Sen. Jack Reed: Enemy of the Second Amendment
by Larry Pratt
Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said: "The
greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Well, amen! How true. And a current example that proves, with a
vengeance, what Brandeis feared, is a bill (S.2099) introduced by
U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) which would, among other things, tax
and register our handguns.
His legislation would treat handguns much as machine guns:
(1) require the registration of handguns in the National Firearms
Registration and Transfer record; (2) provide for the sharing of
registration information with Federal, State and local law
enforcement agencies; (3) provide for the imposition of the five
dollar transfer tax on handguns and a $50 tax on the making of each
handgun.
To be sure, Reed is well-meaning and zealous. But, in an interview
with the Rhode Island Democrat, it becomes obvious that when it
comes to "gun control" and the Second Amendment to our Constitution,
he is without understanding. And this is why he is so dangerous to
our liberties. Following are some excerpts from the interview with
Sen. Reed:
Q: What evidence would you cite that any gun control law has ever
worked?
A: "Well, I think some evidence is the original Federal laws that
regulate the registration of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and
silencers. There's not a proliferation of those weapons on our
streets, not anything compared to the handguns that are awash in
the United States.
"And there is no evidence that these weapons have been confiscated
arbitrarily. In fact, there are legitimate bona fide gun owners
that have these weapons and fire them regularly, as they are
registered. So, that's an example of one that works. The Brady
background check is...."
Q: OK. But, let's stop on this one. Is there a study you can refer
me to that shows the registration law you just mentioned actually
reduced crime?
A: "Uhhh, I think... we'll certainly look for a study. But I would
guess this is more on the order of observation and what's going
around. I mean, frankly, it is the rare exception when someone has
an automatic weapon, a machine-gun, really."
Q: But, do you know of any evidence that this registration law you
mention has reduced machine-gun crime? I didn't know there was a
lot of this.
A: "Well, back in 1930 was when the law was passed. This law has
been on the books for 60 years. I don't think most people realize
that. They assume that there's never been any registration of
weapons at the Federal level, that this is a bold and novel
approach when in fact Congress more than 60 years ago... simply
said, 'This is a threat to the public safety and we're going to
stop it.'"
Q: You don't think Al Capone really obeyed that law do you?
A: "Uhhh, well, you know, if he didn't he would have gone to jail
on that as well as tax evasion."
Note: Several weeks after this interview, Reed's office failed to
produce any evidence that the anti-machine gun law he mentions had
any impact on the crime rate.
Q: Brady. You were going to mention the Brady Law.
A: "I think the Brady bill has shown a reduction in... I don't
know if you can make the correlation to a reduction in crime
[which has been reduced] because of difficult measures. But, what
Brady has uncovered is a number of felons who were trying to
purchase weapons... and they have been prevented from doing that.
In that sense, it's been successful."
Q: I press you on this gun control laws issue because my
pre-supposition is that behind all such laws is the desire to
reduce crime, reduce the illegal use of guns, right?
A: "The idea is to reduce violent gun crime."
Q: Yeah, that's what I mean.
A: "Yeah, yeah."
Q: The Journal of the American Medical Association has recently
published a detailed study which shows there is no evidence the
Brady Law has had any effect on gun crime, on homicides. Are you
familiar with this study?
A: "I'll become familiar with it. We've seen a decline in violent
crime...."
Q: Which started before Brady, actually.
A: "Yeah. And I would be the first to say that crime is not a
single factor phenomenon. It's a whole bunch of things. But,
again, in trying to be not as analytical and scientific, but just
in terms of human behavior, the ease of obtaining weapons is such
that there's a higher likelihood that something before, you know,
a scuffle between kids could escalate now to a shoot-out.
"A lot of this is anecdotal. But, up in Rhode Island, about a year
ago, two kids out rough-housing...."
Q: How old? What are you calling a kid?
A: "Sixteen or 17. They were rough-housing. Somebody's pride was
injured... somebody in the crowd, because of the ease of getting
handguns, kid pulls a gun out and shoots seriously injuring one
individual. And then [the shooter] takes his own life."
Q: I think anecdotes are important. They are real life. But, what
law would have stopped this?
A: "Well, I, you know...."
Q: I don't think any law would have stopped that.
A: "Well, no, I think... if there is a registration law -- if
someone gets a gun without registering it they're a criminal by
definition."
Q: But, criminals are not going to commit crimes with guns
registered in their own names.
A: "Well, but the point is, and one of the points of this
legislation (S. 2099) is that this will allow law enforcement
officials to better be able to trace weapons used by criminals in
crime.
"And I think the proto-typical person that we all want to see
exercise their rights as Americans to... and one right is to own
weapons -- are homeowners, people who are recreational shooters or
hunters, those people will register their weapons, et cetera.
"But, frankly, if a police officer comes across a crime scene, and
there is a weapon, he now has a much faster and better way to
trace that weapon. Oh, and by the way, if he observes someone who
is involved in some type of criminal activity or probable cause to
suspect, and the weapon is not registered, that person is guilty
of another crime."
