http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/reasons2own.html

Reasons to own a Firearm
Police Cannot Protect And Are Not Required To Protect Every Individual

The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation
to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren
v. D.C. the court stated “courts have without exception concluded that when
a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police
services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to
individual members of the community.”

Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that
police responded to only about 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help (28.57%) to
Dade County authorities. Smith was asked why so many citizens in Dade County
were buying guns and he said, “They damn well better, they’ve got to protect
themselves.”

The Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of
violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour.

Currently, there are about 150,000 police officers on duty at any one time
to protect a population of more than 250 million Americans or almost 1,700
citizens per officer.

Criminals Fear Armed Citizens More Than The Police

In 1985, the National Institute for Justice reported that:
60% of felons polled agreed that “a criminal is not going to mess around
with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.”

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

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

Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads
of households to keep at least one weapon in the house. The residential
burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest
10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.

Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still
72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.

Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which
taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando’s rape rate
dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of
Florida and the nation.

Criminologists Turning From Anti-Gun Position

Dr. Gary Kleck a criminologist at Florida State University, Kleck began his
research as a firm believer in gun control. But in a speech delivered to the
National Research Council, he said while he was once “a believer in the
‘anti-gun’ thesis,” he has now moved “beyond even the skeptic position.” Dr.
Kleck now says the evidence “indicates that general gun availability does
not measurably increase rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape,
or burglary in the U.S.”

James Wright. Formerly a gun control advocate, Wright received a grant from
President Carter’s Justice Department to study the effectiveness of gun
control laws. To his surprise, he found that waiting periods, background
checks, and all other gun control laws were not effective in reducing
violent crime.

Wright says at one time, “It seemed evident to me, we needed to mount a
campaign to resolve the crisis of handgun proliferation.” But he says, “I am
now of the opinion that a compelling case for ‘stricter gun control’ cannot
be made.”

Problems With Waiting Periods And Background Checks

Waiting Periods Threaten The Safety Of People In Imminent Danger

Bonnie Elmasri. She inquired about getting a gun to protect herself from a
husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was told there was a
48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun. But unfortunately, Bonnie was never
able to pick up a gun. She and her two sons were killed the next day by an
abusive husband of whom the police were well aware.

Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross. She bought a gun (in a non-waiting period state) and
used it to kill an attacker in self-defense two days later. Had a 5-day
waiting period been in effect, Ms. Ross would have been defenseless against
the man who was stalking her.

Los Angeles riots. USA Today reported that many of the people rushing to gun
stores during the 1992 riots were “lifelong gun-control advocates, running
to buy an item they thought they’d never need.” Ironically, they were
outraged to discover they had to wait 15 days to buy a gun for self-defense.
Background Checks Do Not Disarm The Violent Criminal Population

A Justice Department survey of felons showed that 93% of handgun predators
had obtained their most recent guns “off-the-record.”
Press reports show that the few criminals who get their guns from retail
outlets can easily get fake IDs or use surrogate buyers, known as “straw
purchasers,” to buy their guns.
Prior Restraints On Rights Are Unconstitutional

1. Second Amendment Protects An Individual Right

Report by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982) “The
conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the
second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its
interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first
half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an
individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a
peaceful manner.”

Supreme Court admits “the people” in the Second Amendment are the same
“people” as in the rest of the Bill of Rights In U.S. v. Vergudo-Urquidez
the Court stated that “‘the people’ seems to have been a term of art
employed in select parts of the Constitution…. [and] it suggests that ‘the
people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second
Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national
community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this
country to be considered part of that community.”

2. Courts Agree That Rights Should Be Free From Prior Restraints

Near v. Minnesota In this case, the Supreme Court stated that government
officials should punish the abuse of a right and not place prior restraints
on the exercise of the right.

What about yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater? The courts have stated that
one cannot use his “freedom of speech” to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater.
And yet, no one argues that officials should gag everyone who goes into the
theater. The proper response is to punish the person who does yell “Fire. “
Likewise, citizens should not be “gagged” before exercising their Second
Amendment rights, rather they should be punished if they abuse that right.

D. Background Checks Can Lead To Gun Registration

Justice Department report (1989) “Any system that requires a criminal
history record check prior to purchase of a firearm creates the potential
for the automated tracking of individuals who seek to purchase firearms.”

California State officials have for years been using the state background
check required during the waiting period to compile an illegal registry of
handgun owners. These lists have been compiled without any statutory
authority to do so.

Federal The BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) has also been
compiling an illegal gun owner list by going to dealers’ stores and copying
the 4473 forms which are kept there. By copying these forms, which contain
the name and addresses of gun buyers, the BATF is violating federal law.

Problems With Gun Registration And Licensing

A. Licensing Or Registration Can Lead To Confiscation Of Firearms

Step One: Registration: In the mid-1960′s officials in New York City began
registering long guns. They promised they would never use such lists to take
away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon
began confiscating) many of those very guns.

