ARMED-M
______________________________________________________________________________________
The
Armed M is a publication of the 2nd Amendment SIG, a special interest group of
American Mensa Ltd. Opinions expressed herein are the opinions of the writers,
and not of American Mensa, Ltd., which has no opinions. This newsletter is
linked to the Mensa web page WWW.Mensa.org as WWW.2Asig.iqhost.net.
Almost all editions are on the web site.
It takes about two minutes to download each of the sixty editions using
dial up.
============================================================================
OCT. 2003 I have moved and am now in
Wilmington North Carolina. My E-Mail address is Smith705@Juno.com. I can always
use contributions to the newsletter. If you write something or find something
e-mail it to me I'll put it in the newsletter as space and theme allows. Bob
Smith -----
================================================================================
.357 Magnum
Revolver Match
The Smith &
Wesson gun and Rugerís KGPF-331 will do great work as self-defense arms. But we
would choose one over the other. Taking a look at the available snubbies, we
found precious few 3-inch wheelguns available. Here we test blue-collar,
working-class steel six-shooters.
Lightweight
AR-15 Carbines: Bushmaster and DPMS Tested
These are joys to
carry and shoot. Need a handy, dependable rifle for self-defense? Want a
lightweight gun that wonít stretch your arms? In this evaluation, you can pick
either gun and come out with a winner.
Surplus Pocket
Pistols: Makarov Outpowers Walther and CZ .32s
We found
surprising quality for the dollar. The more powerful 9x18 import surplus gun is
our pick, but there were no bad apples in this small-gun matchup. As someone
once said, rule number one for gunfighting is, "Have a gun."
Trapdoor
Springfields: Whatís Your Best .45-70 Choice?
An original gun
needs work. Pederosoliís new rifles are close matches to an original. But which
$1000 rifle would we choose? Ultimately, it was a coin flip for accuracy or
weight.
Effective July 1,
2003, the state of Tennessee will honor other permits or licenses to carry as if
a Tennessee handgun permit were issued to the permitee.
However, only handguns may be carried.
Here is the link to the legislation with tidbits highlighted.
http://legallyarmed.com/july12003newlaw.html
>From: "Joseph E. Olson"
Subject:
Europe's gun culture rivals US To: FIREARMSREGPROF@listserv.ucla.edu
The UK's Independent picks up on a report that
Europe's gun culture is giving the US a serious run for its money.
It quotes figures from the Small Arms Survey which
show that Europeans own a total of 67 million registered guns - a number, the
survey argues, showing that some nations have developed a gun culture that bears
comparison with the United States.
"Contrary to the common assumption that
Europeans are virtually unarmed, an estimated 84 million firearms are legally
held in the 15 member states of the EU. Of these, 80 per cent - 67 million guns
– are in civilian hands", the report states.
The Survey also shows that there are major
differences between countries.
Germans are buying almost as many new firearms per
capita as Americans.
Finland, with its strong hunting tradition, has the
most legally registered guns in the EU at 39 per 100 people, the UK has 10 –
one third of the German and French figures - and the Netherlands has two.
By GINA HOLLAND -
Associated Press Writer - 07-03-03
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/content/news/ap_story.html/Washington/AP.V0977.AP-Scotus-Gun-Righ.html
WASHINGTON (AP)--The Supreme Court is being asked to overturn an appeals court
ruling that said the Constitution does not guarantee people a personal right to
own a gun. The gun case includes an
unlikely group of challengers--not the National Rifle Association or other
organized groups, but some rugby teammates and friends. They include a police
SWAT officer, a Purple Heart recipient, a former Marine sniper, a parole
officer, a stockbroker and others with varied political views. They had sued the
state over laws banning high-powered weapons.
``Citizens need the Second Amendment for protection of their families, homes and
businesses,'' their attorney and rugby teammate, Gary Gorski of Fair Oaks,
Calif., wrote in the appeal of a ruling that upheld California's assault weapons
ban.
The 9th Circuit panel said the amendment's intent was to protect gun rights of
militias, not individuals. A more conservative appeals court in New Orleans has
ruled that individuals have a constitutional right to guns.
The case brings a politically charged issue to the court just before the
presidential election. If justices agree to hear the case, it will be scheduled
for argument next year.
