In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
What the VPC and other anti-gun scum are saying
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Violence Policy Center: D.C. Gun Crime Defendants Using Justice
Dept. Second Amendment Policy Shift to Strike Down Gun Laws
To: National Desk
Contact: Naomi Seligman of the Violence Policy Center,
202-822-8200, ext. 105, nseligman@vpc.org
WASHINGTON, May 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Washington Post
reported May 30, 2002, that criminal defendants in Washington,
D.C., are seeking to have the District's gun laws declared
unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. The defendants are
relying on the 180-degree shift in the Department of Justice's
interpretation of the Second Amendment that was announced May 6,
2002 in briefs filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. Mathew Nosanchuk,
the Violence Policy Center's litigation director and legislative
counsel, issued the following statement:
"When Solicitor General Theodore Olson filed briefs in the
Supreme Court embracing the expansive individual rights
interpretation of the Second Amendment, we warned that the primary
beneficiaries of the Ashcroft Justice Department's novel
interpretation would be criminal defendants. An expansive
individual right under the Second Amendment simply is not supported
by history of the Constitution or binding Supreme Court precedent
and threatens to undermine the Justice Department's enforcement of
existing gun laws.
"Now, the chickens have come home to roost. As the Washington
Post today reported, the defendants are charged in separate cases
with unlawful possession of a handgun and ammunition respectively.
They both rely explicitly on the Justice Department's briefs -- and
a memorandum from Attorney General Ashcroft to all 93 U.S.
Attorneys in which he directs them to follow his interpretation of
the Second Amendment-to support their Second Amendment challenges
to the District's gun laws. According to the brief in one of the
cases: 'As made clear by the various government representations,
the United States now understands and represents before tribunals
that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual and
personal right, not a collective right of the state to form a
militia.' On this basis, the defendants seek to have the District's
laws, which impose a virtual ban on the private possession of
handguns and ammunition, struck down.
"The reliance by criminal defendants on the Justice Department's
new position puts the lie to the Justice Department's claim that it
can be tough on gun crime and soft on the Second Amendment. Instead
of promoting some abstract concept of constitutional law to score
political points with the gun lobby, the Ashcroft Justice
Department is handing criminal defendants arguments that will used
to invalidate gun laws. The real-world implications of the
Department's position make it clear that the Department will have
to choose: protect public safety and security or implement an
expansive individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment
that gun criminals will use to their advantage."
---
For more information please contact Naomi Seligman at
202-822-8200, ext. 105 or visit the VPC's Web sites
http://www.vpc.org and http://www.ashcroftgunwatch.org.
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
05/30 10:45
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0530-116.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - Josey1 on 05/31/2002 05:44:46
Dept. Second Amendment Policy Shift to Strike Down Gun Laws
To: National Desk
Contact: Naomi Seligman of the Violence Policy Center,
202-822-8200, ext. 105, nseligman@vpc.org
WASHINGTON, May 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Washington Post
reported May 30, 2002, that criminal defendants in Washington,
D.C., are seeking to have the District's gun laws declared
unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. The defendants are
relying on the 180-degree shift in the Department of Justice's
interpretation of the Second Amendment that was announced May 6,
2002 in briefs filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. Mathew Nosanchuk,
the Violence Policy Center's litigation director and legislative
counsel, issued the following statement:
"When Solicitor General Theodore Olson filed briefs in the
Supreme Court embracing the expansive individual rights
interpretation of the Second Amendment, we warned that the primary
beneficiaries of the Ashcroft Justice Department's novel
interpretation would be criminal defendants. An expansive
individual right under the Second Amendment simply is not supported
by history of the Constitution or binding Supreme Court precedent
and threatens to undermine the Justice Department's enforcement of
existing gun laws.
"Now, the chickens have come home to roost. As the Washington
Post today reported, the defendants are charged in separate cases
with unlawful possession of a handgun and ammunition respectively.
They both rely explicitly on the Justice Department's briefs -- and
a memorandum from Attorney General Ashcroft to all 93 U.S.
Attorneys in which he directs them to follow his interpretation of
the Second Amendment-to support their Second Amendment challenges
to the District's gun laws. According to the brief in one of the
cases: 'As made clear by the various government representations,
the United States now understands and represents before tribunals
that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual and
personal right, not a collective right of the state to form a
militia.' On this basis, the defendants seek to have the District's
laws, which impose a virtual ban on the private possession of
handguns and ammunition, struck down.
"The reliance by criminal defendants on the Justice Department's
new position puts the lie to the Justice Department's claim that it
can be tough on gun crime and soft on the Second Amendment. Instead
of promoting some abstract concept of constitutional law to score
political points with the gun lobby, the Ashcroft Justice
Department is handing criminal defendants arguments that will used
to invalidate gun laws. The real-world implications of the
Department's position make it clear that the Department will have
to choose: protect public safety and security or implement an
expansive individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment
that gun criminals will use to their advantage."
