From: [k--ar--s] at [cc.memphis.edu]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Proposed T.P.G. Pro-Gun FAQ
Date: 28 Feb 95 02:18:57 -0500

THE LONG LIST OF "GUN-CONTROL" MYTHS
[talk.politics.guns' pro-RKBA FAQ under construction
Many topics not yet completed.  Your help is encouraged.]

Section I. - Personal issues


1.0  "You don't need a gun, the police will protect you."

Recommended reading: _In The Gravest Extreme,_by Massad Ayoob
(available from Police Bookshelf, P.O. Box 122, Concord, NH
03301), ISBN 0-936297-00-1, (1980)

A selection of relevant cases [listed in 'Dial 911 and Die!'
by J.P.F.O. (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)
2872 S. Wentworth Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53207, Ph: (414) 769-0760,
FAX: (414) 483-8435]:

[Note: For convenience of the reader, legal citations in this FAQ
have been rendered in a more familiar "bibliography" style form,
rather than standard legal citation form.  Real lawyers would cite
the first case below as 59 U.S. (18 How) 396, 15 L.Ed. 433 ]

South v. Maryland, U.S. Reports (18 How) v.59 p.396, Lawyer's
  Edition v.15 p.433 (1856)
Riss v. City of New York, N.Y. Supplement 2nd series v.293 p.897,
  N.Y. Reports 2nd series v.22 p.579 (1968)
Keane v. City of Chicago, Ill. Appeals 2nd series v.98 p.460 (1968)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, California Appeals 3rd series v.46
  p.6, California Reporter v.120 p.5 (1975)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, Federal Supplement v.471 p.1262
  Eastern District of Pennsylvania (1979)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. Court of Appeals 2nd series
  v.444 p.1 (1981)
Bowers v. DeVito, Federal Reporter 2nd series v.686 p.616
  U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Cir. (1982)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, D.C. Court of Appeals 2nd series
  v.468 p.1306 (1983)
Lynch v. N. C. Dept. of Justice, Southeastern Reporter 2nd series
  v.376 p.247 North Carolina Court of Appeals (1989)
Marshall v. Winston, Southeastern Reporter 2nd series v.389 p.902
  Virginia (1990)

In summary:  Police can only act once a crime is occurring or
has already been committed.  They cannot be held liable for
failure to arrive in time to save any particular individual
from harm, so long as they aren't someone who has a special
relationship with the police, like a protected witness.
There aren't, and there ought not to be, sufficient police
to act as personal bodyguards for every citizen, 24 hours
a day, and any guarantee to that effect would be extremely
expensive in terms of both money and liberty.


1.1  "Guns aren't effective defensive weapons, and are more
likely to kill their owners or family members than they are
useful to defend against criminal attack."

See_Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America,_by Gary Kleck,
Aldine de Gruyter, ISBN 0-202-30419-1 (1991)

also_Criminal Victimization in the United States,_1992_
A National Crime Victimization Survey Report,_Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice
SuDoc# J 29.9/2:992 (1992)

Rushforth, Norman B., Hirsch, Charles S., Ford, Amasa B.,
and Adelson, Lester, "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a
Metropolitan County (1958-1975)," American J. of Epidemiology,
v.100, pp.499-505 (1975)

Kellerman, Arthur L. and Reay, Donald T., "Protection or
Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home"
New England J. Medicine, v.314, pp.1557-1560 (1986)

In summary:  Whether cited as a "6 to 1" ratio (as in the
1975 'study'), or a "43 to 1" ratio (as in the Kellerman
'study' of 1986), the often-quoted "studies that show"
having a gun in the home is a far greater risk to you and
your loved ones than to criminals, are a favorite topic of
discussion here on t.p.g., if for no other reason than to
demonstrate that "gun control" supporters (like our good
friend "Pim van Meurs") will go to extraordinary statistical
contortions in an attempt to support their flawed premises.
The idea that guns (and handguns in particular) are ineffective
as defensive weapons shows a particular lack of imagination.
The basis for comparison in these studies is the ratio of
"firearm-related deaths" of household members vs. deaths
of criminals killed in the home.  The "firearm-related deaths"
in the studies include suicides and accidents, neither of which
are randomly distributed throughout the population, as the
"risk ratios" would imply.  Legitimate incidents of self-defense
against nonstrangers (such as abusive spouses, ex-spouses, or
other murderous family members or acquaintances) are conflated
with "firearm-related deaths" rather than "criminals killed".
Assessing the effectiveness of gun use against criminals as
"number of criminals killed" is an extraordinary presumption
as well, since law enforcement officers aren't judged by such
a restrictive standard.  Why isn't "criminals deterred" or
"crimes completed" or even "criminals wounded or apprehended"
a legitimate means of measuring defensive effectiveness?
   In point of fact, the reason these "studies" are structured
as badly as they are, and are published in medical (rather
than criminological) journals, is that the numbers don't work
out in favor of the "gun-control" viewpoint if considered in
these other ways.  There's no more reason to judge the ability
and effectiveness of armed citizens at fighting crime by the
numbers of criminals they kill than it is to do so for the
police.  (Surprisingly, however, the numbers are quite similar.
See 3.8)  According to U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics data,
having a gun and being able to use it in a defensive situation
is the most effective means of avoiding injury (moreso even than
offering no resistance) and thwarting completion of a robbery or
assault.  Resisting violent crime is far more likely to help the
situation than to hurt.  Most often, criminals can be frightened
away or deterred without a shot being fired.  Estimates of these
types of defensive uses of firearms are wide ranging, but they are
certainly more frequent on an annual basis than the misuse of
firearms by violent criminals, since violent crimes involving
firearms account for about only 40% of all violent crime, and
such defensive uses are rarely reported to the police (in some
cases because firearms possession in the locality is illegal).
The annual use of firearms for other lawful purposes, unrelated
to self-defense, dwarfs both defensive and criminal uses combined,
yet firearms accidents have declined, even as the number of
firearms in the U.S. population has increased.