The administration could weigh in now in this case. Mathew Nosanchuk, litigation
director for the pro-gun control Violence Policy Center, said it's better
strategy for the White House to steer clear of the issue. The Cali- fornia case
involves a state assault weapons ban, and there is controversy over whether
Congress should renew a federal assault weapons ban next year. President Bush
has said he supports extending the federal ban, but sentiment is strong in the
GOP-controlled Congress to let the ban expire and Bush has not put much energy
into efforts to extend it. Some advoc- ates on both sides probably want the
justices to decline to review the 9th Circuit ruling, said gun rights
attorney Stephen Halbrook. ``It's a wild card. You really can't read where
they'll go.''
He also said the case is complicated because it involves questions about state
authority to undercut gun rights and whether the challengers had standing to sue
the state.
On the Net: 9th Circuit: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov
Volokh's archive on gun rulings: http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm
Justices to hear 2nd Amendment case?
Gun-rights supporters want high court to settle issue of individual rights
Posted: July 4, 2003 - By Jon Dougherty
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33413
Gun-rights supporters and organizations are supporting a legal effort to
convince the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruling that says individuals don't have a constitutional right to own a gun.
At issue is an appeal filed Thursday in federal court by a group of Calif- ornia
residents who had previously sued the state over its ban of high- powered
weapons. The Associated Press reported that the list of plaintiffs want the high
court to overturn the earlier appeals court decision that essentially ruled the
Second Amendment only guarantees the "collective" right that applies
not to persons but to a state's militia. Included in the plaintiff's list is a
parole officer, a SWAT police officer, a recipient of the
military's Purple Heart (awarded for wounds in battle), a stockbroker and a
former Marine sniper, AP said.
The Supreme Court has not addressed the Second Amendment in nearly seven
decades. A spate of rulings in the 1800s made a mess of the issue, plaintiffs
say, and in 1939 - the last time the high court ruled on the issue of gun rights
- justices upheld the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Another reason plaintiffs and supporters are seeking U.S. Supreme Court review
of gun rights is because there are conflicting U.S. appeals court rulings on the
Second Amendment's intent.
The 9th circuit - the most-overturned court on the U.S. circuit court roster -
ruled the amendment a right of states, but the more conservative 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled that the Constitution clearly
allows for individual ownership of firearms.
"We conclude Š that [previous Supreme Court cases] do not support the
government's collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to
the Second Amendment," a three-judge panel of the 5th circuit wrote in
October 2001.
"There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other
part of the Constitution, that the words 'the people' have a different conn-
otation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the
Constitution," the panel said.
"In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that
the words 'the people' have precisely the same meaning within the Second
Amendment as without."
Also, President Bush has publicly supported an individual's right to own a
firearm. And the Justice Department, under Attorney General John Ashcroft, has
interpreted the Second Amendment as a right reserved to individuals.
"There is no academic research that shows that the California ban, the
various state bans or the federal law have significantly reduced Š violent
crime rates," legal scholar and noted gun-rights author John Lott told
WorldNetDaily. "Yet, if anything happened, the California ban appears to
have actually been associated with more crime. The biggest impact of the ban
seems to be on reducing the number of gun shows."
Angel Shamaya, executive director of gun-rights website KeepAndBearArms .com,
says he hopes the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case and is confident
justices will side with what he says is the amendment's true intent - a support
of individual rights.
Shamaya told WorldNetDaily his organization has been backing the appeal of the
9th circuit's decision. "It's a true Second Amendment case," he said.
"We not only deeply implore the justices to agree to hear the case, we
believe we will win the case because of how well it's argued.
"Millions of innocent people live under the threat of criminal prosecution
and prison for merely exercising their constitutional rights," he added.
"That's about as unAmerican as it gets. It's unacceptable, and we grew
weary of waiting around for 'someone else' to get the job done."
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, a 300,000-strong
gun-rights group based in Springfield, Va., sounded a more cautionary tone.
"The Supreme Court is an unpredictable institution. They are increasingly
making decisions based on 'emerging feelings' and 'criticism of laws,'" he
told WorldNetDaily. "References to the Constitution are sporadic, almost
accidental. As the recent Texas sodomy case shows, they only respect their own
previous decisions when it suits them.
