Talking points for Washington Gun Law letters John Hardin $Id: wa_gun_laws_points.txt,v 1.29 2005-10-02 08:41:21-07 jhardin Exp jhardin $ --- Wholesale confiscation of firearms from the citizens of Washingon is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee that "No State shall ... deprive any person of ... property without due process of law". Saying I cannot own, and must forfeit, my rifle because someone else may use a similar rifle to harm others does not provide due process of law: it is not fair; it blindly punishes me when I have done nothing wrong and I have harmed noone. If I must be punished then punish me for what I have done, not for what someone else might possibly do. --- The restrictions placed on individual liberty in the name of public safety must be carefully considered and balanced. It is unreasonable and unfair to seek to place severe, even draconian, restrictions on any individual liberty in an attempt to achieve only a small increase in public safety. Destroying individual liberties to soothe the unrealistic fears of a vocal minority is not one of the principles upon which the United States is founded. The outright ban and confiscation of weapons that are used only in a tiny fraction (less than one-half of one percent) of violent crimes is a severe restriction of individual liberty that is far out of proportion to the miniscule gain in public safety that would be realized. A more fair, more balanced and more effective method of increasing actual public safety must be sought. --- "No guns will be confiscated by these laws." Under these bills there are only two alternatives for current owners of the restricted firearms: first, give up the firearms immediately, without being compensated, or be arrested for a felony - in other words, immediate confiscation; second, registering your firearms, submitting to a background check, and doing both over again every year for as long as the firearms are owned. Historically the first step to broad confiscation of firearms is requiring their registration. This does little to reduce violent crime, but it gives the government the excuse for immediate confiscation of firearms from and punishment of any owner who does not register, and it creates a convenient list of all of the owners of firearms who trust the government and obey the law and register themselves and their firearms. This list makes it easy to locate and confiscate these firearms later, when the "we'll let you keep them if you register" bone is withdrawn and the registered firearms are no longer permitted. Paranoia? Perhaps, but then, there is a lot of precedent. This has already happened in Canada. This has already happened in New Zealand. This has already happened in Australia. This has already happened in Great Britain. This has already happened in New York. This has already happened in Chicago. This has already happened in San Francisco. This happened in Germany, when the Nazis used Weimar Republic firearm registrations to quickly locate and disarm Jews who owned firearms; when they invaded neighboring countries they used local firearm registration records to locate and disarm local gun owners. "No guns will be confiscated by these laws"? Forgive me if I choose to not believe you. Deferred Confiscation is still confiscation, and a liberty lost incrementally is still a liberty lost. --- The idea of "safety at any price" is as unreasonable and misguided as the idea of "peace at any price." At some point the tradeoff is no longer worthwhile, the sacrifice is greater than the gain. When the value of what you are being asked to give up is greater than the safety or peace that your loss will obtain, you are a shortsighted fool to make the deal. When the price is the restriction or loss of a basic right, of a fundamental liberty, then making the exchange is doubly foolish. Anyone can come along and quite easily threaten the peace or endanger your safety, but regaining a lost liberty is a long and heartbreaking battle. --- The presumption of guilt in these bills is extremely offensive. I have never committed any violent crime in my life - in fact, I have never committed any crime more serious than speeding - and I likely never will, yet the state seeks to put me on proactive probation. Through forcing me to annually register and submit to a background check (at an unknown and likely arbitrarily high price), and to submit to law enforcement agencies invading my home without a warrant to inspect whether I am meeting a vague standard for storage, the state is treating me as an untrustworthy person suspected of being a violent criminal who just hasn't been caught yet. --- The provision that a law enforcement agency may invade my home to inspect how I store my arms and judge whether I meet some vague standard is a blatant violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches without a warrant granted on probable cause. The police are not welcome in my home without a warrant granted by a judge on probable cause that I am committing a crime - whether or not I may have anything to hide has nothing to do with this basic freedom. My privacy in my home does not exist merely at the whim of the police and the legislature. --- Completely banning a weapon that has been used in only a small handful of violent crimes in the past decade and a half in the United States is pointless hysteria. .50 caliber rifles are tremendously expensive, and unwieldy, and impossible to conceal. The chance that such a weapon will be used in violent crimes is extremely small, and the proposal to completely ban them to prevent this unlikely occurrence has an impact on the liberties of law-abiding citizens that is far out of proportion to its benefit to society. --- I will never understand how some people can think that a law that bans something will keep that thing away from people who don't obey the law in the first place. --- I have heard rumor that these bills are an attempt by the Democratic party to punish the Republican party for being in power the past few years, and for blocking legislation that the Democratic party wished to enact. If this is the case then shame on the legislators who proposed these bills and shame on the legislators who support them. How dare my rights and the rights of the other citizens of Washington be trampled in an adolescent attempt at tit-for-tat payback! I would hope that the legislators of our state take their jobs, the Constitution and the rights of the citizens more seriously than that. --- "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." Article 1, Section 24 Constitution of the State of Washington "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." Amendment II Constitution of the United States "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (name of office) to the best of my ability." Oath of Office, State of Washington Both the United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution explicitly deny the government the power to ban these weapons outright. Please remember your oath to support the Constitutions of the State of Washington and of the United States, and oppose these blatantly unconstitutional bills. --- In Washington the legal definition of "militia" is: RCW 38.04.030 Composition of the militia. The militia of the state of Washington shall consist of all able bodied citizens of the United States and all other able bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this state, who shall be more than eighteen years of age, and shall include all persons who are members of the national guard and the state guard, and said militia shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia. The laws and Constitution of the State of Washington do not clearly define "unorganized militia", but the United States Code does: Title 10, Section 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. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that in the State of Washington the term "unorganized militia" refers to all citizens (and those seeking citizenship) older than 18 who are not already members of the National Guard and State Guard. That means you, and I, and our neighbors, all make up the militia; we are all collectively responsible for the defense of ourselves, our state and our nation, whether we wear a uniform (military or law enforcement) or not. Prohibiting ownership of these types of weapons (semi-automatic "assault weapons" and .50-caliber rifles) is a direct attack on the utility and capability of the unorganized militia, and weakens or destroys the ability of the unorganized militia to do its job effectively when it would be most needed - to protect our state and our country against internal disorder or external aggression. --- The term "assault weapon" is correctly defined as a light, compact rifle that fires a intermediate-power rifle round and is capable of fully automatic fire. There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault weapon", and no possible collection of cosmetic features - bayonet attachment lugs, flash hiders (whether removable or not), pistol grips, folding or collapsible stocks, and so forth - can make a semi-automatic rifle into an assault weapon. And a weapon that fires a pistol round, such as the much ballyhood Uzi, is not an assault weapon, it is a submachine gun. The idea that a semi-automatic rifle with certain cosmetic features is any more dangerous or deadly than a semiautomatic rifle that lacks those features is, quite simply, fearmongering and preying on general ignorance. True assault weapons, capable of fully automatic fire, are already closely regulated and difficult and expensive to legally obtain. If you have to lie about what your law purports to restrict in order to garner support for it, is it a good law? Should we support and seek to enact a law that is based on willful misdirection? --- This bill claims to be "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately". It obviously is not urgently necessary; we are not now drowning in a wave of semiautomatic rifle crimes, violence or insurrection against the state - indeed, we never have been. Such hyperbole shows that the sponsors of these bills hope to again short-circuit reasoned public debate and ignore the constitutional limits on legislative powers by exploiting the public's unreasoning fears. The fact that these bills were presented to the Judiciary Committee with little or no public notice further indicates that their sponsors hope that these extreme proposals will be adopted without public scrutiny or debate. It is fortunate that notice of these bills being presented to the judicial committee leaked out, and that public debate is occurring. Using the back door is not the way to enact good, fair laws. --- "There's no practical purpose for anyone to have such a weapon!" ...or: "But why do you need such a weapon anyway?" In response I ask, what does need have to do with it in the first place? Do you really want to live in a country where you are only permitted to have that which the State decides you need to have? That is not liberty. That is not freedom. That is precisely the sort of arbitrary tryanny that our nation rebelled against at its birth. Our nation is founded upon the principles of liberty and freedom. The government should not broadly ban these weapons from those who have not harmed others. And, indeed, the highest laws of our land - the United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution - expressly deny the State the power to do so. But as far as "need" goes: a populace that is effectively armed, and confident and skilled in the use of those arms, is the final defense of the State and the people. Switzerland is neutral and has been able to make it stick because nearly ALL of their citizens are under arms; they are a tiny country, but any aggressor would find it hideously expensive to invade them. Admiral Yamamoto said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." And Stalin and Hitler were able to wreak their havoc upon their own people because the people were not armed and not able to resist. There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and had been well armed. ... Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half-starved group of Jews took 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis. -- Theodore Haas, Dachau survivor --- "Throughout our history millions of British subjects have sacrified their lives in defense of the nation's liberties, and it would be a sad paradox if we were to sacrifice the nation's liberty in defense of our own lives today." David Davis, Conservative Party spokesman http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4467950 at 00:02:30 This applies to us as well. Since the Revolutionary War, hundreds of thousands of Americans have died defending the rights, liberties and freedoms of the American people, both in wars abroad and in asserting and defending the rights of our citizens against those in our society who would deny those rights. Opportunistic legislators with agendas that serve themselves rather than the public are proposing laws that are supported by emotional, deceptive and fearmongering arguments rather than rational, fair and balanced reasoning. They are proposing laws whose burdens far outweigh any possible benefit. They are proposing laws that purport to protect the public while in reality weakening and rendering the public helpless. They are proposing laws that trample the rights and liberties of the American people. If such laws are accepted and enacted, then the labors and sacrifices of those patriots throughout our nation's history are being spit upon, and their memories dishonored. --- I want safety and security as much as anyone. I am just not willing to subscribe to the notion that only the State can provide that safety and security, and that to obtain that safety and security I must surrender my basic rights and liberties. I am not willing to surrender my ability to defend myself and my family against attack in the delusion that the State will always be there for me. Such behavior is irresponsible and immature. I am an adult. I take responsibility for my own safety and the safety of my family and my community. I do not seek someone else to do it for me. --- "Every major police organization wanted the federal assault weapons ban renewed." Perhaps. I'm sure every major police organization would also like to see removed all those pesky restrictions on their powers to stop and search anyone who they think looks suspicious or unusual; I'm sure they would love to lose the restrictions on evidence collected without a probable cause warrant, or the restrictions on interrogation without a lawyer present, or that silly Habeas Corpus thing that makes their job more difficult. The police are not there to protect us; relying on them to do so is an abdication of your personal responsibility for your own safety. The police are not there to defend the rights of the people against a government that wishes to oppress those rights; in fact, they would be the tool of such oppression. The police have nothing to fear from the vast majority of firearm owners, who are peaceful and law-abiding. Banning firearms will not keep them off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, it will only disarm those who obey the law. --- Banning alcohol did not keep alcohol off the streets, and banning drugs has not kept drugs off the streets. Why do we need to experiment yet again with firearms? We know what the result will be: no gain in safety, but a measurable reduction of freedom. --- I do not trust the government. I don't mean to say that all of the people who make up the government are power hungry and unethical, but the power that the government wields makes those who are much more dangerous to the public. Those who are power hungry and unethical, those who enjoy being nosy and telling others what to do for no reason other than they can, are drawn to government and one such person in a position of power can destroy the good works of hundreds of responsible, ethical government employees. I believe that it is prudent to plan for this one bad apple. I believe it is prudent to assume that the government will exercise its power to the full extent permitted by law, and will gladly go past those limits if those limits are not clearly set forth and clearly and strongly enforced. I believe it is prudent to assume that the government will act to intrude upon the privacy of and restrict the freedom of the people as far as it is permitted to do so. It believe it is unwise to give the government any more rope (power) than the minimum they absolutely need to do their job, because surely if they are given more then - in a twist on the old saw of "giving someone enough rope to hang themselves" - the government will use it to hang *us* to the greatest extent possible. To quote another old saying, "give them an inch and they will take a mile." Put simply: power corrupts. I believe it prudent to not assume the good intentions of the government, especially where the issue of personal liberty is concerned. To quote Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." In this vein, I view provisions for government inspection of "safe firearms storage" with great suspicion. What right does an agent of the government have to intrude into my home without a warrant issued by a judge upon probable cause? What probable cause could the government put forth justifying an inspection of my firearms? And the refusal to assent to an inspection without a warrant is not probable cause justifying a warrant, though I can see such a threat being used against someone who stands up for their rights. I rightly fear my liberty to keep and bear a firearm being put at the mercy of random local law enforcement officials who may or may not care about my rights, and who may be actively hostile to citizens possessing firearms. If the parameters for "safe storage" are not spelled out by the law, if they are left up to the judgement of individual officers of the government, we are at risk of finding ourselves submitting to an official for whom there *is* no safe way to store a firearm (except perhaps by filling the barrel with concrete) and will always fail the "safe storage" test and be forced to surrender our firearms. This is not due process.