---
For more information please contact Naomi Seligman at
202-822-8200, ext. 105 or visit the VPC's Web sites
http://www.vpc.org and http://www.ashcroftgunwatch.org.
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
05/30 10:45
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0530-116.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - Josey1 on 05/31/2002 05:44:46
Comments
Tells Ohio Supreme Court
To: State Desk
Contact: Naomi Seligman of the Violence Policy Center (VPC),
202-822-8200, ext. 105
WASHINGTON, May 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In a friend-of-the-court
brief filed yesterday in the Supreme Court of Ohio in Klein v.
Leis, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) urged the Justices to review
-- and reverse -- a decision by an intermediate appellate court
striking down the state's longstanding ban on carrying concealed
weapons. In a ruling that lifts pro-gun judicial activism to new
heights, the appeals court ignored history and legal precedent to
find that the Ohio Constitution creates a constitutional right to
carry concealed weapons.
Ohio's ban on concealed carry was challenged by pro-gun
advocates in Cincinnati, who persuaded a trial judge and an appeals
court to strike down the Ohio law on the grounds that it violates
the state's right-to-bear-arms provision. The VPC's brief -- filed
in support of the State of Ohio, the City of Cincinnati and the
Hamilton County Sheriff -- asks the Ohio Supreme Court to review
the case on the grounds that it presents substantial constitutional
questions and involves a matter of great public importance and
public interest.
The VPC brief describes the threat to public safety that would
arise if the appeals court's decision is permitted to stand. That
ruling allows virtually any legally qualified gun purchaser, even
an emotionally disturbed person who has not been declared
incompetent, to carry a concealed weapon in Hamilton County. Such
persons would not need a permit and would not have to demonstrate
their fitness to carry a lethal weapon.
"The Ohio Appeals Court has gone way out on a pro-gun limb,
ignoring history of its constitutional right-to-bear arms provision
and the binding precedent of the Ohio Supreme Court," said Mathew
Nosanchuk, VPC litigation director and legislative counsel. The
VPC also identifies the direct conflict between the appeals court
decision in Klein and binding precedent from the Ohio Supreme Court
and other state appellate courts that have upheld Ohio's concealed
carry prohibition under the state constitution. In addition,
courts in other states have repeatedly rejected claims that there
is a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons. The appeals
court's ruling transforms Cincinnati and the rest of Hamilton
County into an enclave for concealed carry.
"The judges quite literally believe that because the Pilgrims
used rifles to shoot their Thanksgiving turkeys, Ohioans have a
constitutional right to carry concealed handguns," said Nosanchuk.
Numerous VPC studies have consistently shown that persons who
carry concealed handguns present a danger to public safety. VPC
research effectively demonstrates that those licensed in Texas to
carry a concealed handgun were arrested for weapon-related offenses
at a rate twice as high as that of the state's general population
age 21 and over.
VPC's friend-of-the-court brief was prepared by Edward M.
Mathias, Elliott Schulder, Alan A. Pemberton, and Jennifer L.
Saulino of Covington & Burling, in Washington, D.C. A copy of the
brief is available at www.vpc.org.
For more information, contact VPC Communications Director Naomi
Seligman at 202-822-8200, ext. 105. The Violence Policy Center is
a national non-profit educational organization working to stop gun
death and injury in America.
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
05/29 15:40
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0529-121.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
U.S. Newswire
29 May 17:00
Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence Criticizes State Rep.
Karen May For Voting Against Gun Safety Legislation
To: State Desk
Contact: Todd Vandermyde of the Illinois Council Against
Handgun Violence, 630-727-0983
SPRINGFIELD, Ill., May 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was
released today by the newly formed Illinois Council Against Handgun
Violence (ICHV):
The ICHV is questioning the judgment of Illinois Rep. Karen May
(D-Highland Park) in light of her recent vote against an important
piece of gun safety legislation.
Although SB1936 passed the Illinois House on May 23rd by a
decisive 85 to 24 margin, it is disturbing to see that May and two
dozen of her colleagues would place the politics of guns ahead of
the well being of Illinois citizens.
Under current Illinois law, any citizen who handles a firearm
must be in possession of a valid Illinois Firearm Owners
Identification (FOID) card. That feature of the law has long
proven to be a stumbling block to organizations wishing to hold
home firearm safety training classes. Many people seeking such
safety training do not own guns, yet they wish to learn how to
safely unload and disarm a gun should they happen upon one. When
prospective students learn that they must have a FOID card in order
to take a home firearm safety class, many shy away from the red
tape involved in obtaining a card. Therefore, their quest for
firearm safety training goes unfulfilled.