1.2  "It's too easy for your attacker to take your gun away
from you and shoot you."


1.3  "Guns are too dangerous to keep in the house if you've
got children."


Section II. - Constitutional issues

2.0  "The Second Amendment is really just an irrelevant
anachronism, but if it has any meaning at all today, it just
means that the Federal government can't disarm the National
Guard."

See United States Constitution (U.S.C.), Amendment II:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed."

also U.S.C. Article I, sec. 8 (clauses 15 and 16) -- Powers
of Congress:

"...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the
Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
   To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed
in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States
respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority
of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed
by Congress;"

also U.S.C. Article II, sec. 2 (clause 1) -- President to be
Commander-in-Chief. (etc.)

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy
of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,
when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

also U.S. Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.) title 10 sec. 311
(as amended Nov. 30, 1993) [relating to the definition of militia]

"311.  Militia: composition and classes

   (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

   (b) The classes of the militia are--

        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
   Guard and the Naval Militia; and

        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members
   of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
   Naval Militia."

also U.S.C.A. title 32 sect. 101 (as amended Sep. 29, 1988)
[relating to the establishment of the National Guard]

"101.  Definitions
[...]
   (3)  "National Guard" means the Army National Guard and the
  Air National Guard.
   (4)  "Army National Guard" means that part of the organized
  militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico,
  and the District of Columbia, active and inactive, that--
      (A) is a land force;
      (B) is trained, and has its officers appointed, under the
    sixteenth clause of section 8, article I, of the Constitution;
      (C) is organized, armed, and equipped wholly or partly at
    Federal expense; and
      (D) is federally recognized.
   (5)  "Army National Guard of the United States" means the
  reserve component of the Army all of whose members are members
  of the Army National Guard.
   (6)  "Air National Guard" means that part of the organized
  militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico,
  and the District of Columbia, active and inactive, that--
      (A) is an air force;
      (B) is trained, and has its officers appointed, under the
    sixteenth clause of section 8, article I, of the Constitution;
      (C) is organized, armed, and equipped wholly or partly at
    Federal expense; and
      (D) is federally recognized.
   (7)  "Air National Guard of the United States" means the reserve
  component of the Air Force all of whose members are members of the
  Air National Guard."

also Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1989) p. 138
for definition of "well-regulated"

"WELL-'REGULATED, ppl. a. [participial adjective]
  1709 SHAFTSB._Moralists_II. iv. 108 If a liberal Education
has form'd in us  .  .  well-regulated Appetites, and worthy
Inclinations.    1714 R. FIDDES._Pract._Disc._II. 250  The
practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world.
1812 J. JOYCE._Sci._Dial.,_Astron._xii. II. 126  The equation of
time  .  .  is the adjustment of the difference of time, as shown
by  a  well-regulated  clock,  and  a  true  sun-dial.   1848
THACKERAY_Van._Fair._lviii,  A remissness for which I am
sure every well-regulated person will blame the Major.  1862
MRS. H. WOOD_Mrs._Hallib._I. v. 27  It appeared, to her well-
regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.  1894 _Pop._
_Sci._Monthly._June 165  The  newspaper,  a  never  wanting
adjunct  to  every  well-regulated  American  embryo  city."

also
_To Keep And Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right,_
by Joyce Malcolm, Harvard University Press, (1994)

Kates, Jr., Donald B., "The Second Amendment and the Ideology
of Self-Protection," 9 Constitutional Commentary pp. 87-104
(1992)

Cottrol, Robert J., and Diamond, Raymond T., "The Second
Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration,"
80 Georgetown Law J., pp. 309-361 (1991)

and

Dred Scott v. Sanford, U.S. Reports (19 How.) v.60 p.417 (1856)
Perpich v. Department of Defense, U.S. Reports v.496 p.334, Supreme
  Court Reports v.110 p.2418, Lawyer's Edition 2nd series v.110
  p.312 (1990)

In Summary:  There is no historical basis to the claim that
the Framers of the Second Amendment intended to limit its scope
solely to protecting organized state militias from being disarmed
by the Federal Government.  In any event, the National Guard
is a reserve unit of the United States Army, and not a creation
of the individual state governments.  It is essentially a Federal
force which the governors of the states may "borrow" if the
Federal Government does not object.  During the civil rights
movement of the 1960s, governors attempting to enforce segregation
by using the National Guard found out why it's called "National"
(if they hadn't known already).  The English common law tradition,
and the works of political philosophy which influenced the Founders
of our Republic, as well as their own writings, show that the right
to keep and bear arms (RKBA, as it's often abbreviated on t.p.g.)
was considered the hallmark of a free people, and distinguished
a free man from a slave.  (see 3.3)


2.0.a  "What's the deal with the commas, and the hyphen in
'well-regulated'?  You gun nuts seem to be obsessed with them."