Q: But, if we agree, as we did earlier, that gun-control laws are
supposed to stop crime, your supposed benefits of registration
come after a crime is committed. So what? So what if you find out
who a gun is registered to? I know of no evidence that
registration has prevented crime. Do you?
A: "The point is to have a system in which police can trace
weapons more quickly, that criminals... this raises the barrier
for them to get weapons. And then you have to make an assessment
whether that's high enough to deter all gun crime. Frankly, it
would be naive to say that. But, I...."
Q: But, when has a registration law ever reduced violent gun
crime?
A: "Well, I would say the law we have on the books now on
registration has significantly limited access by criminals and
other people to machine guns, silencers, and sawed-off shotguns
without effecting the rights of law-abiding Americans to own these
weapons. This might be the only correlation you can safely make.
"Here's the scenario (re: S. 2099): This law passes and some
law-abiding American registers their handgun at home. There's a
domestic dispute and someone uses the weapon to hurt someone else.
"You would ask, 'Has this law stopped crime?' And I'd agree the
gun-crime was not stopped. But what it might have stopped... or at
least impeded... is someone stealing that gun and selling it to
somebody else and no one knowing any the wiser about it. Or
someone breaking in and taking the gun, et cetera. So, I mean, you
know...."
Q: But, why would your registration law stop a thief from breaking
in and stealing a gun since the gun would not be registered in the
name of the thief? Why would a thief care about this?
A: "I think they'd care just like someone who goes in and steals a
car that is registered. There's a record of who owns that car and
they ain't the one who owns it."
Q: But, why would a criminal care if the gun he steals is
registered to someone else?
A: "[The gun] would be less easily disposable if there is a
registration system."
Q: But would a criminal really commit a crime with a gun
registered in his own name?
A: "Uh, but that might be another disincentive to committing the
crime. I mean, you have this theory that hardened criminals are
going to get weapons any way they can."
Q: Sure.
A: "Kill anybody they can, etc. And they'll never take into
consideration what the law is."
Q: Right. And that's why they are criminals! Because they don't
care what the law says!
A: "No, they do in fact consider how to get around the laws, how
to break them without getting caught. And frankly [registration]
is another way, like giving the police authority to register
automobiles and more of an ability to trace stolen vehicles and a
sense that people don't just casually borrow cars because, you
know, it could have been their's. No one knows."
Q: Your car-gun registration analogy is interesting. But, I wonder
if registration has actually deterred car theft since within hours
after many cars are stolen they are chopped up and sold for parts
and/or they are on a boat being shipped to Brazil.
A: "But, I think your premise is that no gun-control laws have
ever had any effect on crime or the level of violence in the
country."
Q: Exactly. But, the burden of proof is on those who argue that
gun-control laws have been effective.
A: "The burden of proof is on those who say we should do nothing
when 30,000 Americans die annually by gunfire... and in every
other industrial society in the world where they have much more
stringent gun-control laws you do not have this phenomenon of gun
violence."
Q: Do you agree that under the Second Amendment individuals have
the right to keep and bear arms?
A: "In what, I mean... subject to regulation, yeah. Frankly, I
think there's a very strong argument that the Amendment as
originally constituted had to do about the arming of militias.
But, at this point in time, I think practice and custom and the
history of the country suggests that access to weapons by
individuals is something that would be Constitutionally protected.
The question is: 'How can we regulate that access?'"
Q: What would you say to someone who would say that what you are
advocating [in S. 2099] are the kinds of infringement the Second
Amendment prohibits? Aren't registration of and taxing of guns an
infringement on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
A: "I would say no, not at all. In fact, history suggests that we
do it all the time. We've been...."
Q: Well, there's no doubt Congress has been violating our
Constitutional rights for a long time!
A: "I would suspect also that the courts have looked at this
question and consistently upheld these firearms laws, particularly
the registration law."
See what I mean? Sen. Jack Reed is without understanding. He has no
evidence that any "gun control" laws have ever worked. He's
obviously not familiar with the most detailed study which shows that
Brady has been a flop. Nor is he familiar with the rise in violent
crime in England following its gun ban.
He's introducing a law which clearly "infringes" on our rights under
the Second Amendment. But, he denies that taxing and registering are
infringements! The Senator is precisely the kind of person Associate
Justice Brandeis warned us about.
Anti-Gun-Nuts-Of-The-Month: The Episcopal Church
by Larry Pratt
Considering the fact that the Episcopal Church in America has lost
hundreds of thousands of members during the past two decades, you'd
think that these folks would be doing everything possible to protect
and preserve this endangered species of Christians.
Thus, specifically, you would think that, maybe, this Church would
enthusiastically endorse the right of self-defense, specifically the
right of private individuals -- in this case Episcopalians -- to own
firearms for self-defense. But, if this is what you think, you would
be sadly mistaken.
