Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Legislating or treatying away our Constitutional Rights, such as under the Second Amendment? Hold it! Better read what the Supreme Court has to say first!

On Sunday December 30, 2012, Barack Obama went on NBC’s “Meet the Press, and announced: “I'm going to be putting forward a package and I'm going to be putting my full weight behind it.”

But why the surge for gun control now?  It is a combination of the capitalizing on the political capital of a crisis, using the emotional momentum of the  recent shootings by a (now reported self-avowed and blogging) religious Satanist who was on Psychiatrist prescribed drugs upon more than two dozen school children,
 and Obama trying to avert attention from his state sponsor of terrorism activities in Syria.


As it regards the situation in Syria as of this last weekend of 2012: 

U.N.-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi   is the CURRENT acting mediator between the Russians and the United States.  The United States is representing the interests of the terrorist groups of Al-Qaeda as is an official state sponsor of terrorists through the foreign policies of Barack Hussein Obama, 
 who now envisions himself the Lincoln 
 NOT of the United States, but of the Middle East

 to bind up and heal the divisions of Islam to recreate an Islamic Caliphate for the coming Mahdi to plunge the world into a nuclear holocaust for the sake of Islam, and to make the world submit to the demonic and idiotic theology of Islam, given by a murderous schizophrenic adulterer, child molester, and rapist: Mohammed.  The Muslims are now making a $1,000,000,000.00 propaganda movie to make him appear otherwise in order to proselytize by deceit (but that is another issue).  

Meanwhile, on Saturday December 29, 2012, we were informed that "U.N.-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi
 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Dec-29/200308-hopes-for-syria-breakthrough-faint-as-un-envoy-visits-russia.ashx#axzz2GTbidgTF [who] met Assad and others on a five-day trip to Syria this week, is to meet senior U.S. and Russian diplomats together in the coming weeks...."

But at the same time, whose troops are more and more doing the fighting for Assad?  
Debkafile, Israel's Intelligence News, reports an alarming escalation in Syria on behalf of Assad, despite the lipservice being generated by the various political envoys there.
Fateh missiles and Russian-Iranian military cooperation to bolster Assad

DEBKAfile Special Report December 29, 2012, 11:23 AM (GMT+02:00)

French and Israeli intelligence sources affirmed Saturday, Dec. 29 ... the first appearance this week of Iran-made Fateh A-110 high-precision, short-range missiles in the use of the Syrian army against rebel fighters, under the guidance of Iranian officers and instructors, as underscoring the inter-dependence Tehran draws 
between the Syrian and nuclear issues.
...The Fateh missiles are being fired quite openly by Iranian military personnel in command of Syrian missile units as Tehran’s answer for the deployment of US, German and Dutch NATO Patriots on the Turkish side of the Syrian border.  They also carry a message in response to Israel’s threat of offensive action against Syria if it becomes necessary to thwart its use of chemical weapons. According to our French and military sources, Tehran is using the Fateh missiles and the Iranian military presence in Syria to warn that there is no bar to their use against Turkey, Jordan and Israel as well, in the event of a US or Israel attack on Syria’s chemical stores.
On no account, will Iran permit the overthrow of Bashar Assad’s regime in Damascus.

...American and French sources agree that Tehran and Moscow have attained full coordination in their strategies for Syria and also on Iran’s nuclear program. They note that it was not by chance that the Russian Navy Wednesday, Dec. 26, launched its largest sea maneuver ever in the Mediterranean and the approaches to the Persian Gulf, just two days before Iranian warships, submarines and aircraft embarked on their week-long Velayat 91 sea exercise in the Straits of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, and northern parts of the Indian Ocean.
The command centers of the Russian and Iranian war games are under orders from Moscow and Tehran to jointly exhibit  naval muscle in order to bolster the Assad regime against collapse.

Parallel to the influx of Fateh missiles from Iran to Syria, Moscow is rapidly expanding the deployment of its highly-sophisticated S-400 air and missile interceptors in Russia’s southern military region near the Turkish border.

That is the situation as it stands now.  Obama had sent the US fleet in, and when the Iranians armed Russian Missiles with Sarin gas and threaten to fire them on our fleet, Obama made the Fleet turn tail and run.  If he continues his State sponsor of terrorism with Syria, he could involve a U.S. war action with Russia and Iran in the near future, and he needs to take time out to public relations deflect attention away from his Islamic Caliphate building foreign policies, at least until after an inauguration for a second illegal term in the Presidency, NOT being a United States Natural Born Citizen, as the U.S. Constitution requires.  