In summary:  Archaic punctuation, usage, and peculiar grammar
(though certainly no more peculiar than many modern legal
documents) to some degree obscure the plain meaning of the
Second Amendment.  As in any human endeavor, mistakes can be
made, and from time to time here on t.p.g., the authors of this
particular bit of the Bill of Rights get flamed over whether
there is in fact (or ought to be) a hyphen in "well regulated"
(and/or fewer commas overall) so as to clarify the Amendment's
meaning to modern readers.  The choice of the adjective
"unalienable" rather than "inalienable" in the Declaration of
Independence has scarcely received more notice than the issue
of proper punctuation in the Second Amendment.  To the modern
reader, "well regulated" has acquired the primary connotation of
_government_regulation, rather than that of "efficient" or "well
functioning" which it had in the 18th Century.  About the only
common usage today of "regulate" in this sense is found in those
commercials dealing with "occasional irregularity".  The term
"regular army" (as opposed to "irregulars") gives some idea of
the type of discipline and order which the authors of the Second
Amendment were trying to evoke with respect to the militia,
which they saw as the best available alternative to the dangers
and expense of a standing army.  (See 3.3)


2.1  "The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not
guarantee an individual right."

A few relevant law review articles [from the list given in
_Guns, Crime, and Freedom_ by Wayne LaPierre, Regnery Books,
ISBN 0-89526-477-3, (1994)]:

Van Alstyne, William, "The Second Amendment and the Personal
Right to Arms," 43 Duke Law J. pp. 1236-1255  (1994)

Kates, Jr., Donald B., Constitutional Commentary (see above)

Cottrol, Robert J., and Diamond, Raymond T., Georgetown Law J.
(see above)

Levinson, Sanford, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment,"
99 Yale Law J. pp. 637-659 (1989)

and others

see also

_That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional
Right,_by Stephen P. Halbrook,_University of New Mexico Press
[reprinted by the Independent Institute], ISBN 0-945999-24-0,
1984

and

_The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,_report of the subcommittee
on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.
Senate, 97th Congress, second session, Feb. 1982,
SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5

In summary:  The phrase "the right of the people" means the
same thing in the Second Amendment as it does in the First
and Fourth Amendments.  The Constitution recognizes, but does
not_grant,_the pre-existing right of individuals to keep
and bear arms.  This is because the Framers assumed that the
basis of governmental power originated with the people, whose
natural rights were either ceded to government in the form of
governmental powers, specifically protected from the powers
of government by listing them in the Bill of Rights, or retained
by the people, according to the Ninth Amendment.


2.2  "If the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and
bear ordinary military weapons, then everybody can have their
own tactical nuclear warhead."  [This is what is known on t.p.g.
as the "nuclear strawman" or "Ban guns, ban The Bomb!" argument,
designed to get everybody off on a tangent about whether or not
the U.S. Constitution protects privately owned nuclear weapons.]

In summary:  The Second Amendment protects all arms, though
as is mentioned elsewhere (See 3.3), those arms which have some
relationship to a well-regulated militia are better protected
than those which do not, at least according to legal precedent.
Many people (at least for the sake of argument here on t.p.g.)
are justifiably distressed at the thought of private individuals
owning such indiscriminately destructive and persistently
dangerous weapons.  Some supporters of the civil right to keep
and bear arms, as a result, seek to interpret "arms" as meaning
"personal arms" (i.e. those which can be carried and used by an
individual against another individual).  However, in researching
the era during which Amendment II was drafted, it is possible to
find individuals who owned cannon and privateer ships, much as
it is possible today to find people who own tanks and planes
from the World War II era (and later), some with functioning guns.
Civil War re-enactor companies sometimes own cannon and other
weapons which were state-of-the-art for_that_period.
   If we attempt to "creatively interpret" the Second Amendment
today to say that it should now only apply to "personal arms"
(in the absence of any textual or historical basis for that
interpretation), what legitimate objection can we have to others
who "creatively interpret" it to say that it now applies only to
the National Guard, or even to say that it's entirely outmoded and
can be totally ignored?  (See 2.0)  Any of these is an arbitrary
selective interpretation, and all are equally unsupportable, as
would be any attempt to limit the First Amendment protection of
a free press only to, say, presses like those used by Benjamin
Franklin, and not the unimaginably more powerful telecommunications
devices of today.
   The Second Amendment was indeed written to protect all arms, and
thus nuclear weapons are included.  If multibillionaires funding
their own private bomb development efforts seem to be a problem
worthy of serious consideration, what's the solution?  Follow the
procedure that the authors of the Constitution provided for
modifying the Constitution to adapt to changing times -- amend it
following the procedures in Article V.  The people who wrote the
Constitution did not intend for it to be selectively interpreted in
order to fit changing conditions.  They planned that if conditions
_did_change enough to warrant an alteration in a provision of the
Constitution, it should be done with due care and consideration,
and only upon the agreement of two thirds of each house of Congress,
and three fourths of the legislatures of the states.  This_is the
proper way to react to changing times -- through the amendment
process, and not by arbitrary denial of the plain language of the
Constitution, by whatever branch of government.
--
Based on a posting by Dan Day ([d c d] at [se.houston.geoquest.slb.com])
--


2.3  "The Second Amendment doesn't apply to state and local
governments, so state gun control laws, or local ordinances
like the Morton Grove, IL ban on handguns, are constitutional."

