[ http://rkba.org/letters/kgo.18aug99.txt ] Jeff Chan XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX webmaster@rkba.org KGO 7 ABC 900 Front St. San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 954-7777 (phone) (415) 954-7294 (fax) kgotv@aol.com Mass Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission Room 2-C334 445 12th Street, SW. Washington, DC 20554 complaints-enf@fcc.gov August 19, 1999 DELIVERED VIA FAX AND EMAIL PLEASE INCLUDE IN YOUR PUBLIC FILE Your August 18, 1999 coverage of the anti-self-defense, anti-Constitution "gun control" movement was biased, irresponsible journalism that is a disservice to the community. Unless more even-handed coverage of this important local and national issue is provided I recommend that KGO's license renewal be denied. You ad hominem attacked and slandered the NRA as if the NRA were somehow responsible for crime. The NRA is composed of LAW-ABIDING gun owners. NRA members are not the people committing crimes. Blaming NRA and it's members for crime is like blaming doctors for disease or storm damage insurance for storm damage. Gun control has proven to be a dismal failure as crime control since criminals by definition ignore it. Research by the Federal Department of Justice found that more than 93% of criminals in federal prison do not get their guns through legal means [1]. 98% of more than 16,000 chief law enforcement officers surveyed in 1999 by the National Association of Chiefs of Police [2] agreed criminals can get whatever guns they want, even with thousands of gun control laws currently on the books. You completely ignore the fact that ownership of guns, even ones you don't like, are protected for individual ownership by the United States Constitution. This individual right is vital for the preservation of our freedom. If you don't believe me, ask anyone who has fought terrorists or totalitarian governments. The Constitutional protections for firearms ownership are clear and obvious. Consider for example Alexander Hamilton's statement in Federalist Paper No. 29: Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped [3] Or James Madison in Federalist 46: Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. [4] Or Thomas Jefferson in his June 1776 draft of the Virginia Constitution: No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Consider also the current legal definition of the militia under Title 10 Section 311 of the United States Code: United States Code (USC) TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES Section 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citi- zens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned of- ficers of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are-- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. [5] See also the historical meaning from the debates about the ratification of the Constitution: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." -- George Mason (1725-1792), in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution, June 16, 1788, in _Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,_ Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.3 p.425 (Philadelphia, 1836) What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814) (Mass.), Annals of Congress, vol.I, p.750, August 17, 1789 "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803), in_Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,_ pp.86-87, (Pierce & Hale, Boston, 1850), also in Philadelphia_Independent Gazetteer,_ August 20, 1789 The most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to directly address the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller, presupposes an individual right of arms ownership. The heart of the case was whether Miller's individually-owned short-barreled shotgun was protected by the Second Amendment. The Court's question was whether a short barreled shotgun was useful as a militia weapon -- that it had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." In fact they are, as reflected by their military use through World War I and continuing through today. No real defense was presented in the Miller case, so that well-known contemporary fact was never raised. However it is clear that semi-automatic versions of current military rifles, such as those being banned in California, are ideally suited as militia weapons and would likely pass the Miller test. The test in Miller presupposes an individual right and sought to apply it to a particular type of arm. [6] An individual rights interpretation is also reflected in several recent Supreme Court rulings: "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. -- U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 1990 [7] If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections.... Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right. -- Printz v. U.S., 1997 [8] The March 30, 1999 U.S. District Court case from Texas, U.S. v. Emerson [9] contains a spirited and thorough defense of the Second Amendment as an individual right, along with other fundamental Constitutional rights recognized in the Bill of Rights. The decision cites much recent legal scholarship and judicial history and I can recommend it as a useful summary of Second Amendment law and history. Because of the issues it raises, Emerson may well lead to a new Supreme Court case directly addressing the Second Amendment. You also completely ignore the fact the firearms are useful as tools for self-defense against crime. Credible research by personally anti-gun researchers shows that at least 500,000 defensive uses occur each year, stopping or deterring serious crime such as rape, murder and robbery. Taking away the most effective tool of self-defense is a sure way to create more victims and increase crime. Criminals have access to whatever weapons they want. They can even get them IN prison and in countries total civilian bans. "Gun control" disarms victims, creating more of them. Individual firearms ownership is an important Constitutional, social, and safety issue. It deserves to be represented fairly and honestly. If after receiving this letter you continue to provide inaccurate, biased reporting you will be doing a disservice to the community. Sincerely, Jeff Chan References: 1. http://rkba.org/research/wright/armed-criminal.summary.html 2. http://www.aphf.org/aphf.nsf/htmlmedia/annual_national_police_survey.html 3. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_29.html 4. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_46.html 5. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/cong013.html 6. U.S. v. Miller, complete new research is available at: http://rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html 7. U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez http://rkba.org/judicial/verdugo-urquidez.txt 8. Printz v. U.S., Justice Thomas concurring http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZC1.html 9. Emerson v. U.S., U.S. District Court, Texas, March 30, 1999 http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/PDFs/emerson.pdf