REASONABLE GUN CONTROL
Geoff Metcalf
February 17, 2003
NewsWithViews.com
Who would have thunk
it? A Congressional bill has
been introduced to defend your Second Amendment rights that is reasonable
and makes sense. Which
probably means Schumer/Boxer/Feinstein/Clinton
will go ballistic vilifying it.
H.R. 648 was recently
introduced by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), "To protect the right to obtain
firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or
home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right."
I have long argued that
law abiding citizens should be armed, trained, and prepared.
H.R. 648 not only
reaffirms many of my arguments but legislates reason.
By congressional standards the bill is startlingly straightforward.
It states that:
"A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section
922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain
firearms for security, and to use firearms -- in defense of self or family
against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction
of serious bodily injury; in defense of self or family in the course of
the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or
a member of the person's family; and in defense of the person's home in
the course of the commission of a felony by another person." Not bad.
Even better, it
provides a citizen recourse if refused "permission" to purchase
or own a weapon: "A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated
in any manner may bring an action in any United States district court
against the United States, any State, or any
person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court
deems appropriate."
However, the
"Findings" section (remarkably) includes some surprising
statistics. These are facts
most Second Amendment supporters already know, but it is significant to
see them included in an actual congressional bill as supporting
documentation:
(1) Police cannot
protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect,
individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
(A)
The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have
an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general.
(B) Former Florida
Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police
responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County
authorities.
(C) The United States
Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes
of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.
(2) Citizens frequently
must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the
following:
(A)
Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States
use a gun to defend themselves against criminals -- more than 6,500
people a day. In other
words, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the
lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(B) Of the 2,400,000
self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending
themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000
times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92
percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off
their attackers. Less
than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her
attacker.
(3) Law-abiding
citizens, seeking only to provide for their families' defense, are
routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense.
This is NUTS.
(4) The courts have
granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in
the line of duty (creating a privileged class). Likewise, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect
themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should
not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize
them. This ‘should’ be a no brainer.
H.R. 648 is an artfully
crafted bill that even moderates in Congress should be able to embrace.
Opponents will find themselves on thin partisan ice.
Some knuckle draggers
are going to gripe, “Hey, that ain’t good enough!”
Well it is a damn sight better that what we have now.
Please remember the gun grabber crowd hasn’t broadened their
unconstitutional-anti-gun base all at once.
They have been fighting (and winning) a war of incrementalism. Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, said in 1976,
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily -given
the political realities - very modest…Our ultimate goal, total control
of hand guns, is going to take time.” http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/paranoid_20000315.html
We need to support H.R.
648. Call, write, and demand your representative vote for it.
This bill is not
politics as usual. It is
important. It is critical. And in this era of heightened threat, it is desperately
needed.
If you are not part of
the solution (to get this bill into law) then you become part of the
problem.
Related columns:
Terrorists Beware
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/10/25459.shtml
Basics of 2nd
Amendment http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/27/184755.shtml
Get
a Gun http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/17/234058.shtml
© 2003 Geoff Metcalf - All Rights
Reserved
Geoff is a veteran
media performer. He has had an eclectic professional background covering
a wide spectrum of radio, television,
magazine, and newspapers. A former Green Beret and retired
Army officer he is in great demand as a speaker. Metcalf has hosted
his radio talk show on the ABC/Disney
owned and operated KSFO and in worldwide
syndication. www.geoffmetcalf.com
Home