"Having said that," Pratt continued, "the same court that
presently sits opined in 1991 that the phrase 'the people,' as in 'the right of
the people to keep and bear arms,' refers to individuals. They found that the
phrase was used to refer to individuals throughout the Bill of Rights. So, if
they were consistent, they would rule that the Second Amendment means what the
founders meant, which was to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms
from the United States government."
Lott says less restrictive gun rights are directly tied to public safety,
accord- ing to his research, a point he says justices should consider if they
agree to hear the case.
"If the court is going to consider such a ban and the court puts any weight
on this being an individual right, presumably it is necessary to show that the
ban is 'narrowly tailored' to accomplish a publicly-policy goal, such as
reducing crime," said Lott, a resident legal scholar at the American Enter-
prise Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.
"Yet, there is no empirical evidence that the California law accomplished
this goal. The weight of the empirical evidence seems to require that the court
strike down the law."
Subject:
Can we ban assault weapons?
Lt.
Wentz and Sgt. Crispin,
The
article reports that, along with Bridgeton Mayor Pirolli, you "all agreed
assault weapons, such as AK-47s and Uzis, generally serve no redeeming purpose
and should be banned."
It's
probably a waste of time reminding you of your oath to uphold the Constitution,
or of the Founders' view that "every...terrible implement of the soldier
[is] the birthright of an American."
Bottom
line-- sure, ban them. The problem
for you is people like me who will
resist such tyrannical edicts because we know ownership of militia-suitable
firearms to be an unalienable right.
We'll
refuse to obey you and surrender them. That's
OUR bottom line, and it's not open to debate or negotiation.
So
the question boils down to this: If
such a ban is enacted, how many people like me, who want to be left in peace,
are you willing to imprison or kill while "just following orders"?
This
inquiry, and your response, if any, will be forwarded to others who share my
concerns about just how much coercion you're willing to employ.
David
Codrea
From:
Terry Wintroub (GONJ-BOD)
Subject:
Is it just me or is this idea stunningly outstanding?
This
came to me via the Second Amendment Sisters-Philadelphia email list. What a
GREAT idea for any group's youth outings. Or even their adult outings. :-)
Terry
Original
message
I
thought you might like to hear about a gun lesson that 66 youth, age 12-19,
learned at Camp American last week. All 66 campers were "issued" a
small water gun for the purpose of playing some competitive team games. For the
final game in the series, each team was told to keep their best 2 guns and turn
the rest in. The sheep were willingly lead to the slaughter in spite of the
class on the importance of gun ownership they had attended earlier in the day.
As each team completed the final round they were told to sit on the basketball
court. When the final team finished the competition, 5 staff members came
rushing out of the woods, adorned in blue berets and carrying huge water guns.
Naturally, the 66 campers were "slaughtered" by the 5 blue berets with
the "assault weapons".
>
>The
"wounded and dead" were once again gathered on the basketball court to
see if they could figure out what happened. They knew all too well at this point
that they never should have given up their guns. They also figured out that even
though 20 lucky campers still possessed their "state issued" guns, the
5 big "assault weapons" were no match for them. They learned the
importance of the right to keep and bear arms, and working to get the ban on
"assault weapons" lifted. This is a hands on lesson they will not soon
forget.
>
>If you would like to find out more about Camp American, go to
http://www.CampAmerican.com
>
>Larry
Pratt of Gun Owners of America will be teaching at the North Carolina Camp
American next month. Contact Director@CampAmerica.org for details.
The Treason
Lobby Wants To Grab Your Guns. Wonder Why?
By Juan Mann
VDare
http://www.vdare.com/mann/treason_lobby.htm
June 29, 2003
The Treason Lobby has the Second Amendment in its crosshairs.
The most destructive and deceptive gun-grab in American history -H.R. 2038 - is
now before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security with
eighty-five co-sponsors.
The bill would extend the largely arbitrary and cosmetic-based
"assault" weapons restrictions signed by President Clinton to ban even
more guns, including rifles like the venerable World War II-vintage M-1 Garand,
and the popular Ruger Mini 14.
But with a little detective work - using voting records compiled and graded by
the immigration reform group, NumbersUSA - the truth comes out about who
is backing the so-called "assault" weapons ban.
