Dear Editor,
I feel compelled to speak out against the continuing destruction
of the Bill of Rights and the falsehoods and deception promoted
by Governor Davis during his signing of SB 23 and AB 202.
First and foremost the arms affected are protected for
individual ownership by the Second Amendment. It's clear
from common writings such as Federalist Papers No. 29 and 46 [1]
that our founders intended individuals to own modern military
arms as militia members. Under current law all able bodied
adult males who are not in the military are in the militia.
The egalitarian would naturally extend this to women also.
Look up Title 10 Section 311 of current Federal Statue [2]
at your public library or on the Government Printing Office
web site. If the present intent is to repeal the Second
Amendment, it should be repealed using provisions in the
Constitution. It should not be whittled away by every
politician pushing meaningless legislation in order to get
a publicity photo or utter a sound byte.
Anyone who believes an armed populace is no longer needed
or wanted would do well to review the "gun control" policies
of Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, Stalin, Hitler and others through today.
After registering guns they confiscated them and, fearing no
real resistance, used the government monopoly on force to
murder millions. The largest recorded examples of genocide
were performed this century by governments. During a flight
to Germany a co-worker wondered aloud what kind of people
would allow Nazis to come to power. My answer is anyone who
puts more faith in government or leaders than in the people.
Real, tangible, power should remain in the hands of the people.
Governor Davis waved around a semi-automatic version of
the AK-47 on the steps of the police hall and claimed it
was a weapon used in war. As a former member of the
military Davis knows better. No modern army issues
semi-automatic rifles. The AK-47 faced in Viet Nam
was a fully automatic machine gun. Semi-automatic rifles,
which fire once per trigger pull, have been used in
competition and hunting for more than 50 years. Like
semi-automatic pistols, they were invented before 1900.
These measures are being touted as crime control measures,
but I would bet that 90+ percent of the police on those
steps would agree none of these bills will significantly
change criminals' access to firearms. 98% of more than
16,000 chief law enforcement officers surveyed in 1999
by the National Association of Chiefs of Police [3]
believe criminals can illegally obtain any gun they want.
A large majority are against one-gun-a-month laws. The
proven most effective way to reduce violent crime is to
keep violent criminals behind bars. If criminals can get
guns inside prison, then there's little reason to expect
they can't get them outside. By the way, according to the
Federal Department of Justice, 93+% of felons do
not get their guns in stores. [4]
Also disturbing is that SB 23 specifically exempts retired
police officers. If, as the Governor suggests, these are
weapons of war, what reason would former police officers
have for them? Are we creating a special class of citizen
allowed to have certain Constitutional rights while others
are not? Is this right-turned-privilege to be based on
police powers or affiliation?
AB 202 which the Governor signed at the same time sounds
reasonable on the surface, but underneath lurk some real
problems. AB 202 limits handgun purchases to one a month.
While the limit itself would not be a major impediment to
the law abiding, the method of enforcing it has significant
dangers.
How does the government know that just
the one gun was purchased? The only plausible answer is
to register every handgun sale and every
handgun purchaser. I might argue that registration has
even worse Constitutional and privacy implications than
the expansion of so-called "assault weapons". Such registrations
have been used to confiscate private arms in other countries
and there's some evidence California's Department of Justice
may be preparing to confiscate previously registered so-called
"assault weapons."
What Constitutionally recognized rights other than peaceful
firearms ownership require registration and limits imposed
by government bureaucrats? Is there a waiting period to
start a newspaper? Are books approved by government censors?
Does the government limit the number of books we can purchase?
Do churches clear their creeds with licensing boards? I'm
sure some among us would argue that these freedoms too should
be restricted, given their abuses, but respect for our
Constitutional rights acknowledges the greater good of human
freedom.
It's true that public assembly usually requires a permit or
at least cooperation with local planning officials because
it can tie up traffic, create litter, etc. But a modern
rifle locked in my gun vault has no public effect other than
defending peace, law, and order in the unlikely event of a
riot, natural disaster, invasion, etc. The only time my
pistols or shotguns get unlocked is for practice at the
range or to stop an obvious crime as it occurs. These
are positive things with real societal benefits that
should at least be recognized if not encouraged. Firearms
are used to stop at least a million crimes per year, most
times without a shot being fired and fewer times reported
to police or media. The very large numbers of defensive uses
of firearms are found and confirmed by personally anti-gun
researchers such as James Wright, Gary Kleck and Philip Cook.
These new laws do little to prevent crime, and more importantly
they infringe on Constitutional rights many have died to protect.
Jeff Chan
(address)
Mountain View, CA
(phone)
webmaster@rkba.org
Jeff Chan is a Silicon Valley engineer and Webmaster of a
large Second Amendment website: http://rkba.org/
1. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_29.html
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_46.html
2. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/cong013.html
3. http://www.aphf.org/aphf.nsf/htmlmedia/annual_national_police_survey.html
4. http://rkba.org/research/wright/armed-criminal.summary.html