Tag Archives: assault rifles

Jun 12 2014
Image

The New Three Rs

The New Three Rs

Thanks to a misguided interpretation of the Second Amendment, our school children have to learn a different set of the Three Rs.

Enough is Enough.

All of us need to take back the streets from idiots who think or would like to think that they are living in the middle of Iraq or some similar dystopian world.

Responsible gun ownership requires responsible gun control.

Jan 30 2013

How It Will Go Down – PLEASE SHARE

gunstandoff

Given the stated belief by many vocal gun advocates that the reason they hold the Second Amendment so close to their heart is that it is the last defense against a government takeover, I have often wondered exactly what that meant.  As a novelist, I wanted to explore what would likely happen should the government decide that a particular weapon was illegal and therefore ordered that they be turned in to authorities.  The following account is not real, it is a literary exercise.

 However, it is based on the all too familiar police standoff that we see on the news (including the one unfolding in Alabama as we speak), written accounts or official reports of such incidents, and partially on my personal experience as a trial attorney required to serve court papers on a known “gun enthusiast” and the process that the local sheriff’s department and I had to employ to avoid a potentially deadly confrontation.

 Anatomy of Gun Surrender

At some date in the theoretical future, public broadcasts on the radio, television, internet, and through freely distributed leaflets will announce that the government orders gun owners to voluntarily turn in their semi-automatic assault style weapons (“assault rifles”) along with any clips capable of more than ten rounds (“large clips”) which have been deemed illegal for private ownership.

You ignore those announcements and become increasingly incensed about this unconstitutional intrusion into your personal freedom.

You are known to be a strong Second Amendment advocate by local authorities.  The Sheriff of your county keeps a list of known “gun enthusiasts.”  The first contact will likely be a call from a Deputy asking you if you were aware that federal regulations now require that you turn in assault rifles and large clips.  You respond that you don’t know what they are talking about, thinking that they couldn’t possibly know what you have, but they do.

Within a week of that telephone call, you receive a letter from the Sheriff’s office requesting that you come down to the office along with your assault rifles and large clips for surrender.  You throw that letter into the trash.

About two weeks thereafter, you receive a “final notice” from the Sheriff’s office stating that unless you make an appointment to turn in your assault rifle and large clips by a set date, a warrant will be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for your arrest on federal weapons charges, i.e., possession of an illegal weapon(s) and ammunition clips.

You throw that “final notice” into the fireplace.  Your wife expresses her concern and asks if it is worth it. You tell her to mind her own business.

Because of your lack of response to these letters, two Deputy Sheriffs are dispatched to your house.  They put on armored vests and follow appropriate procedures in approaching the door.  The two stand to the sides of your front door and announce that they have a warrant for your arrest.

Your response is a blast from your Glock through the front door.  You have just made a very serious mistake.

The deputies retreat.  You exalt in winning the first “skirmish.”

Within hours, your house is surrounded by armed police officers and the urban Strategic Weapons Assault Team.  Your nearby neighbors are ordered to evacuate.  Some are interviewed about your habits and all possible escape routes.  Your neighbors freely cooperate because, quite frankly, they are tired of your rants about the government and are afraid of the arsenal that you have assembled in your home.  They tell the authorities that they believe your wife and two young children are in the house.

Several SWAT members take up strategic positions around your house; they are trained snipers who pride themselves in one shot – one kill.

The incident commander tries to communicate with you using your telephone numbers or through a bull horn that you should exit your house with your arms in the air.

You respond with a volley from your Bushmaster AR-15 style rifle.  You have now just made your second fatal mistake.

The area is awash with red and blue lights from the patrol cars, and the sounds of helicopters both official and news hovering in the vicinity of your home.  The piercing screams of sirens from police and ambulances streaming into your neighborhood add to the excitement.  You turn on the television and all the networks including cable news are broadcasting your standoff minute-by-minute.  The scene is thrilling and you get an adrenalin rush.

The incident commander tells you to let your family leave.  You respond with obscenities and another blast of gunfire.  You are really showing them!

Despite all efforts to get you to either surrender or, at least, release your family, you hold steadfast.  Your wife pleads with you to give up, the children are crying.  The incident commander can hear all of this via sound equipment that picks up vibrations on window panes.  They know everything that is being said among the people in the house.

The incident commander orders a robotic scout vehicle to be introduced into your home.  This small remotely controlled vehicle is no bigger than a toy car and can climb stairs and send back sound and video to the incident commander.  You fire multiple rounds into the robot destroying it, but by then the police know how many people are in the house and have a snapshot of where everyone is.

While you are angrily responding to these intrusions into your private space, your wife slips out the back door with your two children.  They are swiftly taken away from the house and put into ambulances and examined by EMTs and detectives.

You are now alone.

Through their interrogation of your wife, they determine approximately how much ammunition and what weapons you own.  They verify that you were never in the armed services and learned weaponry on your own.  This alarms the police, because they would much rather deal with a trained military man or someone who learned his weapon handling through a disciplined program.

Angered by your wife’s betrayal (for leaving), you return to the second story window and release another volley of semi-automatic fire.