Step Two: Confiscation: In 1992, a New York city paper reported that,
“Police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with
the city’s tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of
firearms…. Spot checks are planned [for other homes].

Foreign Countries Gun registration has led to confiscation in several
countries, including Greece, Ireland, Jamaica and Bermuda. And in an
exhaustive study on this subject. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership has researched and translated several gun control laws from
foreign countries. Their publication, Lethal Laws: Gun Control is the Key to
Genocide documents how gun control (and confiscation) has preceded the
slaughter and genocide of millions of people in Turkey, the Soviet Union,
Germany, China, Cambodia and others.

In 1983, Igor Hutorsky was murdered by two burglars who broke into his
Brooklyn furniture store. The tragedy is that some time before the murder
his business partner had applied for permission to keep a handgun at the
store. Even four months after the murder, the former partner had still not
heard from the police about the status of his gun permit.

B. The Power To License A Right Is The Power To Destroy A Right

Arbitrary Delays: While New Jersey law requires applications to be responded
to within thirty days, delays of ninety days are routine; sometimes,
applications are delayed for several years for no readily apparent reason.

Arbitrary Denials: Officials in New York City routinely deny gun permits for
ordinary citizens and store owners because as the courts have ruled they
have no greater need for protection than anyone else in the city. In fact,
the authorities have even refused to issue permits when the courts have
ordered them to do so.

Arbitrary Fee Increases: In 1994, the Clinton administration pushed for a
license fee increase of almost 1,000 percent on gun dealers. According to
U.S. News & World Report, the administration was seeking the license fee
increase “in hopes of driving many of America’s 258,000 licensed gun dealers
out of business.”

C. Officials Cannot License Or Register A Constitutional Right

The Supreme Court held in Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) that the First
Amendment prevents the government from registering purchasers of magazines
and newspapers even if such material is “communist political propaganda.”

Assault Weapons: Fact Or Fiction?

A. “Assault Rifles” No Different Than Hunting Rifles

Officer William McGrath: “These [assault rifles] are little different than
the semi-automatic hunting rifles that have been on the market since before
World War II. The main difference between an assault rifle and a
semi-automatic hunting rifle is that the assault rifle looks more
military.’”

“The term ‘assault’ rifle is really a misnomer as a true assault rifle is a
selective fire weapon capable of switching from fully automatic to
semi-automatic and back with the flip of a lever.”

“The charge that the assault rifle holds more rounds than a ‘legitimate’
hunting rifle shows either a lack of knowledge or a deliberate twisting of
the facts, as 10, 20 and 30 round magazines for ‘legitimate’ hunting rifles
have been on the market for decades without the world coming to an end.”

B. Semi-automatic “assault weapons” are excellent for self-defense

Police Capt. Massad Ayoob: “The likelihood of multiple opponents who move
fast often wear body armor, know how to take cover, and tend to ingest
chemicals that make them resistant to pain and shock, are all good reasons
for carrying guns that throw a whole lot more bullets than six-shooters do.”
(Emphasis added.)

“All four of these factors make it likely that more of the Good Guys’
bullets will be expended before the Bad Guys are neutralized. All of these
factors, therefore, militate for a higher capacity handgun in the hands of
the lawful defenders.”

1. Drugs And Alcohol Can Make Criminals Resistant To Pain

Arkansas: A drunk opened fire on an officer, who responded by firing 29
shots 15 of them striking the criminal. It was only the last bullet which
finally killed the drunk and effectively stopped him from shooting.

Illinois: Police shot a drug-induced criminal 33 times before the junkie
finally dropped and was unable to shoot any longer.

2. Hi-Capacity Semi-Autos Can Help Decent People To Defend Themselves

Los Angeles riots: Many of the guns targeted by so-called assault weapons
bans are the very guns with which the Korean merchants used to defend
themselves during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Those firearms proved to be
extremely useful to the Koreans. Their stores were left standing while other
stores around them were burned to the ground.

The Korean merchants would probably agree with Capt. Massad Ayoob. When one
is facing mob violence and the police are nowhere to be found, one needs a
gun that shoots more than just six bullets. A ban on large capacity
semi-automatic firearms will only harm one’s ability to defend himself and
one’s family.

C. The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own military
rifles and handguns

Report by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982) “In the
Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined ‘militia of the United
States’ to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These
persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a
minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment…. There can be little
doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a
‘militia.’ they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire
populace capable of bearing arms. and not to any formal group such as what
is today called the National Guard.

The Supreme Court In U.S. v. Miller, the Court stated that, “The Militia
comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common
defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to
appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
the time.”

The case of U.S. v. Miller is often cited by gun-control proponents as
indicative that the Supreme Court decision most plausibly means that a the
Second Amendment is a collective right and not an individual right. However,
if that were true, the case would not have been heard at all by the court.
Since the individuals involved in the case were not members of any militia,
they would thus have lacked any standing to challenge the law. But this was
not so. The court implicitly recognized that the Second Amendment is an
individual right and thus heard the case.