|
| | The following article has been re-posted by
permission from Newsmax.com. If you
are not familiar with Newsmax.com, it is our favorite news & opinion journal
on the Internet, with a great variety of topics and authors, and it is updated
at least once daily. We highly recommend you visit their site!
Boge Quinn
Reasonable Gun Control – Support H.R. 648
by Geoff Metcalf
Monday, Feb. 17, 2003
Who would have thunk it? A congressional bill has been introduced to
defend your Second Amendment rights that is reasonable and makes sense.
Which probably means Schumer/Boxer/Feinstein/Clinton will go
ballistic vilifying it.
H.R.
648
(link to PDF version of this bill) was recently
introduced by Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., "To protect the right
to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self,
family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right."
I have long argued that law-abiding citizens should be armed, trained
and prepared.
H.R. 648 not only reaffirms many of my arguments but also legislates
reason. By congressional standards the bill is startlingly
straightforward.
It states: "A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by
Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to
obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms – in defense of self
or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful
infliction of serious bodily injury; in defense of self or family in the
course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the
person or a member of the person's family; and in defense of the person's
home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person."
Not bad.
Even better, it provides a citizen recourse if refused
"permission" to purchase or own a weapon: "A person whose
right under subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring an action
in any United States district court against the United States, any State,
or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the
court deems appropriate."
However, the "Findings" section (remarkably) includes some
surprising statistics. These are facts most Second Amendment supporters
already know, but it is significant to see them included in an actual
congressional bill as supporting documentation:
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for
failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the
following:
(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not
have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in
general.
(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida
legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for
help to Dade County authorities.
(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989,
there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not
responded within 1 hour.
(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves,
as evidenced by the following:
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use
a gun to defend themselves against criminals – more than 6,500
people a day. In other words, each year, firearms are used 60 times
more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are
by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend
themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a
warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of
the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.
(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families'
defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in
self-defense. This is NUTS.
(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police
officers who use firearms in the line of duty (creating a privileged
class). Likewise, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect
themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons
should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to
victimize them. This ‘should’ be a no-brainer.
H.R. 648 is an artfully crafted bill that even moderates in Congress
should be able to embrace. Opponents will find themselves on thin partisan
ice.
Some knuckle draggers are going to gripe, “Hey, that ain’t good
enough!” Well, it is a damn sight better that what we have now. Please
remember the gun-grabber crowd hasn’t broadened their unconstitutional
anti-gun base all at once. They have been fighting (and winning) a war of
incrementalism.
Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, said in 1976,
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily –
given the political realities – very modest. … Our ultimate goal,
total control of hand guns, is going to take time.” (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/paranoid_20000315.html)
We need to support H.R. 648. Call, write and demand that your
representative vote for it. This bill is not politics as usual. It is
important. It is critical. And in this era of heightened threat, it is
desperately needed.
If you are not part of the solution (to get this bill into law), then
you become part of the problem.
|
Got something to say about this article? Want to agree (or
disagree) with it? Click the following link to go to the GUNBlast Feedback Page.
Thanks for stopping by!
|
