Addendum

The below numbers are directly from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) for the year 2007.

It is encouraging that our constitutional right to protect ourselves and our families is being upheld by the Supreme Court.

A few very recent cases in point.

The first following paper is the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act”.

This is a very, very important law – passed in 2003 and is the law of the land - protects all firearms manufacturers from nuisance lawsuits.

In particular, it prohibits the Judiciary from overriding the Second Amendment – The right to Bear Arms – and upholds the 14^th amendment. In particular The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14^th amendment grants all citizens the right of protection against unjust judicial proceedings and fair treatment across all States of the Union.

The reason for the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” is specifically:

“To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.” … so to eliminate “The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups and others attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and judicial decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the sister States.”

And the remedy as passed into law in this act is:

“To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.” … “To preserve and protect the Separation of Powers doctrine and important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between sister States.” … and “In General- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.”

In a nutshell, firearms manufacturers are federally protected businesses, and cannot be sued for the results of the use of their product.

With the market growing in by such large percentages, and with the Federal guarantees against lawsuits, it has never been a better time to be a firearms manufacturer.

JUSTICES, RULING 5-4, ENDORSE PERSONAL RIGHT TO OWN GUN

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

New York Times

Published: June 27, 2008

The Supreme Court on Thursday embraced the long-disputed view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use, ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded pistol at home for self-defense.

The landmark ruling overturned the District of Columbia ban on pistols, the strictest gun-control law in the country, and appeared certain to usher in a new round of litigation over gun rights throughout the country.

The court rejected the view that the Second Amendment's ''right of the people to keep and bear arms'' applied to gun ownership only in connection with service in the ''well regulated militia'' to which the amendment refers.

Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, his most important in his 22 years on the court, said that the justices were ''aware of the problem of pistol violence in this country'' and ''take seriously'' the arguments in favor of prohibiting pistol ownership.

''But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,'' he said, adding, ''It is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.''

A Victory for Self-Defense

In the D.C. Gun Law Case, a Chance to Affirm the Second Amendment

By Robert A. Levy

Washington Post

Monday, March 12, 2007; Page A13

Unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, it looks as though the District of Columbia's 31-year-old gun ban is history. Good riddance.

In a landmark opinion Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed a lower federal court on all counts and concluded that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."

The case, Parker v. District of Columbia, was brought by six D.C. residents who want to possess functional firearms within their homes for self-defense. Their lawsuit was not about machine guns and assault weapons. They didn't ask for the right to carry guns outside their houses. Parker was about ordinary pistols, in the owner's private residence.

Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a recent Bush appointee. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. The court majority stated unequivocally that activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Indeed, said the court, "the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government" in 1789.

Fast-forward more than two centuries. Shelly Parker lived in a high-crime neighborhood in the heart of Washington. People on her block were harassed relentlessly by drug dealers and addicts. Parker called the police, time and again, then encouraged her neighbors to do the same. She organized block meetings to discuss the problem. For her audacity, Parker was labeled a troublemaker by the dealers, who threatened her at every opportunity.

One dealer tried to pry his way into her house, repeatedly cursing, then yelling, "I'll kill you. I live on this block too!"

For obvious reasons, Shelly Parker would like to possess a functional pistol within her home for self-defense; but she feared arrest and prosecution because of the District's unconstitutional gun ban.

Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. Anti-gun regulations don't address the deep-rooted causes of violent crime -- such as illegitimacy, unemployment, dysfunctional schools, and drug and alcohol abuse. The cures are complex and protracted. But that doesn't mean we have to become passive prey for criminal predators. Americans who want to defend themselves by possessing suitable firearms should be able to do so.

Off and on over the years, Washington has reclaimed its title as the nation's murder capital. The D.C. government has been minimally effective in disarming violent criminals. But it has done a superb job of disarming decent, peaceable residents. For starters, no pistol can be registered in the District. Even pistols registered before the District's 1976 ban cannot be carried from room to room in a home without a license, which is never granted. Moreover, all firearms in the home, including rifles and shotguns, must be unloaded and either disassembled or bound by trigger locks.

In effect, no one in the District can possess a functional firearm in his or her residence. And the law applies not just to "unfit" persons such as felons, minors or the mentally incompetent, but across the board to ordinary, honest, responsible citizens who live in the District, pay their taxes in the District and obey the laws of the District.

Sadly, if someone breaks into their homes, their only choice is to call 911 and pray that the police arrive quickly. That's not good enough. The right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, includes the right to protect your property and your life. No government should be allowed to take that right away.

Unless the Court of Appeals elects to rehear Parker, the case will probably head to the Supreme Court; and that is where it belongs. The citizens of this country deserve a foursquare pronouncement from the nation's highest court about the real meaning of the Second Amendment. For those of us eagerly awaiting a clear statement in support of an individual's right to keep and bear arms, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has declared that the Constitution is on our side.

Gun Sales Thriving In Uncertain Times

By Fredrick Kunkle

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, October 27, 2008; Page A01

"Americans have cut back on buying cars, furniture and clothes in a tough economy, but there's one consumer item that's still enjoying healthy sales: guns. Purchases of firearms and ammunition have risen 8 to 10 percent this year, according to state and federal data.

Several variables drive sales, but many dealers, buyers and experts attribute the increase in part to concerns about the economy and fears that if Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wins the presidency, he will join with fellow Democrats in Congress to enact new gun controls. Obama has said that he believes in an individual right to bear arms but that he also supports "common-sense safety measures."

