Excellent Points.

“Should Congress allow the sunset clause of the assault
weapons ban”

———-

The following was submitted in response to this article in the Exeter
News -Letter. I’ll be quite surprised if they print it, but stranger
things have happened.

Should Congress allow the sunset clause of the assault weapons ban
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/exeter/08052003/faceoff/43437.htm

=================

Gentlemen:

I read with interest your debate on the re-enactment of the so-called
“assault weapons ban”. I am perhaps more knowledgeable on this
particular issue than most of your readers, being both a collector of
military style rifles and something of a pro-rights Second Amendment
activist. So it will come as no surprise that I agree with Ken Goodall,
so far as he went. I feel pretty strongly that he missed his best
arguments by letting himself get bogged down in minutia and graciously
letting slide some glaring factual errors asserted by James Buchanan.

Let us first speak of the broad philosophical point, which Mr. Goodall
raised by citing the Declaration of Independence but did not fully
develop. In the traditional American view of the relationship between
citizens and government, all power ultimately derives from The People.
The phrase “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed,” from the preamble to the
Declaration states unequivocally the view of the Founders on the proper
role of government in society. A view the same men later enshrined in
the constitutional federal republic created by the ratification of the
United States Constitution.

As quite carefully explained in that remarkable document, many basic
“natural” rights were placed FOREVER beyond the purview of the federal
government. Immutable rights such as freedom of the press, freedom of
religion, freedom of association, protection from arbitrary and
capricious acts of government, AND the right to keep and bear arms were
explicitly placed off limits in the Bill of Rights, which should more
properly be called the Bill of Restrictions on Government. It is a sad
commentary on the state of civic discourse in this nation that neither
of your pundits thought to address this point.

The federal “assault weapons ban” violates this bedrock principle of
respect for the immutable rights of a free people on numerous points.
This law was capricious, arbitrary, unenforceable, ineffective, AND in
direct conflict with the clearly stated prohibition of the Second
Amendment:

“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 can assure you from personal experience, Mr Buchanan, this law
“infringes” every owner of these firearms. Under its provisions many
formerly available models have been forbidden from further import. Costs
on the remaining models have sky-rocketed, in many cases tripling in
price within a year or two. That is essentially a violation of the
constitutional prohibition against seizure without just compensation.

A hideously confusing maze of regulations now exists where it is very
easily possible to have two PRECISELY identical firearms – one legal,
and the other carrying a felony conviction to own because it was
manufactured one day later than the other. That, sir, is the height of
idiocy, and the very definition of arbitrary and capricious. It is a
mockery of justice to have such irrational laws on the books.

This is the “common sense” legislation that you claim protects people.
It might interest you to know that noted economist John Lott’s latest
book “The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About
Gun Control is Wrong” reports on research showing quite clearly that the
“assault weapons ban”, if it had any impact at all, appears to have
INCREASED murder and robbery rates (chapter 8). If that is your idea of
protection, I believe I’d rather take my chances, thank you kindly.

Ignoring results entirely for the moment, I want to challenge directly a
couple of factual errors Mr . Buchanan hopefully unknowingly introduced
to his readers. First, he claims that “the ban was instituted because
these weapons – legally obtained – had become the favorite of drug
dealers and other violent criminals”. While that claim was and is
repeatedly made by the Constitution-hating politicians and media figures
who pushed for its enactment, it is in point of fact quite clearly
FALSE. Both government crime statistics and the research of academic
scholars show that such firearms are very rarely used in crime:

David B Kopel of the Independence Institute found in his 1994 paper
“Rational Basis Analysis of “Assault Weapon” Prohibition” ( full text at
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/rational.htm) that:

“Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve
any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with
rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers
are usually considered “assault weapons.”)”

Even a casual perusal of facts readily available on the web reveals
dozens of other refutations of the claim that assault weapons are the
“favorite of drug dealers and other violent criminals”. One good summary
of the facts with lots of supporting links can be found at
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

I also take serious issue with Mr Buchanan’s bald statement “The point
is that these are dangerous weapons with no legitimate target or
sporting purpose.” Again, that is patent and utter laughable nonsense
unworthy of publication in any reputable newspaper. First, NOWHERE in
the 27 crystal clear words of the Second Amendment does it say ANYTHING
about “target or sporting purpose”. As New Hampshire’s own Jay Simkin
ably documented in his book “”Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny”, the
“sporting purpose” test was imported into American jurisprudence in the
Gun Control Act of 1968 almost word for word from the 1938 Nazi Weapons
Law. ( http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm ) An import that I believe added
nothing of value to this country. Don’t believe ME, get the book and
read it for yourself if you dare; it is all there in black and white.

Besides the dubious unAmerican provenance of the test he is trying to
apply, Mr Buchanan is just plain WRONG. The very rifle he spends so much
time maligning – the AR15 semi-automatic civilian version of the
military M16 – is used by practically all the winners at most of the
thousands of one class of rifle matches sponsored by the National Rifle
Association and the federal government’s Civilian Marksmanship Program.
The only rare exceptions are shooting the M1A. A gain, a semi-automatic
civilian version a military rifle, the M14 from the late 1950s.

Neither is the .223 round fired by the AR15 particularly “dangerous” in
comparison to other rifle cartridges. It is in fact illegal to use on
deer in many states because it is not capable of clean, humane kills.
Anyone who has seen or read “Blackhawk Down” knows that even the US Army
has found the lethality lacking at times. Yes, rifles can kill – but so
can knives, baseball bats, hammers, matches, and cars in the hands of
criminals or madmen. Yet we would rightfully be incensed if the
government tried to stop the tens of thousands of deaths each year from
abusing these common tools by outlawing them, and we should be just as
outraged at the attempts to outlaw guns.

Lastly, I wish to explain clearly to James Buchanan WHY I and so many
other pro-rights advocates are so wary of the “slippery slope” he
pooh-poohs. Put simply, we are adamant that we will give no MORE ground
on this issue. The very words of the “reasonable” people betray their
ultimate agenda. For instance, this passage from a September 15, 1994
Washington Post editorial rhapsodizing on what was accomplished by
passage of this very law. (Emphasis mine.)

“No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished. Assault
weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision
is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out be be, as hoped,
A STEPPING STONE TO BROADER GUN CONTROL.”

I could give you literally hundreds of other direct quotes from media
and political figures who make no secret of the fact that they wish to
totally disarm the American public. Why, pray tell, SHOULD we trust your
good intentions when your fellow travellers have openly stated that our
worst fears are their very intention? That, sir, is why we utterly
reject your “reasonable” or “common-sense” legislation and will work
tirelessly to overturn that already enacted. We have indulged your
utopian fantasies long enough. The factual record simply does not
support your position, as has been so thoroughly documented by
researchers like those I mentioned. I and several million other
activists are dedicated to making sure the American public realizes just
how strong the case is to overturn each and every one of the 20,000
“reasonable, common-sense” unconstitutional victim disarmament laws.
Allowing the “Assault Weapons Ban” to sunset is what WE consider a
“reasonable” first step.

“Live Free or Die”, indeed.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey L Jordan
<address & phone dedacted>

—
Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of
the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.
- Albert Einstein, “Ideas and Opinions”, 1954