See U.S.C. Amendment XIV, sec. 1:

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside.  No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws."

also Dowlut, R., "Federal and State Constitutional Guarantees
to Arms," U. Dayton Law Rev. v.15, pp. 84-89 (1989):

"   Forty-three (43) states have constitutional guarantees
on the right to keep and bear arms.

ALABAMA: "That every citizen has a right to bear arms
in defense of himself and the state."  Ala. Const. art. I,
S 26

ALASKA: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Alaska Const. art.
I, S 19

ARIZONA: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms 
in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, 
but nothing in this section shall be construed as 
authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, 
maintain, or employ an armed body of men."  Ariz. Const. 
art. 2, S 26

ARKANSAS: "The citizens of this state shall have the right 
to keep and bear arms for their common defense." Ark. 
Const. art. II, S 5

COLORADO: "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in 
defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the 
civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called 
in question; but nothing herein contained shall be 
construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed 
weapons." Colo. Const. art. II, S 13

CONNECTICUT: "Every citizen has the right to bear arms in 
defense of himself and the state."  Conn. Const. art. I,
S 15

DELAWARE: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms 
for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for 
hunting and recreational use."  Del. Const. art. I, S 20

FLORIDA: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in 
defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the 
state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of 
bearing arms may be regulated by law."  Fla. Const. art.
I, S 8

GEORGIA: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms 
shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall 
have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may 
be borne."  Ga. Const. art. I, S I, para. VIII

HAWAII: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the 
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep 
and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Haw. Const. art I,
S 15

IDAHO: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, 
which right shall not be abridged; but this provision 
shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the 
carrying of weapons concealed on the person, nor prevent 
passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for 
crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor 
prevent passage of legislation providing penalties for the 
possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent 
the passage of legislation punishing the use of a firearm.  
No law shall impose licensure, registration or special 
taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or 
ammunition.  Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of 
firearms, except those actually used in the commission of 
a felony."  Idaho Const. art. I, S 11

ILLINOIS: "Subject only to the police power, the right of 
the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be 
infringed."  Ill. Const. art. I, S 22

INDIANA: "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for 
the defense of themselves and the State."  Ind. Const. 
art. I, S 32

KANSAS: "The people have the right to bear arms for their 
defense and security; but standing armies, in time of 
peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be 
tolerated, and the military shall be in strict 
subordination to the civil power."  Kansas Bill Of Rights, 
S 4

KENTUCKY: "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and 
have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which 
may be reckoned:  .... Seventh: The right to bear arms in 
defense of themselves and the state, subject to the power 
of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons 
from carrying concealed weapons."  Ky. Bill Of Rights,
S 1, para. 7

LOUISIANA: "The right of each citizen to keep and bear 
arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not 
prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of 
weapons concealed on the person."  La. Const. art. I, S 11

MAINE: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms 
and this right shall never be questioned."  Me. Const. 
art. I, S16

MASSACHUSETTS: "The people have a right to keep and bear 
arms for the common defence.  And as, in time of peace, 
armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be 
maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the 
military power shall always be held in exact subordination 
to the civil authority, and be governed by it."  Mass. 
Decl. Of Rights, pt. I, art. XVII

MICHIGAN: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms 
for the defense of himself and the state."  Mich. Const. 
art. I, S 6

MISSISSIPPI: "The right of every citizen to keep and bear 
arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in 
aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, 
shall not be called in question, but the legislature may 
regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons."  Miss. 
Const. art. 3, S 12

MISSOURI: "That the right of every citizen to keep and 
bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or 
when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall 
not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing 
of concealed weapons."  Mo. Const. art. I, S 23

MONTANA: "The right of any person to keep or bear arms in 
defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid 
of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall 
not be called in question, but nothing herein contained 
shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed 
weapons."  Mont. Const. art. II, S 12

NEBRASKA: "All persons are by nature free and independent, 
and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among 
these are ... the right to keep and bear arms for security 
or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for 
lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all 
other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied 
or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof."  
Neb. Const. art. I, S 1

NEVADA: "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms 
for security and defense, for lawful hunting and 
recreational use and for other lawful purposes."  Nev. 
Const. art. 1, S II, para. 1

NEW HAMPSHIRE: "All persons have the right to keep and 
bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their 
property, and the state."  N. H. Const. part 1, art. 2-a.