Diversion of National Media Focus to the Gun Control Legislation

In the summer of 2012, the United States asked for 6 months, until after the 2012 election results, in order to sign and implement the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/27/un-fails-to-reach-deal-on-global-arms-trade-treaty-as-us-asks-for-more-time/?intcmp=trending#ixzz21xCwCN6o

I covered much of the anti-Constitutional language of the Small Arms Treaty in the post at: http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-un-small-arms-treaty-why-every-gun.html

In the meantime, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, in early January 2013, wishes to introduce harsh restrictive gun law legislation that may be in much in line with the language of the anti-Constitutional Small Arms Treaty, despite some or much of that legislative language being in direct conflict with the United States Constitution, so as to directly impede or prevent the right of legal civilian citizens of the United States to own a firearm. Where she incorporates barriers to our rights as citizens to legally own a firearm, she also attempts to create precedence whereby other barriers to other rights, such as free speech that isn't politically correct to the Democrats, freedom to worship as a Christian, the right to vote despite not being a Democrat although far past and over the age of 18, can also be incorporated.  It is where legislation becomes unConstitutional in its language that we have to be careful of in the short term, until the day we can discard everything Obama signs because he isn't Constitutional, not being a United States Natural Born Citizen anyway (but that is an issue in itself for other blog posts). 

We will have to wait for the specific language of the bill she wishes to introduce to when it is introduced, but she has announced her public relations summary of her intentions.

The website of Senator Feinstein (D- CA) has posted the following summary of what she wants to introduce:

Summary of 2013 legislation
Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:
  • Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
    • 120 specifically-named firearms;
    • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
    • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
  • Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
    • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
    • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
    • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
  • Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. 
  • Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
    • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
    • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
    • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
  • Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
    • Background check of owner and any transferee;
    • Type and serial number of the firearm;
    • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
But what we need to focus on, is what does and does not interfere with our Constitutional Rights, because when any Government entity crosses that line, and says you do not have rights afforded by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights amended to it, without amending the Constitution by the means therein placed, a vote of two-thirds by both Houses of Congress, and a ratification by at least 3/4ths of the State Legislatures.  

 Outside of that, regardless of the propaganda being spewed in the Media, any such denial of your Constitutional Rights is from a lawless act or entity, and under the Constitution, you have the right to reasonably resist and and legally and peacefully disobey it.  

Use the various following Court cases and quotes from them when making your arguments to resist the United Nations Small Arms Treaty and any encroachment legislation made by Congress that is meant to take away ANY of your Rights under the Constitution.  Share this article, or the useful parts of it, and e-mail it to your friends and family.  

 We should all be able to familiarize ourselves and our legislators and others that there is an obligation that no law or legislation should be written or passed with the intent to think it could magically take away our rights in the Constitution and the Amendments to it. 


Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) 173-180 


The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the Supreme Court
"to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States."

The Secretary of State, being a person, holding an office under the authority of the United States, is precisely within the letter of the description, and if this Court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore absolutely incapable of conferring the authority and assigning the duties which its words purport to confer and assign.

The Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect....

 The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

...   The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written.

It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

  ...If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. 

...It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?

   ... it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution

 contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
...Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.


 Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 Howard) 635 (1853) @ 657  

By the Constitution of the United States, the President has the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. And he is authorized to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and to receive them from foreign nations; and is thereby enabled to obtain accurate information of the political condition of the nation with which he treats; who exercises over it the powers of sovereignty, and under what limitations; and how far the party who ratifies the treaty is authorized, by its form of government, to bind the nation and persons and things within its territory and dominion, by treaty stipulations. And the Constitution declares that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.

The treaty is therefore a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.


The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wallace) 616 (1870) @ 620

The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States declares that

"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."

It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.


Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890) @ 267  

The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the states. 

It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent. Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525, 114 U. S. 541. But, with these exceptions, it is not perceived that there is any limit to the questions which can be adjusted touching any matter which is properly the subject of negotiation with a foreign country. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199; Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259; Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483; 8 Opinions Attys.Gen. 417; People v. Gerke, 5 Cal. 381


United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) @ 701 

“… as will appear by tracing the history of the statutes, treaties and decisions upon that subject -- always bearing in mind that statutes enacted by Congress, as well as treaties made by the President and Senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of the Constitution.”