Now that there are no hostages or other innocent people in harm’s way, the incident commander orders the standoff to end and police snipers take their positions.

A SWAT member lobs in a tear gas grenade.  The acrid smoke and irritants cause you to go to an open window for air.  The gas mask that you purchased recently proved to be a cheap Asian knockoff that was essentially useless.

When your head is seen in the window, the SWAT sniper squeezes off one round.

One shot – One Kill.

Jan 20 2013

The Myth Of Responsible Gun Ownership — PLEASE SHARE

130119183415-01-nc-gun-show-story-top

The National Rifle Association clearly states in its guidelines for firearm safety that one should keep a gun unloaded until ready to use.  I learned that rule during high school when I was in military cadet training.  First and foremost rule.

During that weapons training, I rose to the level of sharpshooter, so I am well familiar with weapons and weapon safety.  Fifty-one years later, I still remember those rules.   In the early sixties, responsible gun ownership meant strict adherence to guidelines for firearm safety promulgated by the NRA and other organizations.  To be someone qualified to own or handle a firearm, you needed to follow these rules at all times.  This was seared into my teenage brain.

Unfortunately as we have seen this weekend, not all gun owners are imbued with this same sense of responsibility.  If it were only one “accident” we could say it was an unfortunate tragedy, but three with five injured?  I don’t know how many gun shows were held this weekend, but in three of them in the states of Indiana, Ohio, and North Carolina, someone got hurt because a “responsible” gun owner brought a loaded firearm into the show.

To paraphrase Arlo Guthrie, if it were only one then you might say that it’s is an accident, but with three there is definitely a trend.  What part of “locked and loaded” didn’t these people understand?  What if someone brought in a Bushmaster with a thirty round magazine and “accidentally” fired off a few dozen rounds.  Where does this madness end?

Edited to add the following:

Busy weekend for gun-related mayhem.  authorities in New Mexico arrested a fifteen year-old and charged him with the murder of five individuals, including three young children.  The victims, the police say, were shot multiple times and that an “AR-15” type assault weapon along with other firearms may hve been used in committing this crime.

Dec 18 2012

There Is No Rambo Clause In The Constitution

DelmarSecondAmendment2

The Constitution of the United States of America does not give you the right to grab an automatic or semi-automatic assault weapon and wreak havoc on your fellow citizens.

In fact, until the Supreme Court of the United States was packed with conservative justices by George H.W. Bush and his son, the Court had long held that an individual citizen’s right to possess firearms was not a Constitutional right, unless that individual was part of a state militia.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states:

“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.”

If you take out both modifying clauses and reduce the Second Amendment to its essence, it reads: “A well regulated Militia, …, shall not be infringed.”

Both phrases: “being necessary to the security of a free State” and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms“, are modifiers of the term Militia and are not the primary intent of the Second Amendment.  Any grammarian can see that, you don’t have to be a Constitutional Scholar.

If one reads the legislative history of the Second Amendment (to non-lawyers, “legislative history” is the collection of all drafts, written statements, debates, etc., of a piece of legislation taken as a whole) it becomes abundantly clear that the intent of the framers of our Constitution was that the Second Amendment was meant to facilitate the maintenance of “a well regulated Militia.”

If I may paraphrase the Second Amendment, it says that your right to bear arms is sacrosanct as long as you are part of a “well regulated Militia.” So if you want to bear arms freely, I believe (with some knowledge of Constitutional law) that you should join a well “regulated” Militia or the National Guard.

While I agree that there are many who would disagree with my view, I firmly believe that just as many if not more of my fellow attorneys would agree with this reading of the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Why did I mention the last two Republican presidents?

You see, it was not until 2008 after the last conservative justices joined the Supreme Court thus giving conservative justices a five to four majority on the bench that the view discussed above changed – A mere four years ago.

When the first opportunity arrived, the newly conservative court held in a narrow 5-4 decision that the District of Columbia’s gun control law was unconstitutional.  Four justices dissented (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)) and agreed with Justice John Paul Breyer’s dissent which reiterated what had been the law of the land for years relating to the fact that the right to bear arms was pursuant to the maintaining of a well-regulated militia. A good article on the history of this topic can be found in http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

On an ancillary, but connected point, conservative justices brought forward the concept of “Originalism.”  Simply put, Originalism is the opinion that all Supreme Court cases must be decided in accordance with what the framers of the Constitution wanted as evidenced by their own thoughts and writings – even though the matter might not have existed or was even conceived in all of humanity during the framers’ lifetimes.  But even with this specious “theory,” one would have to read legislative history to glean what you can from the Framers’ writings on their intent for the Second Amendment.  As I stated above, the Second Amendment is clear.  You need to be part of a State Militia to possess weapons.

I fail to understand why noted legal scholars of Originalism, such as Antonin Scalia, cannot see this.

It is time to correct this anomaly and put clear thinking justices on to the Supreme Court.

Note: This article was previously published on this site.  This is an updated version.  The writer is an attorney who did pretty well in his Constitutional Law class.