As VDARE.COM readers might have suspected, the sponsors of H.R. 2038 are mostly
the same open-borders, pro-illegal alien members of Congress who are already
selling-out America piece by piece on the immigration issue.
Based on their immigration report cards from NumbersUSA, the H.R. 2038 sponsors
overwhelmingly flunk the immigration test with an average grade of D (score of
19 percent) and a median grade of F (score of 15 percent).
Seventy-three out of eighty H.R. 2038 sponsors graded by NumbersUSA received
either D or F for their lifetime immigration voting record. Five received
C and only two received B.
Also, the report card database shows that all members of Congress with the
highest-scoring immigration report cards are least likely to sponsor the
gun-grab. No one in the House of Representatives receiving an A from
NumbersUSA is sponsoring H.R. 2038.
And not a single member of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus is
sponsoring of the bill. But twenty out of thirty-eight members of the
Congressional Black Caucus, and nine out of nineteen Democrats in the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus support the ban.
The gun-grab was introduced on May 8 by Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) (F at 13%).
The bill now has eighty-five co-sponsors in the House, all Democrats except
Christopher Shays (R-CT) (B+ at 81%) and Christopher Smith (R-NJ) (D at 21%).
Shays is the highest-scoring sponsor of the bill.
The highest-scoring Democrats sponsoring the bill are William Lipinski (D-IL) (B
at 79%) and Jane Harman (D-CA) (C at 53%).
Six of the H.R. 2038 sponsors aren't yet graded by NumbersUSA.
But all are Democrats, including Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), a former MECHA
member at the University of Arizona, and Linda Sanchez (D-CA), sister of Loretta
Sanchez (D-CA) (F- at 5%). Grijalva and the Sanchez sisters are all
Democrats and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in the 108th
Congress.
It's not hard to guess what Grijalva and Linda Sanchez's immigration report
cards are going to look like someday - and they probably won't be having lunch
anytime soon with Congressman Tom Tancredo (D-CO) (A+ at 100%) either.
Thanks to the immigration report cards from NumbersUSA, the gun-grabbing
sponsors of H.R. 2038 can be unmasked as some of the "most horriblest
clowns" in Congress - bent on erasing the Second Amendment along with our
borders
.
(a)
Dear Editor:
The following press release was submitted by the office of Rep. Norwood (R-GA).
US Representative Charlie Norwood (GA-09) today introduced a bill that addresses
the growing U.S. criminal alien crisis by allowing the over 600,000 state and
local law enforcement officials in the field to enforce immigration laws during
the course of exercising their regular duties. The bipartisan bill,
entitled the Clear Law
Enforcement for criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003 (or CLEAR Act), brings
clarity and coordination to our national immigration system and support and
relief to the roughly 2,000 Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE)
agents charged with enforcing immigration laws on the books.
"There are upwards of 400,000 individuals who have received final
deportation orders that are hiding in our communities," said Norwood.
"Their appeals have run out, and the orders tell them, 'it's time to go.'
But, the out-manned Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement can't find
them! What's worse, 80,000 of those people have criminal convictions. They were
in the hands of law enforcement, but were released back onto the streets. Can
you imagine opening the doors of our prisons and letting 80,000 criminals run
back into the streets? That's exactly what's happened with these 80,000
criminals"
Today's broken enforcement system has left our state and local law enforcement
community increasingly unclear on whether they hold the jurisdictional power to
enforce our federal immigration laws. The CLEAR Act clarifies that our state and
local officers have the inherent authority to arrest and detain criminal and
illegal aliens during the normal course of their duty. Additionally, the bill
provides these officers with the appropriate funding and training to adequately
enforce the immigration laws, and full access to a new National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) database containing the records of any and all
violators of immigration law.
The CLEAR Act also creates a new system for BICE to take custody, process, and
remove illegal aliens. Additionally, it produces a system of accountability by
requiring the federal government to either take custody of illegal aliens or
else pay the locality to detain the aliens.
"Right now if a local officer in my hometown, during the normal
course of his or her duty, pulls over a car for speeding, with someone who is
illegally in our country, they have to call BICE, verify their status, and wait
until someone from BICE comes to pick them up," added Norwood.
