A Closer Look At The Second Amendment
By The Hunter

Should Congress allow the sunset clause of the assault weapons ban

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" that:

"Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than 0.8% 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 here.

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. 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. Again, 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.

--- 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

"I swear, by my life and my love of It, to fight against all forms of tyranny. I recognize that the enabling idea that underlies and sustains tyranny is the idea that the socially organized and institutionalized initiation of the use of force against non-consenting and unwilling people can be justified, is desirable, and must be given sanction in order to avoid chaos. I further recognize that no lasting liberty can be achieved until the falsehood of this idea is widely known and pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor to exposing this falsehood.

"To this battle I will turn my creative energy, I will give my time and I will devote my very being, while never allowing my self, my efforts or my cause to become the aggressor, never conceding the premise of the enemy by becoming the enemy."

The Price of Liberty is honored to have a new forum all its own at The Mental Militia! This is the place for your comments and suggestions.