full realization that violent criminal thugs do not concern themselves with breaking gun laws, why are many in government touting them as effective?
To recap, here is why gun control doesn't work and only serves to diminish the Bill of Rights and harass and burden honest gun owners.
***Violent criminal thugs do not observe and heed laws that regulate firearm possession, because they're already committing worse crimes and pay no heed to such laws. In addition, they know that most often, illegal firearm possession or firearm possession during the commission of a crime is plea-bargained away or dropped entirely by the District Attorney's office.
***Violent criminal thugs do not customarily get their guns from properly licensed retail outlets where gun control policy is followed through. Only the law-abiding are effected by such laws.
***Violent criminal thugs fabricate documentation, lie, cheat and provide false identification when they get their guns from retailers, pawn shops and others sources.
"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
Since laws that regulate firearm possession, ownership and carry affect only those who obey the law in the first place, what can we do? What steps can we take to diminish guns being used during the commission of a violent crime? How can we diminish gun-crime, without placing any undue burden upon the lawful and honest gun owner?
How can I/We stand here and thrust the Bill of Rights into the faces of politicians, without offering viable and useful alternatives? Violent crimes committed with firearms need to be curtailed somehow. It's indeed a serious problem in many of our larger cities and something needs to change.
It's mostly a social problem, a lack of good fathers, terrible role models, a lack of general public morality and empty churches. It's certainly not the fault of lawful and honest gun owners...
Can we curtail these incidents where firearms are used to commit crimes, while leaving the lawful and honest gun owner out of the loop? I think we can!
We must diminish criminal access to firearms and introduce policies that really affect the criminal mind. These are some steps we can take to actually affect criminal usage and access to firearms, while leaving legitimate and honest gun owners completely out of the loop.
Add significant civil (fines) and criminal penalties onto a friend or family member of a violent felon who knowingly provides a firearm to him/her.
Add five (5) years of federal prison (per firearm) onto any burglary or robbery charge where a firearm is stolen. This additional five year of real prison per stolen firearm must be mandatory and should not be dropped or plea-bargained away. (I.E. Six guns stolen from a home burglary would get thirty years in prison (6X5=30))
Add significant civil (fines) and criminal penalties onto any violent crime of rape, robbery or murder, where a firearm was used or carried as a weapon. (I.E. 5 additional years for gun possession during the commission of a violent crime, 10 additional years for brandishing, 15 additional years for firing it and 20 additional years for personal injury to the victim with the firearm discharge.) We must make criminals think twice about choosing a firearm to commit a crime with.
Prosecute felons who attempt to purchase a firearm through a properly licensed retailer and get caught. It's been illegal for felons to own firearms since the Gun Control Act of 1968, but they're rarely ever punished for the attempt to purchase one. If you choose to be a felon, you have to realize that you're giving up certain freedoms when you commit a crime of violence. As Benjamin Franklin said "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Legislators have to refocus crime control efforts and aim at the felon and the felon's access to firearms and not at firearms themselves or those who lawfully own them.
Concentrating efforts to reduce violent crime upon the violent criminal thug and not the firearm they obtained, would go a long way toward fixing this persistent problem.
Hey Bloomberg, Menino and Daley! Are you listening?
Government must take more careful aim at diminishing actual sources of firearms that are used in crime. They must also promote efforts that affect the criminal mind by increasing penalties for choosing a firearm to commit a crime with, while not providing a way out for these increased penalties. If we're going to be serious about reducing violent crime, we must do away with the plea-bargaining of illegal firearm charges. Most often these gun charges are dropped in a criminal case and violent felons know it....
Let's look at the problem even more simply shall we? Honest and upright gun owners commit no crimes, while violent criminal thugs don't obey laws that regulate firearms. That's the whole reason behind the failures of gun control laws to affect violent crime.
Even the most ignorant dimwit liberal can understand that...
Shine the floodlight upon the violent felon and not the gun in his hand. How's that for being simple and focused?!?!?!
It is only the slow-witted legislator and obtuse leftist who thinks that a hardened violent criminal thug will obey a law regulating firearm possession.
Oh wait a minute, I do have another answer! Let's stop voting dimwit blockheaded anti-gun legislators into public office!
"When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, "just men who will rule in the fear of God." The preservation of [our] government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded. If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the Laws."Noah Webster 1758-1843
Closing Comments
Thank you for taking the time out of your day to read the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter. I encourage you to pass it on.
You may use this newsletter as you see fit. You may post it, blog it, print it, forward it and publish it. The only thing I ask is that somewhere in your material, make sure the URL www.SaveTheGuns.com appears prominently.
Thank you,
Marc
SaveTheGuns.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)