Rep. John Hostettler (R) from southwest Indiana is pro-gun. He outlines his
stance at: http://www.house.gov/hostettler/guncontrol.htm

Is More Federal Gun Control the Solution?

John Hostettler:

No.

Let me begin by saying that the shootings in Colorado and last year in
locations such as Kentucky and Arkansas are tragic and indicate some deep
problems facing our society. At the most fundamental level, many in our
society have no respect for life.

Whether this is a result of abortion on demand –which declares pre-born
life to be irrelevant–, family breakdown, moral relativism, or all of the
above, we should consider these possibilities before we consider more
ineffective legislative proposals.

The gunmen in Littleton broke 20 federal laws currently on the books.

If legislation could solve fundamental problems, then we would have already
solved them. In fact, there are currently 40,000 federal state and local gun
control laws on the books. I do not think that 40,001 or 40,002 will make a
difference. Therefore, I voted against additional restrictions on the Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms in H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show
Background Check Act.

A fundamental question which I have to ask myself at the outset of any
discussion regarding legislation is whether such legislation would be, even
if desirable, within my power as a Congressman. As you may know, the United
States Constitution does not delegate to Congress the power to legislate on
every issue facing our nation. The powers of Congress are specifically
listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and are expressly limited
by the Tenth Amendment. The power of the federal government is further
curtailed by additional amendments to the Constitution. This issue of
legislative power is particularly relevant to the question of the regulation
of semi-automatic weapons.

The Second Amendment reads: “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.” I firmly believe that this provision prohibits the
federal government from denying citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
Thus, absent a Constitutional amendment, I could not, even if I wanted to,
support legislation which restricts the ownership of firearms. To do
otherwise would force me to break the vow I took as a Congressman to uphold
the Constitution.

While the foregoing would be sufficient reason to refrain from legislating
restrictions on firearm ownership, I must add that I believe the authors of
the Bill of Rights were wise in preserving the right to keep and bear arms.
The ability to defend oneself and family is the fundamental right which
preserves all others. The authors of Indiana’s Constitution in 1851 agreed,
as evident by their including Article I, Section 32, which reads: “The
people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and
the State.”

Many citizens choose to own a firearm for a variety of reasons: for sport,
for hunting, for collecting, or for protection. In my view any or all of
these are good reasons. More importantly, the Constitution guarantees that
the citizens of the United States have this freedom to keep and bear arms,
and I will continue to promote this freedom in the future. Thank you again
for taking the time to share your views with me.

back to Rep. Hostettler’s home page

When women are disarmed, a rapist will never hear – Stop or I’ll shoot!