"Sometimes they have to wait for hours on the roadside for the pickup to
arrive.
But most of the time BICE says they're too busy to come by - telling the police
to let the lawbreakers go. That is as wrong as the day is long and it's high
time we fixed it." In addition to Norwood, original cosponsors
of the CLEAR Act include US Representatives Allen Boyd (FL-02), Nathan Deal
(GA-10), and Melissa Hart (PA-04).
For a statement of Rep. Norwood on The CLEAR Act of 2003, please see this
document.
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/letters/2003,0711-facts.pdf
For the facts on The CLEAR Act of 2003, please see this document. http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/letters/2003,0711-stmt.pdf
Duke Hipp Press Secretary, Rep. Norwood (R-GA)
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/letters/2003,0711-hipp.shtm
U.S.C. -- TITLE 8, Sec. 1103 (Powers and Duties of the U.S. Attorney General):
(1) The Attorney General shall be charged with the administration and
enforcement of this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration and
naturalization of aliens... (5) He shall have the power and duty to
control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United States against the
illegal entry of aliens and shall, in his discretion, appoint for that purpose
such number of employees of the Service as to him shall appear necessary and
proper.
July
16 Neal Knox Update - Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) just
dropped a grenade in Congressional laps.
His
bill would repeal the ban on privately owned handguns in homes and businesses
-- and registration of rifles and shotguns -- in the nation’s capital,
which has just regained its loathsome crown as “Murder Capital of the
Nation.”
If
nothing else this bill will force all those tepid “Supporters of the Second
Amendment” to fish or cut bait.
Sen.
Hatch’s “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act” - which does not
yet have a number - would repeal the city’s long-standing requirement that
firearms and ammunition be registered. It
was used almost 30 years ago to effectively prohibit handguns by requiring the
re-registration of the few registered guns, then prohibiting any non-registered
guns from being registered.
Further,
under existing law registered rifles and shotguns could not be kept loaded - or
even fully assembled - assuring D.C.’s criminals that they could rape, rob and
steal from law-abiding citizens without fear of facing anything more deadly than
a kitchen knife or a pan of boiling water.
Sen.
Hatch’s NRA-backed bill would eliminate criminal penalties for possession and
carrying firearms within citizens’ own homes and businesses.
>
>
It would also strike the provision declaring any semi-automatic with more
than 13-shot magazine capacity to be a “machine gun,” a faulty definition
which more than 70 years ago NRA President Karl Frederick boasted of having
written.
>
>
That provision has been used to ban guns “capable of accepting” over
13-shot guns. I saw a 1977 letter
from D.C. authorities to a retired D.C. police officer demanding that he
surrender an M1 Carbine registered with a five-shot magazine.
>
>
Interestingly, the Washington Post and Washington Times haven’t yet
mentioned the Hatch bill.
>
>
There is no better example of the failure of “gun control” than D.C.
Imagine the demands for rigid gun laws in D.C. if it didn’t already have the
most prohibitive laws in the nation.
>
>
Anti-gunners try to shift the subject by claiming that all a D.C.
resident has to do is cross a bridge into Virginia, or cross a street into
Maryland to obtain a gun.
>
>
That’s true - if the D.C. citizens and the seller are both willing to
commit Federal felonies. No
individual, and no dealer, may legally sell a gun across any state line.
It was to “protect” prohibitive laws like New York’s - and D.C.’s
-- that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted.
>
>
In the decade after the ’68 Act crimes with guns doubled in the nation,
and went even higher in the cities and states with the most restrictive gun
laws.
>
>
The problem with gun laws is that they disarm only the law-abiding, for
criminals pay no more attention to gun laws than they do the laws against rape,
robbery and murder.
>
>
As Sen. Hatch pointed out when introducing his bill, “According to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, and despite the most stringent gun control laws in
the country, in 8 out of the 9 years between 1994 and 2002, Washington, D.C. had
the highest murder rate in the country.”
>
>
And almost all of the murders with guns are committed with handguns.
>
Opponents of the Hatch bill - and there will be many, on both sides of
the aisle - will be flying into the face of that failure.
So they will divide their arguments between “how much worse” the D.C.
crime rates might be without their draconian laws, and claiming that the bill
violates “home rule.”