NEW MEXICO: "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen 
to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful 
hunting and recreational use and for other lawful 
purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the 
carrying of concealed weapons.  No municipality or county 
shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to 
keep and bear arms."  N. M. Const. art. II, S 6

NORTH CAROLINA: "A well regulated militia being necessary 
to the security of a free State, the right of the people 
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as 
standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, 
they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be 
kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the 
civil power.  Nothing herein shall justify the carrying of 
concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from 
enacting penal statutes against that practice."  N. C. 
Const. art. I, S 30

NORTH DAKOTA: "All individuals are by nature equally free 
and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among 
which are ... to keep and bear arms for the defense of 
their person, family, property, and the state, and for 
lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, 
which shall not be infringed."  N. D. Const. art. I, S 1

OHIO: "The people have the right to bear arms for their 
defense and security; but standing armies, in time of 
peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; 
and the military shall be in strict subordination to the 
civil power."  Ohio Const. art. I, S 4

OKLAHOMA: "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in 
defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the 
civil power when thereunto legally summoned, shall never 
be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent 
the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons."  
Okla. Const. art. 2, S 26

OREGON: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for 
the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military 
shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power." 
Or. Const. art. I, S 27

PENNSYLVANIA: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in 
defence of themselves and the State shall not be 
questioned." Pa. Const. art. I, S 21

RHODE ISLAND: "The right of the people to keep and bear 
arms shall not be infringed."  R. I. Const. art. I, S 22

SOUTH CAROLINA: "A well regulated militia being necessary 
to the security of a free State, the right of the people 
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  As, in 
times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they 
shall not be maintained without the consent of the General 
Assembly.  The military power of the State shall always be 
held in subordination to the civil authority and be 
governed by it.  No soldier shall in time of peace be 
quartered in any house without the consent of the owner 
nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law."  
S. C. Const. art. I, S 20

SOUTH DAKOTA: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in 
defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied."  
S. D. Const. art. VI, S 24

TENNESSEE: "That the citizens of this State have a right 
to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the 
Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the 
wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."  Tenn. 
Const. art. I, S 26

TEXAS: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and 
bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State; but 
the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the 
wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."  Tex. 
Const. art. I, S 23

UTAH: "The individual right of the people to keep and bear 
arms for security and defense of self, family, others, 
property, or the State, as well as for the other lawful 
purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall 
prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of 
arms."  Utah Const. art. I, S 6

VERMONT: "That the people have a right to bear arms for 
the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing 
armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they 
ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be 
kept under strict subordination to the civil power."  Vt. 
Const. Ch. I, art. 16

VIRGINIA: "That a well regulated militia, composed of the 
body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, 
natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the 
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be 
infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should 
be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases 
the military should be under strict subordination to, and 
governed by, the civil power."  Va. Const. art I, S 13

WASHINGTON: "The right of the individual citizen to bear 
arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be 
impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed 
as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, 
maintain, or employ an armed body of men."  Wash. Const. 
art. I, S 24

WEST VIRGINIA: "A person has the right to keep and bear 
arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and 
for lawful hunting and recreational use."  W. Va. Const. 
art. III, S 22

WYOMING: "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of 
themselves and of the state shall not be denied."  Wyo. 
Const. art. I, S 24

   Seven (7) states do not have a constitutional provision 
on arms: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New 
Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin."


Section III. - Other gun-control fantasies

3.0  "Registration of all firearms and ammunition will assist
police in solving crimes committed with guns."


3.0.a  "Guns ought to be licensed and registered like cars."

See particularly LaPierre,_Guns, Crime, and Freedom,_
where he devotes an entire chapter (Chapter 7) to this.

In summary:  Automobiles must only be licensed for use
upon public roads, and license is not required for the
purchase of one car (or many cars).  There are no waiting
periods or background checks on the purchase of cars.
People who misuse their cars are punished for their own
actions, and particular types of cars aren't banned or
taken away from those who use them safely.


3.1  "Guns increase the lethality of crime."

This argument (a favorite of t.p.g.'s resident spammer
"Pim van Meurs") ignores that, in the absence of guns,
the younger, more agile, and/or physically stronger
criminal has much less difficulty in overpowering his
victim, particularly if the victim is elderly or disabled.
This is certainly true in the case where there are
multiple assailants, since, in the absence of firearms,
there is no way for the physically weaker to overcome
strength in numbers.  While the existence of guns no doubt
enables people who might not otherwise easily commit violence
to do so, it likewise increases the ability of victims to
resist violent attacks, when they might otherwise not be able
to do so effectively.  Guns are indeed "the great equalizer,"
and removing them from the hands of the public at large
returns us at best to the "law of the jungle," where the
weaker are prey to the stronger; and at worst affects only
the law-abiding, leaving criminals to obtain guns by illegal
means which they can then use with impunity against the
otherwise defenseless (see 3.8). Proficiency with firearms is
no guarantee of success for potential victims of crime, but it
is surely better than submission to the mercy of criminals,
especially when that submission is compelled by government
through "gun control" laws.


