HR2127 IH
50 Caliber rifles and ammunition

I have read the report of Representatives Henry Waxman and Rod Blagojevich, as well as other comments made by
individuals concerning 50 caliber rifles and ammunition. I have also watched and listened to the hearings by the
Senate Judiciary Committee concerning clemency for Puerto Rican terrorists. The statements and comments in the
report concerning the 50 caliber non-issue are as evasive, duplicitous, equivocating, dishonest and of convoluted
logic as were those of the legal counsel for Mr. Klinton in regard to their recommendations to him about granting
clemency.

The report attempts to persuade Congress to restrict or ban 50 caliber firearms and ammunition from the American
public, due to their ?potential threat?. This would be accomplished by making them subject to regulation by the
1934 National Firearms Act, (NFA), if they are not banned outright. This is the same Act which was unable to
prevent 12 Puerto Rican terrorists from obtaining illegally and then using in terrorist acts, firearms which were
already subject to that same standard of regulation. At this time, however, that is a moot point now that Mr.
Klinton has granted clemency to the terrorists!

Having studied the report, it is apparent that the firearms and ammunition that are targeted have never been used
in the United States in the commission of any crime. One individual, using an illegally obtained 50 caliber rifle,
committed a crime in Ireland. To suggest that to regulate these firearms and ammunition via the 1934 NFA laws
would have prevented this crime from occurring is to be naive at least, or patently dishonest and an outright lie at
worst. Now, it would seem, Americans must be punished for the crimes of foreign nationals committed in a
foreign country, what absurdity!

As an example of the tortured thinking, I hesitate to call it logic, because it is anything but logical, the following is
an excerpt from the report:

?The Government Accounting Office also tracked down a 50 caliber weapon
seized at the home of a mentally ill suspect who shot and killed a police off-
icer responding to a domestic complaint in Michigan. Police found the
weapon among 15 other firearms inside the killer?s home, although the gun
used in the killing was not a fifty caliber weapon (emphasis added). Investi-
gators concluded that, despite his mental illness, the killer was able to pur-
chase the rifles legally because he had no prior felony convictions? (em-
phasis added).

A close review of the structure and context of the above quote is very revealing. The first emphasis reveals that the
weapon used to kill the police officer was not the fifty caliber rifle the authorities found subsequent to the
crime. The fifty caliber rifle was legally possessed (by the reports own admission) and was not the firearm used to
kill the police officer. The only mention of the other 15 legally possessed firearms, occurred coincidental to the
report. Additionally, there was a careful omission of the caliber of any of the other 15 rifles. Could it be that if
any of them had been say, 30 caliber, the Representatives were holding that information in reserve for the time they
apply the same illogic of ?potential threat ? to them? One can conclude that those other firearms did not posses
the same ?potential threat? value hysterically decried in the report regarding 50 caliber rifles and ammunition. For
the time being, anyway.

The second emphasis is even more telling. It only explains PART of the story as far as any ?legality? issue is
concerned. While it may have been true that the mentally ill man had no prior felony convictions, this is only part
of the information recorded when an individual purchases a firearm. When any individual attempts to purchase a
firearm anywhere in the United States, in addition to any state paperwork requirements, there is also required, a
federal 4473 ?yellow? form to fill out. On it, the potential purchaser is asked, among other things, if they have
?…ever been adjudicated mentally defective…?? This form was a requirement even before the Brady Bill was
enacted and forced on the American public. It remained a legal requirement after Brady became effective as well.
It can be concluded from the report that the individual in Michigan became mentally ill AFTER he purchased any
of the 16 rifles he LEGALLY owned. Either that or he lied on the federal form or he had not been ?legally
adjudicated mentally defective? prior to the purchases of the rifles. ANY of them! If he had been adjudicated
mentally defective and had lied on form 4473, prior to enactment of Brady, he committed a felony at that time and
the background check in effect in Michigan would (or should have) revealed his status as an individual not legally
entitled to purchase or own a firearm. Any firearm. If he had been found mentally defective in a court of law
subsequent to enactment of the Brady bill, lied on form 4473 and attempted to purchase the firearms anyway, then
the background check would (or should have) revealed that fact and he should have been prosecuted under the law.
Out of thousands prevented from purchasing firearms as a result of Brady, less than a handful have been
prosecuted! What?s the point, a law with no teeth?! It seems that perhaps we should all be denied access to even
steak knives, hammers or any item of ?potential threat? because we ?may become? mentally defective, I suppose.
A final point on this issue. The half truth of not explaining all the ramifications of any legal issue involved in the
Michigan example is a standard ploy utilized by those who tailor their argument to suit their purpose. Omission of
facts can obfuscate a matter to the benefit of one party and the detriment of another. Nothing new here!

The suggestion of restricting or banning some inanimate object because of its ?potential threat? factor would be
ridiculous if it weren?t so ?potentially threatening? an argument itself! To support this point of view violates not
only the presumption of innocence of any individual, it is also ?prior restraint? (to use a phrase coined by the
ACLU) of a constitutional right. The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions, beginning in 1931 (Near
vs. Minn.) and continuing up to U.S. vs. the New York Times Co. (the Pentagon Papers), that ?previous
restraints? are unconstitutional. Previous restraints are defined as infringing on or prohibiting the free exercise of
a constitutional right prior to the realization of that right. While these rulings related directly to free speech, they
are no less part and parcel of the greater principle which is emphasized today; that being, all men are created
equal. It cannot be ignored, conversely, that the legal premise of the prohibition of ?previous restraints? is also
universally applicable to all rights as inalienable or it is inapplicable en toto!