>
>
So on one hand they are arguing that D.C. citizens must be trusted to
govern themselves, while simultaneously arguing that they can’t be trusted
with guns.
>
>
But until it passes - or lawsuits filed by individuals connected with the
Cato Institute, and by NRA are successful - the law-abiding citizens of the
District of Columbia are denied their Second Amendment rights. (Those two
lawsuits challenging the D.C. law were filed this spring.
NRA asked that the suits be combined, a motion denied because the NRA
suit is broader.)
>
>
Following is the full text of Sen. Hatch’s July 15 introductory
statement on the “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act”
>
>
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia
Personal Protection Act. This is an extremely important piece of legislation.
Most importantly, this bill goes a long way toward restoring the
constitutionally guaranteed right of Americans who reside in the District of
Columbia to possess firearms.
>
>
Mr. President, it is no secret that the District of Columbia, our great
Nation’s Capital, suffers from the most startling violent crime rates in the
country. It has the highest, the
absolute highest, murder rate per capita in the country.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and despite the most
stringent gun control laws in the country, in 8 out of the 9 years between 1994
and 2002, Washington, DC had the highest murder rate in the country.
In fact, the results are in for 2002, and unfortunately they continue to
paint a grim picture. Mr.
President, the District of Columbia has again reclaimed its rather unenviable
title as the “Murder Capital of the United States”.
>
>
It is time, Mr. President, to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens
to protect themselves and to defend their families against murderous predators.
All too often, we read in the paper about yet another vicious murder
carried out against an innocent District of Columbia resident.
Try to imagine the horror that the victim felt when he faced a gun-toting
criminal and could not legally reach for a firearm to protect himself.
We must act now to stop the carnage and put law-abiding citizens in a
position to exercise their right to self defense.
It is time to tell the citizens of the District of Columbia that the
Second Amendment of the Constitution applies to them, and not only to their
fellow Americans in the rest of the country.
The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act would do exactly that.
>
>Let
me take a moment to highlight what this legislation would do. This bill would:
(1) permit law-abiding citizens to possess handguns and rifles in their homes
and businesses; (2) repeal the registration requirements for firearms and
ammunition; (3) eliminate criminal penalties for possession and carrying of
firearms in their homes and businesses; and (4) correct an erroneous provision
which wrongly treats some firearms as if they were machine guns.
>
>
Over the years, Mr. President, I have heard over and over again from some
of my friends on the other side of the aisle that the way you reduce violent,
gun-related crime is by prohibiting the possession of firearms.
Even if law-abiding citizens are prohibited from possessing firearms, my
liberal friends argue, it is a small price to pay for safety and security.
>
>
Well, I want to take this opportunity to dispel these unfounded myths.
These myths, I might add, are exposed as such by situations like we have
today in the District of Columbia. I
have said it before, but I will say it again, excessive regulation and the
systematic erosion of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment do not deter
violent, gun-toting criminals. Enacting
and vigorously enforcing stiff penalties for those that commit crimes with guns
deters violent crime. Not only is
this the proven and effective approach to reducing gun violence, it also
preserves the constitutionally guaranteed rights of law-abiding men and women to
own and possess firearms.
>
>
In fact, I recently held a hearing that examined the Administration’s
gun crime reduction initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods. This initiative has
been incredibly successful. It
takes the precise approach that I have advocated - strict and vigorous
enforcement of crimes committed with guns.
It says to criminals, “If you use a gun during the commission of a
crime, you will do very serious and very hard time.”
And it does so, Mr. President, without trampling on the rights of
law-abiding American men and women.
>
>Today,
unfortunately but not surprisingly, the state of affairs in the District of
Columbia has highlighted exactly what those of us who care deeply about the
Second Amendment of the Constitution have always feared: murderous criminals
possess firearms and are free to prey upon law-abiding citizens; and law-abiding
citizens - precisely because they are law-abiding citizens- may not possess a
firearm in their homes to protect themselves and their families.
>
>
Mr. President, the prohibition of firearms in the District of Columbia is
as ineffective and deplorable as it is unconstitutional; it is high time we
rectify this wrong. I urge my
colleagues to support this measure.
>_______________________________________________
>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh061703.asp