State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) @ 432-433

To answer this question, it is not enough to refer to the Tenth Amendment, reserving the powers not delegated to the United States, because, by Article II, § 2, the power to make treaties is delegated expressly, and by Article VI treaties made under the authority of the United States, along with the Constitution and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, are declared the supreme law of the land. If the treaty is valid, there can be no dispute about the validity of the statute under Article I, § 8, as a necessary and proper means to execute the powers of the Government. The language of the Constitution as to the supremacy of treaties being general, the question before us is narrowed to an inquiry into the ground upon which the present supposed exception is placed.

It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do. 

An earlier act of Congress that attempted by itself and not in pursuance of a treaty to regulate the killing of migratory birds within the States had been held bad in the District Court. United States v. Shauver, 214 Fed.Rep. 154. United States v. McCullagh, 221 Fed.Rep. 288. Those decisions were supported by arguments that migratory birds were owned by the States in their sovereign capacity for the benefit of their people, and that, under cases like Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, this control was one that Congress had no power to displace. The same argument is supposed to apply now with equal force.

Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States.

…The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution. The only question is whether
it is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the general terms of the Tenth Amendment. We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that Amendment has reserved.


Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924) @ 341

A treaty made under the authority of the United States

"shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Constitution, Art. VI, § 2.

The treaty-making power of the United States is not limited by any express provision of the Constitution, and, though it does not extend "so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids," it does extend to all proper subjects of negotiation between our government and other nations. Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258, 133 U. S. 266-267; In re Ross, 140 U. S. 453, 140 U. S. 463; Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416.

United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181 (1926) @ 208  

The decisions of this Court generally have regarded treaties as on much the same plane as acts of Congress, and as usually subject to the general limitations in the Constitution;


Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1956) @ 16-18


The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . ."

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary 

War, would remain in effect. [Footnote 31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [Footnote 32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [Footnote 33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258, 133 U. S. 267, it declared:

"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the 

government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [Footnote 34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

There is nothing in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, which is contrary to the position taken here. There, the Court carefully noted that the treaty involved was not inconsistent with any specific provision of the Constitution. The Court was concerned with the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the States or the people all power not delegated to the National Government. To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government, and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier. [Footnote 35]


Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491 states:

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @272

It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution.

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) @877

But "no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution," Almeida-Sanchez, supra at 413 U. S. 272


D.C v. Heller - Gun bans don't necessarily save lives in the society of the United States

The Right to legally and peacefully own a gun is a Second Amendment Constitutional Right that has already been established in the United States Supreme Court in recent memory on June 26, 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008).  The case that is most often made by the control freaks of the Left, is that banning guns saves lives.  The Supreme Court's Leftist Justice Breyer does not concur with that assessment. 

 Justice Breyer
  acknowledges that the banning of guns, such as in the District of Columbia, actually opens the civilian population to increases in violent crime, and he states that indeed 
 less restriction on gun ownership, or liberal authorization of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons—better fit the problem.
Here is the quote in fuller context:  
“…since the ban took effect, violent crime in the District has increased, not decreased. See Brief for Criminologists et al. as Amici Curiae 4–8, 3a (hereinafter Criminologists’ Brief); Brief for Congress of Racial Equality as Amicus Curiae 35–36; Brief for National Rifle Assn. et al. as Amici Curiae 28–30 (hereinafter NRA Brief). Indeed, a comparison with 49 other major cities reveals that the District’s homicide rate is actually substantially higher relative to these other cities than it was before the handgun restriction went into effect. See Brief for Academics as Amici Curiae 7–10 (hereinafter Academics’ Brief); see also Criminologists’ Brief 6–9, 3a–4a, 7a. Respondent’s amici report similar results in comparing the District’s homicide rates during that period to that of the neighboring States of Maryland and Virginia (neither of which restricts handguns to the same degree), and to the homicide rate of the Nation as a whole. SeeAcademics’ Brief 11–17; Criminologists’ Brief 6a, 8a.

Second, respondent’s amici point to a statistical analysis that regresses murder rates against the presence or absence of strict gun laws in 20 European nations. See Criminologists’ Brief 23 (citing Kates & Mauser, Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? 30 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 649, 651–694 (2007)). That analysis concludes that strict gun laws are correlated with more murders, not fewer. See Criminologists’ Brief 23;see also id., at 25–28.They also cite domestic studies, based on data from various cities, States, and the Nation as a whole, suggesting that a reduction in the number of guns does not lead to a reduction in the amount of violent crime. See id., at 17–20. They further argue that handgun bans do not reduce suicide rates, see id., at 28–31, 9a, or rates of accidents, even those involving children, see Brief for International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Assn. et al. as Amici Curiae App. 7–15 (hereinafter ILEETA Brief).