A deeper examination of the arguments to support banning or severely restricting the items in question supports
the conclusion that the 2nd. amendment is an individual right and not a states right with reference to the National
guard. Implicit in the arguments is the recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms. Otherwise, there
would be no need to restrict or ban them from individual Americans! It seems ironic that for over 220 years, the
individual right to keep and bear arms was understood both explicitly and implicitly. It hasn?t been until the
?enlightened? liberals and the left began to re-educate the misguided and confused thinking of some of the most
profound legal and political minds that the 2nd. amendment is being ?understood? to be a ?collective, states right?,
applicable only to the National Guard. The revisionists of American history, legal and constitutional law and
philosophy need to review the HISTORICAL FACTS. Were they to do so, they would discover that the National
Guard did not come into existence until 116 years AFTER the 2nd. amendment was enacted as the Supreme Law
of this land! The notion that the militia referred to in the Second Amendment means the National Guard is
completely mistaken. ?The Militia of the United States? is defined by federal law to include all able-bodied males
of age and some other males and females (10 U.S.C., Paragraph 311; 32 U.S.C., Paragraph 313). The National
Guard is subject to absolute federal control and is not the militia envisioned by the architects of the Constitution.
As a consequence of these irrefutable historical facts, the 2nd. amendment did not, was not, is not and never has
been referring to the National Guard! Free Americans are not the ?SUBJECTS? OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, the federal government is subject to us! Or is the free American ?confused? on this subject as
well?!

Setting the above mentioned ?wisdom? of the left aside, there are no less than five United States Supreme Court
decisions which recognize and acknowledge the 2nd. amendment right as an INDIVIDUAL right. One has only to
check and find U.S. vs. Cruikshank, 1876, Presser vs. Illinois, 1886, Miller vs. Texas, 1894, U.S. vs. Miller, 1939,
and U.S. vs. Verdugo-Urquidez, 1990. As recently as 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that the term ?the people? as
used in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, means the same inclusively; individual citizens.
Constitutional scholars of such reputation as Akil Reed Amar of Yale, Laurence Tribe of Harvard, Sanford
Levinson of Texas and William Van Alstyne of Duke University are adherents of the concept of the 2nd.
Amendment as an individual right. Laurence Tribe, by the way, here to fore an outspoken advocate for gun
control, recently came to embrace the individual right perspective. Those who subscribe to the contention that the
2nd. amendment is intended as an individual right ?dominate the academic literature on the 2nd. Amendment
almost completely?, according to Professor Glenn H. Reynolds at the University of Tennessee. Echoing support is
provided by Nicholas J. Johnson, Professor at Fordham Law University, who states: ?The vast majority of legal
and historical scholarship concludes that the Second Amendment was in fact intended to preserve an individual
right.? The beleaguered assertion of original intent not being discernable crumbles under its own weight when one
reads the Federalist Papers, the papers of George Mason, et al. Additionally, original intent must be discernable
because the Supreme Court has found numerous ?penumbras? of freedom in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration
of Independence from which derives the ?right of a woman to choose an abortion? , homosexuals to openly pursue
one another or anyone for that matter or for illegal aliens to squat on this side of the border and squeeze out
?instant? U.S. citizens!

The transparency of the intent of the authors of HR2127 IH is readily apparent. Years of debate and compromise
have only produced waiting periods which serve no legitimate purpose. The continued erosion of the civil rights of
every American guaranteed in the 2nd. Amendment is the by product of these solvents. It takes no great leap of
the imagination to see that in the not too distant future, if this bill becomes law, that calibers other than 50 as well
as ammunition of the same or similar category will be seen as a ?potential threat? by ?sophisticated security
agencies?, as L. J. Bowren, former Secret Service Director states the issue, because they ?will have to take into
account the availability, access and capability of long range weapons.? 30 caliber rifles have 1,000 yard accuracy
capabilities. Does the government intend to regulate them under the provisions of the 1934 NFA or is it intending
to ban them out right? You decide for yourself.

Substantiated United States Supreme Court case law, documented empirical evidence and logic grounded in sound
legal thinking are of no consequence when the 2nd. Amendment is the focus. Emotionally driven, hysterical
?threat potential? reinforced by sensationalized media sound bites depicting weeping women and children become
the center piece of the testimony hammered into the American consciousness in trial by media courts, kangaroo
courts! The crass, opportunistic and insensitive use of children and public safety are only smoke screens and
cannon fodder; grist for the propaganda mills of elements in our country which seek to ban and confiscate firearms
and ultimately destroy the 2nd. Amendment. Once this is accomplished, the way will be clear for the all wise, all
benevolent government to dictate its terms to the masses. Our ?Overlords? will tell us what they know is best and
there will be no means to resist the ?wisdom?. Then, ?We the people? will no longer exist, for ?We? will only be
?subjects?, and subjects only have privileges!

Researched and written by
T. Conway Allen
copyrighted