3.2  "A waiting period saves lives, and it might even have
stopped John Hinckley, Jr. from wounding Jim Brady (for
whom the Brady national waiting-period law was named)."

See particularly LaPierre,_Guns, Crime, and Freedom,_
where he devotes an entire chapter (Chapter 5) to this:

In summary:  Waiting periods, ostensibly for the purpose
of background checks, are ineffective against determined
criminals, who can obtain illegal guns by a variety of
means, including "strawman purchases" by individuals with
clean records, theft, and purchase from illegal dealers
and/or smugglers.  All of these channels are illegal
(therefore by definition unavailable to the law-abiding),
and avoid both waiting periods and background checks.
Background checks, in principle, can be done in the manner
of a credit card transaction, if appropriate databases
are established.  In the absence of such databases, the
personnel and paperwork requirements placed upon law
enforcement officers detract from time and resources needed
for combatting more serious crimes.  Waiting periods
did not and would not stop John Hinckley, Jr. (who had a
clean criminal record, and whose mental health history had
been covered up by his wealthy parents, and who purchased
a .22 revolver in Texas several_months_before his attempt
to assassinate President Reagan), or convicted mass murderer
Colin Ferguson (who purchased the 9mm Ruger in April he used
to attack passengers on the Long Island Railroad in December
after undergoing a fifteen-day waiting period and mandatory
background check in California), or the murderer of John
Lennon (who bought his .38 revolver in Hawaii, while working
as a_security_guard_for a Waikiki apartment building, despite
a violent marriage, and being treated for a suicide attempt!).
   Far from stopping "crimes of passion," waiting
periods can even make matters worse, if an abused spouse
is denied the best means of self-protection, while the
abuser can use whatever other weapons are at hand (knives,
blunt trauma, strangulation, battery-- or a gun) to
kill or maim.  Anti-stalking laws and restraining orders,
like waiting periods, only affect the law-abiding.
People who already own guns responsibly need not wait
for a background check, since they wouldn't require a_new_
gun (or a gun at all) if they were inclined to commit a
crime.  People who already commit violent crimes with
guns aren't going to be deterred by another law, and are
already prohibited by law from possessing guns if previously
convicted of a serious crime.


3.3  "No one needs an assault weapon, they have no sporting
purpose, they're only intended to kill people."

See particularly LaPierre,_Guns, Crime, and Freedom,_where
he devotes an entire chapter (Chapter 6) to this.  See also
Simkin, J., Zelman, A., and Rice, R.,_Lethal Laws,_published
by J.P.F.O. (see above), Halbrook,_That Every Man Be Armed,
Madison, J., Hamilton, A., and Jay, J.,_The Federalist_#46,
Cottrol and Diamond, Georgetown Law J. (see above)

also

Aymette v. State, Tennessee Reports v.21 p.154 (1840)
cited in U.S. v. Miller, U.S. Reports v.307 p.174 (1939)

In summary:  So-called "assault weapons" are not machineguns
(which have been heavily taxed and regulated since 1934), and
are less powerful than some commonly used hunting rifles, like
the .30-06 .  They are defined in law primarily according to
their appearance, which often resembles a military-issue
"select-fire" rifle or machinegun, including a pistol grip,
a folding stock, a flash suppressor or muzzle brake, a barrel
shroud, a bayonet, and/or a grenade launcher.  They, like
their military counterparts, may use the same ammunition as
other small and intermediate sized game hunting rifles, and
typically accept a magazine holding a large supply of ammunition.
Like their military counterparts, they are often equipped
with lighter, more durable polymer or composite stocks, which
don't require as much maintenance as wood stocks, and aren't
so heavy to carry.  They can be used for "varmint" control,
competition target shooting, small game hunting, and other
lawful purposes.  In point of fact, their military counterparts
were designed primarily to wound (rather than kill) enemy
soldiers; since a wounded soldier must be carried from the
battlefield by others, and continues to consume enemy resources,
without continuing to be a threat.  That, combined with lighter
weight both for the gun and its ammunition, made the assault
rifle (which, unlike the term "assault weapon," has a precise
military definition) a military advantage over older infantry
weapons which were often based on heavier caliber hunting guns.
   The right of civilians in a free society to possess "military-
looking," or even actual military weapons, is essential if a
monopoly of force is not to reside in the hands of government,
where modern history shows the potential for far greater abuses
and crimes exists than are possible for any deranged individual.
Every major genocide in the twentieth century has been preceded
by laws which disarmed the eventual victims of their ability to
resist the progressive imposition of murderous tyranny.  Once
granted a monopoly of force, government acquires power that cannot
be readily opposed or revoked.  And, if government fails to act,
as in time of natural disaster or a riot, the ability to defend
against roving gangs or to deter looting requires a dependable,
versatile, and credible deterrent to whatever threat may appear,
and possibly even a means to obtain small game for survival.
Or, if government is too far away to act quickly, for instance
in remote rural areas, or miles from shore out to sea, people
faced with attack by packs of wild animals, human predators,
or hijacking pirates must be able to respond with all neccessary
force, in order to preserve their lives from harm.
   Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that weapons having no 
"reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a well regulated militia" may be taxed in interstate commerce,
clearly implying that weapons having such reasonable relationship
with the militia are those which the Second Amendment protects
the right of the people to keep and bear, moreso even than other
types of weapons.  In other words, the arms protected by the
Second Amendment are those "such as are usually employed in
civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military
equipment."


