An Open Letter to Governor Herbert
I recently read your “first shots” in the battle over gun control and Utah’s gun legislation. To say I was disappointed in its compromising tone is an understatement. There cannot be any compromise on the Constitution . . . something is either Constitutional or it isn’t, if it isn’t then it is not lawful and should be nullified by both the people and the states. These are your five key points void of your expansions on each point, the comments are mine.
1. “Respect the Second Amendment” - Respect for not just the Second Amendment but all of the Constitution is the obligation of all Americans. All current firearm control statutes diminish our fundamental right to bear arms and disrespect the Second since they have been instituted outside of the Constitution. The Second Amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms and places no restrictions or conditions on that right and specifically and clearly states that the right “shall not be infringed”. All current and proposed firearms control statutes infringe on this right. The Constitution allows for only one way to change anything in it and that is through Article V, the amendment process. If, with the passage of time, limitations or conditions need to be placed on this most basic right they cannot be legitimately introduced through legislation, from the bench, nor through “executive order” since the authorities for modification of the Constitution are not enumerated to the legislative, judicial, or executive branches by Articles I, II, or III which enumerate the powers of these branches.
2. “Find rational solutions” - Finding rational solutions is an important consideration Mr. Governor, but it is the Federal Administration and its left-wing, liberal anti-gun attack squads that are acting without careful consideration and in a reactionary manner marked by a hatred and contempt for the Constitution in proposing extreme measures designed to not only politicize and polarize the debate but also to inflame those who support the Second Amendment. Additionally, we do not need to find solutions that protect Second Amendment rights, they are built into the Constitution in Article V which provides the only lawful means to change or add any amendment.
3. “Enforce existing laws” - As you know, Mr. Governor, laws do not stop any anti-social behaviours, they only provide penalties for violating acceptable social standards which when violated are deemed criminal. It is an indisputable fact that it is only the law abiding that obey laws, those with malevolent criminal intentions do not. The view that new, more restrictive gun laws will somehow cause criminals to be deflected from committing criminal acts is not just naïve but verges on criminal malfeasance when that view is held by elected officials.
If stringent gun laws actually reduced violence then Chicago and New York City with among the, if not the most, stringent gun laws would be the safest cities in America . . . they are not!
Even though all current gun laws are unlawful since they amend the Constitution without going through the Amendment process, if we are not going to rescind them due to their un-Constitutionality then we should enforce those we have, we don't need new ones.
We already have "Universal" background checks. Since 1986, those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter where they occur. Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm. According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on requiring gun registration. In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.
A common misrepresentation made by the liberal-left, anti-gun/anti-constitutional lobby is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun shows. A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.” Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market. The fact is that the majority of criminals DO NOT acquire their weapons legally. New gun laws would not limit the access of criminals to firearms it would only un-Constitutionally limit non-criminals from obtaining them for lawful purposes.
As you’ve said, preventing firearms access for violent criminals and the violent, or potentially violent, mentally ill is necessary to protect society. I would pose that there must be some rational relationship between public safety and such restrictions. There is absolutely no rational relationship between someone who is convicted of a non-violent felony, for example tax evasion, and the probability that such a felon will commit a violent act in the future nor is there any rational relationship between someone who suffers from a benign mental disorder such as obsessive compulsive disorder, for example, and the probability that the sufferer, due to this relatively benign mental condition, will commit a violent act with a firearm in the future. When establishing restrictions specificity must be used to protect the rights of individuals rather than painting members of a class with a broad brush for the purpose of political expediency.
In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction. Enforce current laws!
In a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia combined submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS in addition 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS. In other words in 2011 only 110 mental health records were submitted.
If you are not going to support the rescinding of all current gun laws because of the lack of Constitutional basis then demand the ENFORCEMENT OF THE CURRENT LAWS and the cessation further un-Constitutional gun law enactments !
4. “Protect the vulnerable” - As you've stated, protection of the vulnerable is an imperative but to quote Cesare Beccaria “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 prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." The events that have spurred these most recent attacks on the Second Amendment played out in “gun free” zones, areas where the attackers could be relatively assured that their targets would be unarmed and unable to defend themselves. These events are proofs of Beccaria’s admonition. Increased gun control will serve to make the vulnerable more vulnerable not less.
5. “Address a growing culture of violence” - As much as the liberal-left, anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment movement would like to convince Americans differently, the truth is that violence in American Society has actually declined, not increased over the past quarter century. Between 1991 and 2011, the latest years I could find data for, the violent crime rate decreased 51 percent to a 41-year low (including a 51 percent decrease in the murder rate, to a 48-year low). The original “Assault Rifle”Ban was signed into law in 1994 and expired in 2004, in other words the decline in violence began 3 years before the ban was enacted and has continue for the 7 years (now 9 years) after the ban expired.
Mr. Governor, there is a growing divide in this nation based not on race, religion, or even class but between those that support the Constitution and those that would have us abandon it with the Second Amendment being the current skirmish. In Utah the Utah Sheriffs Association as well as a majority of law enforcement, the Utah Legislature as well as our Federal Representatives and, I believe, the majority of Utahans are standing on the side of the Constitution. I ask you most respectfully to stand with the Constitution and the people you serve and sign HB114, the Protection of The Second Amendment Act, and any other legislation supporting the Constitution when they appear on your desk even if they inflame those that favour abandonment of the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment