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.
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2012/11/ben-ghazi-story-now-evolves-arms.html
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).
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.
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
@173
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.
@174
It cannot be presumed that any
clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect....
@176
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.
@177
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.
@178
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.
@179
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
@180
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