Meeting recently in their 73rd General Convention in Chicago,
Episcopalians passed a resolution that calls upon all members "to
work intentionally in their several communities, legislatures and
institutions toward the removal of handguns and assault weapons from
our homes, other residential communities and vehicles."
But, why?
Since there are many law-abiding Americans who use guns in
self-defense every year (many, many more than there are
Episcopalians), why seek to deny these persons the capability to use
guns to defend themselves, their families, friends and/or property?
In an attempt to get an answer to this question and others, we spoke
with Helen Moore, Interim Dean of the Cathedral Of St. James, the
Episcopal Church in which this anti-gun, anti-self defense
resolution originated. We also spoke with Duncan Moore, a member of
Interim Dean Moore's church who served on the Peace And Social
Justice Commission which drafted this resolution.
First, Interim
Dean Moore:
Q: About a dozen studies and polls show that as many as three
million Americans annually use guns in self-defense, including
handguns. So, why do you want this protection removed which is what
would happen if your resolution was obeyed?
A: Well, we're asking people to prayerfully consider this.
Q: But, why? Why, since so many Americans use guns for self-defense
and to defend others and property?
A: Because of so many statistics -- that I don't have with me --
about how many teen suicides come from homes where guns are
available, and much more domestic violence.
Q: But, the studies and polls I just mentioned show that hundreds
of thousands more Americans use guns in self-defense in every year
than use guns to commit suicide and/or commit domestic violence.
A: I think probably that we don't see it that way.
Q: But, have you looked at the studies/polls on guns and
self-defense?
A: Yes, we looked at all of that and we still felt that [our
resolution] was very important as an expression of our Christian
faith and Christian witness to ask people to think about the
presence of firearms.
Q: Well, but your resolution actually calls on people to remove
certain guns from their homes and elsewhere.
A: Right. Right.... What we were looking at as far as the data is
concerned was how the presence and ready availability of firearms
in the home showed a considerable increase in teen suicides and
domestic violence. We want people to think about that.
Q: But, again, even if what you say here is true, the data show
that there are hundreds of thousands more good uses of guns, in
self-defense, annually, than there are bad uses of guns.
A: Well, I think we didn't, necessarily, see that -- that the
good uses outweigh the bad.
Q: A lot more kids die in the home by falling, from poisoning,
suffocating, and drowning in water buckets, than die from guns every
year. So, why single out only guns in your resolution?
A: I think, part of it is -- you know, there's no perfect answer
to any of this. And I don't think we were trying to achieve anything
like that....
Q: You don't see anything un-Christian about self-defense do you?
A: No, I don't. But as Christians we are supposed to work against
violence by any means.
Q: Should all handguns be banned?
A: Not necessarily.
Next we spoke to Duncan Moore, a man Interim Dean Moore said could
probably give us "some more helpful information."
Q: Why remove guns from the home when a dozen studies and polls
show that as many as three million Americans annually use guns in
self-defense, including handguns?
A: Well, I haven't seen those studies. The studies I've seen...
show that the presence of a gun in the home vastly increases the
likelihood that a member of the household will be injured by that
gun.
Q: So, you're unaware of the self-defense data I just mentioned?
A: I know that many people make this argument. But, I don't
subscribe....
Q: I'm not talking about arguments. I'm talking about studies and
polls. In fact, a Gallup Poll in May of this year showed that 14.3
million adult Americans say they have used a gun in self defense.
Are you aware of any of this data?
A: I'm aware that some people allege that such studies exist.
Q: So, have you checked out these allegations to see if they are
true?
A: No, I've been reading the medical literature which is fairly
straightforward on the risks involved in keeping a gun in the
household.
Q: But, I'm talking about self-defense! I'm talking about the risk
posed to criminals by armed homeowners who have guns to protect
themselves, family and property. Do you care about this?
A: No, I don't believe that's true. It's a bogus argument. I
subscribe to the argument that guns are not Christian. That is the
crux of my argument.
Q: And where in Scripture do you see support for your view?
A: Jesus doesn't talk about self-defense. Jesus talks about caring
for other people. And if we care deeply for other people, we should
remove the weapons that cause other people harm.
Q: But, wouldn't caring for other people include protecting
yourself, family and friends by, when necessary, using guns against
criminals in your home?
At this point, Moore says this conversation is not being conducted
"properly" because he is being "proselytized." He hangs up the
phone.
Well, now. In a way that Interim Dean Moore certainly did not
intend, Duncan Moore has, indeed, given us "some more helpful
information." And what he has helped us to see is that he could not
care less about "caring for other people" because he does not care
about the right of self-defense with firearms.
Moore also helps us to see that he is truly a know-nothing ignoramus
by charging, falsely, that it is not true that millions of us, every
year, defend ourselves with guns, as a huge body of data proves. And
this is why Moore and every Episcopalian who voted for his wretched
resolution are our "Anti-Gun-Nuts" this month.
--- GOA ---
[Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of America located
at 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151 and at
Gun Owners of America on the web.]
GUN LAWS IN AUSTRALIA PAGE
HOME PAGE
|