WorldNetDaily highlights a disturbing development in Oklahoma where police sent letters to about 60 gun owners, asking them to "voluntarily" submit their weapons to the police for ballistics testing in connection with a murder.
My response (as a former cop) would have been, "Not without a warrant."
Others, however, were more compliant.
From the Tulsa World:
Jessica Brown, spokeswoman for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, said more than 60 letters were sent out to registered owners of .40-caliber handguns, asking them to voluntarily submit their weapons for testing on Saturday and Sunday at the Okfuskee County Courthouse at Okemah.
Brown said about 40 of those owners showed up with their guns, which were test fired outside the courthouse.
What about the ones who didn't comply like good little subjects? The Tulsa World says:
The other 15 or so gun owners who did not show up will be checked by the OSBI to see why they didn't volunteer for the test firings.
So the ones who wouldn't play along will get the "bright light" treatment.
When there is no probable cause, this is a disturbing hostility toward gun rights and law abiding citizens.
This behavior on the part of the authorities conveys an attitude of government strong-arm, assumption-of-guilt that is highly offensive in a nation built on principles of individual rights.
It took a U.S. Supreme Court decision recently to restore Second Amendment rights to the people of the District of Columbia after 32 years.
And then, D.C. lawmakers thumbed their noses at the Supreme Court--and gun owners--by quickly passing new restrictions that essentially make the SCOTUS victory worthless.
From the Hawaii Reporter:
The emergency legislation will allow handguns to be kept in the home if they are used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition. However, the new law still requires that handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks—unless there is a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm” in the home.
Well, that rules out handguns that have 15-round clips like I used to carry. And if someone is breaking through your window, do you really want to take the time to re-assemble your disassembled handgun, or look around for the key to your trigger lock and then fumble to get the trigger lock off?
Are you going to tell the invader: "I am in compliance with D.C. firearms restrictions. Please halt until I am able to make my weapon ready for use."
The Founders would be aghast if they saw how anti-gun (and anti-freedom) things have become in our nation.
5 comments:
When the Founders wrote the Constitution, I doubt they were referring to concealable semiautomatic handguns, seeing as how they didn't even exist at the time. Only an idiot would think that the Second Amendment, among other amendments, means the EXACT same thing today as it did over two hundred years ago and can be applied to every situation. Try looking at it with an historical eye.
When the Founders wrote the Constitution, there were handguns that could be concealed about as easily as the ones available today. This, along with their rate of fire, is irrelevant.
There is no reason to believe the Founders would have disapproved of private ownership of semiautomatic weapons--or even automatic weapons, for that matter.
In addition to the most basic right of self defense, the Founders also saw the right to keep and bear arms important to the maintenance of freedom--from threats both foreign and domestic.
James Madison said in Federalist No. 46: Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. 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. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist No. 28: If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government
Only an idiot would think the need for personal defense, or potentially the defense against despotic oppression, is any less now than it was at the time of the Founding.
Oy. You were born in the wrong century, pal.
"Oy. You were born in the wrong century, pal."--Anonymous
A non-comment from nobody.
According to the argument of the first anonymous commenter the First Amendment guarantee of a free press is outdated because the Founders did not foresee the brodacast media and the internet.
There is a remedy for changing the Consitution if it becomes inappropriate or irrelevant to our times--a Contitutional amendment. Until such time as the Second Amendment is repealed I and most Americans will claim and demand our right to defend hearth, home and country, with arms , if necessary.
This young lady , who's parents were murdered by a crazed gunmen said it well.
Well said, Dr. Theo, by you and by this young lady.
Post a Comment