"Even though [Obama] has a lot going for him, he's not very pro-gun," said Paul Pluff, a spokesman for Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson, which has reported higher sales. Gun enthusiasts are "going to go out and get [firearms] while they still can."

Gun purchases have also been climbing because of the worsening economy, which fuels fears of crime and civil disorder, industry sources and specialists said.”

Nordyke case: Plaintiff’s lose, but Second Amendment wins…again

April 21, 8:07 AM

David Workman

The Kansas City Examiner

"The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday handed down a long-awaited ruling in the epic case of Nordyke v. King, which started as a lawsuit by gun show operators Russell and Sallie Nordyke against California’s Alameda County, and became something considerably larger.

Alameda County passed an ordinance ten years ago prohibiting the carrying of firearms on county property following a shooting at the county fair in 1998 and that included the fairgrounds where the Nordykes had conducted gun shows. The shooting had nothing at all to do with the Nordykes’ gun shows, but at the time Supervisor Mary King, according to court documents, acknowledged that she had been trying to “get rid of gun shows on county property” for about three years. King had used the excuse so many anti-gunners rely upon when trying to nullify the right to bear arms: It was because of a “rash of gun-related violence,” again not connected with the Nordyke gun show.

The court panel, with Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain writing the opinion and Judge Ronald M. Gould offering a concurring opinion, rule that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states; that is, the right to keep and bear arms that is affirmed by the Amendment now becomes a limit on state and local governments, same as it is a limit on the federal government.

The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived. Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence."

The rights to carry has expanded dramatically in the last 23 years, from 15 states which never issued a right to carry permit, to only 2 today.

In 1986, 26 states observed highly restrictive “may issue” carry permits which limit who may carry a firearm to off-duty police officers and members of government. Today, that number is 9.

Conversely, the number of “Shall-Issue” states, those who issue carry permits to Citizens without a criminal background, has increased from 8 to 37.

Gun-free zones fail; concealed carry laws work

F. PAUL VALONE

If your state lawmakers killed legislation to protect students from slaughter, would you celebrate by saying, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus"?

This 2006 hubris was courtesy of Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker. The legislation killed was House Bill 1572, which could have enabled concealed pistol permit-holders to protect themselves on college campuses; and harsh reality trumped Hincker's "feeling" of safety when Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 at Virginia Tech.

When gun control advocates peddle their oft-failed schemes as solutions, they avoid mentioning details of three other school shootings where armed intervention saved lives:

• In Pearl, Miss., assistant principal Joel Myrick stopped triple murderer Luke Woodham using a pistol from his car.

• In Edinboro, Pa., the 14-year-old who killed a teacher at an off-campus dance was captured by shotgun-wielding James Strand.

• At Virginia's Appalachian School of Law, student Tracy Bridges used his pistol to detain murderer Peter Odighizuwa.

Beyond anecdotes, researchers John Lott and William Landes, then at Yale and the University of Chicago, respectively, studied multiple victim public shootings. Data from 1976 to 1995 showed the number of shootings in states with concealed pistol laws declined by 84 percent, deaths plummeted by 90 percent and injuries by 82.5 percent.

The two called their findings "dramatic," concluding: "[T]he only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed pistol laws."

Criminals don't obey laws

Like North Carolina, Virginia prohibits guns on campuses. But policies purporting to create "gun-free" zones actually increase victimization, found the researchers: "States with the fewest gun free zones have the greatest reductions [in] killings, injuries, and attacks."Indeed, of eight major school rampages tracked by The New York Times, six occurred after enactment of the federal "Gun Free School Zones Act" in 1996.

Said Lott, "Gun prohibitionists concede that banning guns around schools has not quite worked as intended -- but their response has been to call for more regulation of guns. Yet what might appear to be the most obvious policy may actually cost lives. When gun-control laws are passed, it is law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them."

Concealed carry in schools, while novel, is not untested: Utah has permitted it since 1995. If you Google "Utah school shootings," you will find exactly none. Last week, the Tennessee state house voted to join them.

Lest you picture drunken freshman shooting into the air at football games, understand that FBI background checks ensure permit-holders are age 21 and free of felonies, violent misdemeanors and demonstrated substance abuse. After 12 years under North Carolina's concealed pistol law, permit-holders have proven themselves sane, sober and law-abiding. Revocations run less than one tenth of one percent, most for reasons unrelated to guns.

Protect yourself

Moreover, the concept has support among academics: After the recent murders, Virginia Tech graduate research assistant Brad Wiles quoted his unsuccessful appeal to the school's president last August: "The policy that forbids students who are legally licensed to carry in Virginia needs to be changed. I am qualified and capable of carrying a concealed pistol and urge you to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government."

Policy-makers will debate Virginia Tech's delayed emergency response and its failure to address Cho's clearly disturbed behavior; they will debate campus security. But if 32 murders say anything, it's that police have neither the ability nor -- as the Supreme Court has twice ruled -- the responsibility to protect you.

Seventy-six-year-old Professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor, used his body to shield escaping Virginia students. Doubtless, the politicians who killed HB 1572 console themselves that their malfeasance didn't quite cause his murder.

But maybe N.C. lawmakers will display uncharacteristic courage by passing legislation allowing concealed pistol permit-holders to deter or stop campus rampages. Heroes such as Liviu Librescu deserve something better than their bodies to stop bullets.

F. Paul Valone

HOME