    Third, they point to evidence indicating that firearm ownership does have a beneficial self-defense effect. Based on a 1993 survey, the authors of one study estimated that there were 2.2-to-2.5 million defensive uses of guns (mostly brandishing, about a quarter involving the actual firing of a gun) annually. See Kleck & Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime, 86J. Crim. L. & C. 150, 164 (1995); see also ILEETA Brief App. 1–6 (summarizing studies regarding defensive uses of guns). Another study estimated that for a period of 12 months ending in 1994, there were 503,481 incidents in which a burglar found himself confronted by an armed homeowner, and that in 497,646 (98.8%) of them, the intruder was successfully scared away. See Ikida, Dahlberg, Sacks, Mercy, & Powell, Estimating Intruder-Related Firearms Retrievals in U. S. Households, 12 Violence & Victims 363 (1997). A third study suggests that gun-armed victims are substantially less likely than non-gun-armed victims to be injured in resisting robbery or assault. Barnett & Kates, Under Fire, 45 Emory L. J. 1139, 1243–1244, n. 478 (1996). And additional evidence suggests that criminals are likely to be deterred from burglary and other crimes if they know the victim is likely to have a gun. See Kleck, Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force, 35 Social Problems 1, 15 (1988) (reporting a substantial drop in the burglary rate in an Atlanta suburb that required heads of households to own guns); see also ILEETA Brief 17–18 (describing decrease in sexual assaults in Orlando when women were trained in the use of guns).

    Fourth, respondent’s amici argue that laws criminalizing gun possession are self-defeating, as evidence suggests that they will have the effect only of restricting law-abiding citizens, but not criminals, from acquiring guns. See, e.g., Brief for President Pro Tempore of Senate of Pennsylvania as Amicus Curiae 35, 36, and n. 15. That effect, they argue, will be especially pronounced in the District, whose proximity to Virginia and Maryland will provide criminals with a steady supply of guns. See Brief for Heartland Institute as Amicus Curiae 20.

    In the view of respondent’s amici, this evidence shows that other remedies—such as less restriction on gun ownership, or liberal authorization of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons—better fit the problem. See, e.g., Criminologists’ Brief 35–37 (advocating easily obtainable gun licenses); Brief for Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc. et al. as Amici Curiae 15 (hereinafter SLF Brief) (advocating “widespread gun ownership” as a deterrent to crime); see also J. Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (2d ed. 2000). They further suggest that at a minimum the District fails to show that its remedy, the gun ban, bears a reasonable relation to the crime and accident problems that the District seeks to solve. See, e.g., Brief for Respondent 59–61.

    These empirically based arguments may have proved strong enough to convince many legislatures, as a matter of legislative policy, not to adopt total handgun bans.

… The statistics do show a soaring District crime rate. And the District’s crime rate went up after the District adopted its handgun ban.

…What about the fact that foreign nations with strict gun laws have higher crime rates? Which is the cause and which the effect? The proposition that strict gun laws cause crime is harder to accept than the proposition that strict gun laws in part grow out of the fact that a nation already has a higher crime rate. “

Senator Feinstein has posted some reports that were published in time to be introduced to the Court on this case, but Justice Breyer appeared more convinced by the banning of guns increasing crime, than any reports to the contrary.   That too, is worth mentioning.  


Post Script

In spite of all the ugliness in the world, sometimes it helps to take a step out and enjoy the beauty of life.  This can be seen and shared as a family experience in the world of  classical music, especially the waltzes, such as by Johann Strauss.  Andre Rieu and his Johann Strauss orchestra re-inspire us to return to good traditions, with the kind of music and waltzes to them that makes dancing a thing of dignity, honor, respect, and a wonderful elevated experience.   I hope you will enjoy the following diversions, and buy his music and works at http://andrerieu.com/  as well as go see and enjoy his concerts in person.  Peace on earth, good will.  GOD has given us the opportunity to choose life and beauty, and the good.  May we choose the right, and truly enjoy life and bless many others in our spheres of influence in the doing.   Amen.   -- Brianroy

No comments:

Post a Comment