3.4  "There's certainly no reason to allow the sale of cop-killer
ammunition which can penetrate bulletproof vests."

In summary:  Claiming that particular types of bullets or guns
are responsible for particular types of crimes, rather than
simply holding individuals who misuse guns responsible for their
actions, is the classic myth of "gun control".  In point of
fact, any weapon can be a cop-killer in the hands of violent
criminals.  Often, it's the police officer's own sidearm which
is grabbed by criminals in a struggle and used against him.
Armor-piercing handgun ammunition, originally developed for law
enforcement use in 1966, acquired public notoriety in 1982 when
a major U.S. television network, NBC, demonstrated the ability of
such bullets to penetrate soft body armor like that worn by
police officers.  Other networks and media outlets followed
the "story," despite the fact that a little research would have
revealed that common hunting ammunition like that used in large
caliber rifles and in shotguns can also penetrate bullet resistant
vests.  Rather than diminishing the threat, media publicity about
the use of body armor by police contributed to some criminals
redirecting their aim to the head, neck, and other unprotected
areas of police, instead of buying expensive exotic ammunition
or sawing off rifles and shotguns to achieve the same effect.
Further, the "cop-killer bullet" scare, like the recent "Black
Rhino" hoax (see 3.7), took place despite there never having been
even_one_law enforcement death associated with the use of such
exotic ammunition.  Nevertheless, a ban on sales of such ammunition
was proposed in Congress, passed, and signed into law, with
the cooperation and assistance of the National Rifle Association.


3.5  "Cheap handguns, a.k.a. 'Saturday Night Specials,' are the
weapons of choice for violent criminals."


3.6  "Plastic guns, which can slip through metal detectors..."


3.7  "Black Rhino ammunition, made from space age plastics,
which can penetrate bulletproof vests and then fragment..."

See New York Times, Dec. 27, 1994, A10; Dec. 28, 1994, A8;
Dec 29, 1994, A16

also Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1994, B2

In summary:  'Gun control' supporter David Keen, chief executive
of Signature Products, a Huntsville, AL based defense contractor,
staged a publicity stunt late in 1994 by claiming his company
was about to market "Rhino" ammunition, capable of causing "nearly
instantaneous" death, "a horrific wound," with "no way to stop
the bleeding"; as well as an armor-piercing version, dubbed
"Black Rhino" (suggestive of Winchester's "Black Talon," a brand
name of non-armor-piercing handgun ammunition which was withdrawn
from public sale by Winchester after 'gun control' groups seized
upon the name's publicity value) which Keen claimed would penetrate
bullet-resistant vests and then "disintegrate" into "lethal shrapnel"
"hurled into vital organs" just like the non-armor-piercing version.
   The initial story, written by Associated Press reporter Robert
Dvorchak, was released on the AP wire the day after Christmas, when
many businesses and government agencies (like the Bureau of Alcohol
Tobacco and Firearms) would be closed, making fact-checking the story
and its sensationalistic claims difficult.  The Associated Press,
for its part, promoted the story to editors with a notation that
it was of special interest.  Bob Walker, a lobbyist for Handgun
Control, Inc. was quoted in the original story, along with the
alleged manufacturer who "acknowledges taking calls from worried
police".  Pro 'gun control' legislators like U.S. Rep. Charles
Schumer (D - N.Y.) and Sen. Daniel Moynihan (D - N.Y.) quickly
proposed extending the earlier "cop-killer bullet" ban (see 3.4)
to include Keen's "Rhino" ammunition.  The National Rifle Association
issued a statement saying "This has all the trappings of a hoax.
What we have is an outbreak of mob journalism centering on the
dubious claims of a would-be manufacturer".
   The claims could hardly have been_more_dubious to people
familiar with firearms and the science of ballistics.  Pre-
fragmented ammunition for handguns, such as the Glaser Safety
Slug, has been available for many years and is sold in part on
the basis that it is less likely to penetrate walls or riccohet
from hard surfaces, lessening the danger to people in adjoining
rooms or apartments from discharge of a firearm indoors, as in
a home-defense situation.  This type of bullet typically makes
a large, shallow wound, since the fragments produced are each
a small fraction of the total bullet weight, and much of the
inertia and energy of the bullet is expended as the bullet fragments,
(something like Indy cars flinging parts everywhere, carrying away
the energy of hitting the wall) resulting in limited penetration.
Additionally, the binder or matrix containing the fragments
makes the bullet lighter, and less dense, than if it was made
of solid metal.  The effectiveness of fragmenting ammunition
in rapidly stopping an attacker is generally considered to be
less than for non-fragmenting ammunition, like hollowpoints.
   The claims made for "Black Rhino" ammunition were even more
preposterous, since the very characteristics which make a bullet
capable of defeating soft body armor (that it be made of hard
non-deformable metal, preferably pointed, and that it have as
high kinetic energy as possible) are the exact opposite of the
characteristics which would allow it to fragment.  After Keen's
inflated and sensationalistic claims were demonstrated false
in independent tests by ABC-TV's_Nightline,_and it was revealed
that Keen did not even have a license to manufacture ammunition
(or armor-piercing ammunition, which is a separate license) as
required by federal law, the company announced that it would not
be marketing "Black Rhinos" after all.  Since then, the other
"Rhino" has failed to materialize on product shelves, no doubt
disintegrated on impact with the truth as well.  At last report,
Signature Products is attempting to sell its manufacturing rights
for $500,000 (from an ad in_American_Firearms_Industry_magazine).


3.8  "Permitting people to carry concealed weapons will lead
to increased violent crime, and people killing each other at
the slightest provocation."

See LaPierre,_Guns, Crime and Freedom,_where he devotes an entire
chapter (Chapter 4) to this.

also_Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America,_by Gary Kleck,
Aldine de Gruyter, ISBN 0-202-30419-1, pp.411-414 (1991)

_Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 1992,_Federal Bureau
of Investigation, U.S. Dept. of Justice, SuDoc# J 1.14/7:992

Commonplace Book, Thomas Jefferson, (G. Chinard ed.), 1926, p.314

and
Florida Statutes, title 46, sec. 790.06, pp.590-597 (amended 1992)

In summary:  Persons who go to the effort and expense of obtaining
a permit to carry a concealed weapon (which, to use Florida's 1987
law as an example, requires 6 months or longer residency, being
over 21 years of age, able bodied, not a drug abuser or alcoholic,
completion of a firearms safety course, no felonies or violent
misdemeanors or record of being committed for mental illness, sworn
application on file listing name, address, place and date of birth,
race, and occupation, and including a statement that the applicant
meets the above criteria, a $125 application fee [renewable after
three years for $100], a full set of fingerprints, and a color photo),
and who submit to a full background check to verify the application
and check fingerprints, are not the sorts of people who abuse
firearms.  The permit process acts quite effectively to select for
law-abiding citizens rather than trigger-happy criminals, and the
records of those states which have liberalized their concealed carry
laws show this.  Of the 204,108 licenses issued in the Florida law's
first 6 1/2 years of operation, seventeen (17, or .008%) were
revoked for unlawful conduct while the firearm was present, and many
of these violations were either technical (such as carrying into a
restricted area, like an airport or bar) or non-gun related (such
as revoking a permit due to a DWI arrest).  In Oregon, over 60,000
concealed carry permits have been issued, and none has been revoked.
   In light of these successes, many other states, Tennessee, Arizona,
Wyoming, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana,  and most recently, Utah, have
joined the ranks of states protecting the individual right to self
defense through reformed concealed carry laws.  One state, Vermont,
even allows concealed carry without a permit, and has little crime.
The impact of such laws on fighting crime is debatable at a purely
statistical level, but states which issue concealed carry permits to
their law-abiding population show less violent crime in general than
those which do not, and rates of some crimes (such as homicide and
robbery) which are 50% lower than states in which concealed carry is
not permitted.  These states, it could be argued, may have had less
crime than restrictive states to begin with, but the predictions by
"gun control" advocates that violent crime would increase following
liberalization of concealed carry have not proven to be valid.
   At an individual level, many carry permit holders have already
saved their own lives and the lives of others in the face of criminal
violence.  Armed citizens, permit or not, kill almost as many criminals
each year as do law enforcement officers (some 348 out of 763, or 46%
of justifiable homicides in 1992), and armed citizens are less likely
to have "bad shoots" than the police, since, unlike the police, they
aren't usually arriving late at the scene and_then_having to figure
out who the bad guys are.  But, as is pointed out elsewhere (see 1.1),
the true measure of the ability of firearms to fight crime isn't found
in the body count, but in criminals wounded, deterred from violence
by fear that a potential victim may be armed, or driven away without
even firing a shot.
   The fact that laws against concealed weapons were ineffective
against crime was no secret to Thomas Jefferson, who hand-copied
this quotation from the 18th century Italian criminologist Cesare
Beccaria's 1764 book_On_Crimes_and_Punishments_into his own notebook
on law and government, a quote which sums up well the arguments of
those who defend the right to keep and bear arms:
      "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand
   real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience;
   that would take fire from men because it burns, and water
   because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils
   except destruction.  The laws that forbid the carrying of
   arms are laws of such a nature.  They disarm only those who
   are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.  Can it
   be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the
   most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code,
   will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can
   be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly
   obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty --so dear to men,
   so dear to the enlightened legislator-- and subject innocent
   persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to
   suffer?  Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and
   better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage
   than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked
   with greater confidence than an armed man.  They ought to
   designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes,
   produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts,
   and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences
   and advantages of a universal decree."


-- 
**x*dna   Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.  |     ,="=,           | NRA
*(==) *   The University Of Memphis  |    n/  {(  (^\_.    | JPFO
* \'  *   Memphis, TN                |         "=="        | GOP!
*(=)***   [k--ar--s] at [cc.memphis.edu____]|  Don't Tread On Me  | U-U

   More violent crimes occur in cities than in rural areas.
               Therefore, let's ban cities!  -KB