SB1936 will reform the current law to allow non-FOID holders to
receive safety training while being supervised by a valid FOID
holder. Thanks to SB1936, many thousands of Illinois citizens will
now have the opportunity to benefit from this life-saving training.
"Home firearm safety training is every bit as important as CPR
and first aid," commented ICHV spokesman Todd Vandermyde. "Every
home should have at least one person trained in home firearm
safety, whether there is a gun in the home or not."
"It was disappointing to see representatives like Karen May,
Julie Hamos and Susan Garrett vote against this bill," continued
Vandermyde. "Each has claimed in the past to be a supporter of gun
safety, but they just voted to deny thousands of Illinois citizens
the opportunity to learn first hand the principles of gun safety.
Unfortunately, it appears that May, Hamos and Garrett have been
'gotten to' by the extremists who will settle for nothing less than
taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."
The ICHV is urging Governor George Ryan to sign SB1936 when it
arrives on his desk.
Founded in May of 2002, the Illinois Council Against Handgun
Violence is dedicated to fighting criminal abuse of guns, and
empowering law-abiding citizens to provide for their personal
defense.
NOTE: The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence was formed
as an Illinois not for profit corporation on May 13, 2002. The
Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence is not affiliated with
any person or organization previously holding registration under
the name "The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence."
http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
05/29 17:00
Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0529-126.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
When I first became a Christian my orbit changed. I accepted the teachings of Christ with zeal and vigor. I was a new creation in Christ and I certainly enjoyed the privileges that came with my new found salvation. Political views changed simultaneously with the change in crowd.
As I started a fledgling walk with Christ, the thing I most remember about my early tutelage from the other men in the church was that along side the counsel to read the bible, pray, and meditate on the goodness of Christ, I was advised to follow an additional path. One I found strange, but accepted nonetheless. So many people told me the same thing that I melded these thoughts into my Christian theology.
"Buy Guns." It was the mantra that I heard over and over again. It was soon to be followed up with the statement, "Stock pile ammo, you'll need it when they come to get us"- I heard it everywhere. I didn't think too much about it. I just did what every one else was doing- buying guns. It was exciting- I'd never owned a gun before, and it was kind of novel to have one. Over the next few years, I amassed a small arsenal, just like the ones my friends in the church had.
The funny thing is that my church was, and is to this day, filled with regular, normal people. There were no weirdoes, no freaks. What is it in Christian theology that lends to this type of thinking? Every church in America is permeated with this ideology- that we need to protect ourselves from the great evil, the revokers of the Second Amendment. Over the past decade, my thoughts moved from being in a constant frenzy over the gospel according to the National Rifle Association to the dust that had settled upon my gun collection. You know the ones that were supposed to protect my family when "they" came to get us.
I started to think about how "they" came to get Christ, and how he was led, as a lamb, to the slaughter. If Christ had followed through on Peter's actions, I wonder where we would all be now. The gospel is filled with messages of peace, and yet these ideas of self protection have crept into our collective church thinking & popular theology.
This past month, I sold my guns. Strangely, I felt a burden leave my household, as the icons of personal preservation slipped from my grip. Today's troubled world made the decision all the easier as threats become more pervasive, sinister, and harder to define. I don't live under the law, as my Savior came to fulfill the law- Christ wasn't hung on a cross because he said an "eye for an eye." but rather "turn your other cheek". By liquidating my gun cabinet and its contents, I transferred the protection of my family and of my rights to Jesus Christ. Believe me; my future is in far better a place in the hands of Christ than it would ever be in my own. It is when man charts his own course that he finds himself hopelessly lost in the quagmire that draws down the world.
How is it that the church is more unified on the issue of gun ownership than it is on the subjects of homosexual rights, or even abortion? Talk about the great commission to a room full of Christian men and we'll (yes me included) mope around and state that it an issue best left to the evangelists in the crowd. Talk about the Second Amendment and we'll (again me included) all be engaged in a passionate discussion.
Perhaps the greater issue is that the American church has gotten so far away from the true teachings of Christ that skewed ideals are more prominent than those that are scriptural. As we Christians struggle to preserve the way of life that our country was founded upon, I suggest that we jettison the millstones that keep us trapped in the bastions of our own power and follow the simple Gospel.
So I sold my guns. I've been told I'm now a subject rather that a citizen. If I hear again that I have forfeited my citizenship because I choose to trust in Christ rather than the trigger- I'll puke.
http://english.pravda.ru/society/2002/05/25/29281.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
The first step in the process was to demand that the Christians hand over all their guns and swords to the government. After that, everything was supposed to be fine.
So I definitely get the concept. Too bad the author of the article above doesn't know history. In my opinion, Christian men (actually, all men when you come down to it, and women too) have the responsibility and duty to protect their families and communities from violent evil-doers. It isn't supposed to be fun or psychologically comfortable when the crunch comes. This is what separates good people from sociopaths, self-defense from murder. "Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition."