Ohio newspaper publishs names and addresses of gun owners

[Yahoshua]

Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold Declares War on Gun Owner Privacy

In spite of many state legislators, county sheriffs and even Governor Strickland himself attempting to talk sense into him, Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold has launched an all-out assault on the privacy and security of over 2,600 concealed handgun license holders in several Northern Ohio counties.

Citing a phantom "right to know", Westerhold, editor and self-appointed public records watchdog at the Register, published the list of CHL-holders from Erie, Huron, Ottawa, and Sandusky counties.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The decision to make the lists available to readers was made by the Register's managing editor. All inquiries should be directed to 419-609-5866 or mattwesterhold@sanduskyregister.com

Please oblige Mr. Westerhold by submitting a letter to the editor on this issue.

Matt Westerhold transplanted his anti-concealed-carry agenda from his former job at the Elyria Chronicle-Telegram, where he also ordered the publishing of law-abiding CHL-holders' names. More information on Westerhold will be made available in the coming days.

The "logic" behind his latest attack on gun owners' privacy was expressed in a June 10 editorial entitled "Taking aim at the public record".

Likening the decision to bear arms for self-defense to marriage licenses, court-related divorce records, political donations and salaries of public officials, the editorial argues that concealed handgun license information should be public record. The editorial repeats a tired, false allegation that "in its present form, the conceal-carry law provides no public checks and balances to assure the gun program is being carried out responsibly." (The editorial omits any mention of the statistics which Ohio's 88 county sheriffs present to the Ohio Attorney General's office four times per year.)

In other Register coverage of this action, Seneca County Sheriff Tom Steyer is quoted as saying "I don't understand why news media would want to publish this information."

The editorial asserts that "this isn't about a newspaper's right to know...It's about the public's right to know. It's about open government." But according to a Columbus Dispatch poll conducted in 2005, two-thirds of respondents said other Ohioans have too much access to personal information about them. The number of people who think more access is needed stood at just 37%. And 66% said they believe too much personal information is available to the public. (The poll also indicated Ohioans are more interested in records related to the activities of law-breakers than in personal information about their neighbors.)

More specifically, the Dayton Daily News conducted its own poll in 2005 on whether or not readers believe concealed handgun license records should be available to the public. Of the DDN readers who responded, 87% were against making the records public information.

It is clear that Mr. Westerhold should dispense with the "it's for the public" rhetoric. The public is firmly against his actions, as his letters-to-the-editor box no doubt by now attests. (His response to one such letter was limited to this snide remark: "Thank you for your thoughtful comments about your support for secrecy in government. If you would like to discuss this in more depth, please fell free to call me."

(Judging by his political cartoon on the subject, depicting a journalist pointing the loaded gun of CHL records at his own head, Register political cartoonist Don Lee seems to understand the public's sentiments on this subject far better than his editor)

The history of this fight goes back to late 2003, when then-Governor Bob Taft and the Republican controlled Ohio Legislature caved in to cries from the news media. An eleventh-hour modification to HB12, Ohio's original concealed carry law, allowed journalists access to the information to address their assertions of a need for "checks and balances". Far from being used for what the proponents claimed, the unpopular provision which became known as the media access loophole, was instead exploited by openly anti-gun editorial boards as a means of intimidation against gun owners.

The 126th General Assembly (2005-2006) saw several attempts to remove the media access loophole, which again received opposition from then-Governor Taft. The Ohio House of Representatives, in a 93-1 vote, sent House Bill 9, containing a provision which would have closed the loophole, to the Senate. In late December of 2006, however, Republicans in the Senate watered down the language addressing the loophole before sending the bill to Governor Taft.

At the time, the Buckeye Firearms Association website noted that passage of HB9 marked "the first attempt by the General Assembly to clarify its intent in giving journalists access to the records. [When the law becomes effective], the burden will be, as it has always been, on the media to honor the will of the General Assembly, and to prove they want the information only for the purposes they originally claimed (verifying training and background checks were being properly conducted), and not as a means of gaining access to foster a wholesale publishing of the list."

The Register's extensive coverage of Westerhold's decision to "out" law-abiding CHL-holders notes that Erie County Sheriff Terry Lyons filed a lawsuit earlier this year, contending the complexities of the statute made it impossible to lawfully provide the list of names to a journalist. The Register notes "that suit was shot down June 4, however, when Erie County Common Pleas Judge Tygh Tone ruled the law allowed for journalists to receive the information." Similar suits challenging the media access loophole from Sheriffs in other counties are pending.

During his gubernatorial campaign, Democrat Ted Strickland told voters he supported legislative efforts to close the loophole. Unlike his Republican predecessor, who reversed course on concealed carry after getting elected, Strickland told the Register he still believes these records should remain private.

From commentary written by Register editor Matt Westerhold:

Gov. Ted Strickland supports a secrecy provision in the state's concealed weapons law because he believes Ohioans are better off not knowing who or how many people are licensed to carry hidden guns.

Westerhold is flat-out lying when he asserts that current law prohibits knowledge on "how many people are licensed to carry", and certainly incorrect to suggest Governor Strickland "believes Ohioans are better off not knowing" same.

"Knowledge of who possesses a concealed carry permit may put permit holders at risk of theft attempts," according to a reply from Strickland's office to questions about the secrecy provision. "(It) may also put those who are not permit holders in greater danger because criminals could know they are not carrying a weapon to defend themselves."

State Rep. Chris Redfern, D-Catawba Island Twp., also supports the secrecy provision, saying there was no compelling reason the government should release the information.

"There is no reason to know who is a concealed carry holder and who is not in this state," Redfern said, adding that the secrecy provision has nothing to do with open government. "These are private citizens who've attended private training, passed background checks and received their permit."

Redfern, also chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, said his support of the current law has nothing to do with politics or pressure from the gun lobby.

...Strickland and Redfern both said they are satisfied with the secrecy provision and do not intend to introduce legislation to repeal it.

The wording of the Register's story here is misleading. Strickland and Redfern were never in support of "current law" - the media access loophole passed in 2004 - Strickland spoke out against it and Redfern voted to reform it. What Strickland and Redfern are indicating is that they are interested in seeing how the modifications in HB9 work before moving for further changes. (The timing of the Register's data grab show that this was not a true test of the new loophole language passed in HB9.) [This paragraph has been updated to reflect the latest information.]

The Register offers nothing but snide commentary for Strickland and Redfern's refusal to agree with its position, saying "we know you're both too bright not to understand this, and we're very disappointed you don't have the courage to stand up and do the right thing."

But in "Gun advocates have praise for Strickland and Redfern", the Register quotes Ashley Varner, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, as saying that both men are listening to their constituents.

The only reason the NRA has any power in Ohio is we have a lot of members who care about protecting their Second Amendment rights," she said.

Varner said newspapers that publish the names and county of residence of concealed handgun permit holders are putting innocent people at unnecessary risk.

"There are women who are hiding from abusive husbands or boyfriends," she said. "These are single women who may have been who may be afraid of stalkers, people who have been attacked previously and are threatened with repeat attacks."

"People with licenses are the most law-abiding citizens in our country," she said. "Less than 2 percent are involved in criminal activity. Criminals do not go through background checks to obtain guns."

The fallout from this action has barely begun, but it will no doubt be far-reaching. Already, subscribers are blogging on the Register's website about canceling subscriptions, and at least one local business, Windjammer Restaurant in Marblehead, has forced the Register to remove their paper machines from the premises because of this violation of privacy.

Source: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3816.html

[geetrue]

Another reason to go over the state line for something ... it use to be alcohol.

Now it's a gun ... get your fngers off my gun.

[Heibges]

That's messed up. That guy is an idiot.

But in all fairness, the "Protected by Smith & Wesson" sign probably gave them away anyway. :lol:

[Reaves]

I can see it now,

Criminal 1: Hey Jim, we need to get an unregistered/stolen gun to whack this guy.
Criminal 2: Hey here's a list of people we can steal one from.

OK the chances of that happening are rather slim but my main point goes back to an occurance in Melbourne last week. 3 people were shot in the city by a member of the Hells Angels bikey gang leaving one dead. In Australia and Victoria in particular we have extremely strickt gun laws. Only sports shooters can have a pistol that is limited to 10 bullet clips. These people must be part of a sporting shooters association and participate regulary in events or their license will be void. Yet this guy had an ILLEGAL firearm and shot three people.

I'm not exactly a pro gun extremist, America is very lax in some states imo BUT we have 2 rifles and a shotty at my house and all I can say it is not the people with legal firearms who should be hounded. Criminals will always get illegal weapons as is proof from the events I previously mentioned. People talk of crimes of passion where a licensed gun owner shoots someone, well that happens WITHOUT guns i'm afraid.

This guy has breached peoples rite to privacy and he replies "Thank you for your thoughtful comments about your support for secrecy in government"??? Go get your tin hat you conspiracy knob, he is nothing but a moron.

[Heibges]

I can see it now,

Criminal 1: Hey Jim, we need to get an unregistered/stolen gun to whack this guy.
Criminal 2: Hey here's a list of people we can steal one from.

OK the chances of that happening are rather slim but my main point goes back to an occurance in Melbourne last week. 3 people were shot in the city by a member of the Hells Angels bikey gang leaving one dead. In Australia and Victoria in particular we have extremely strickt gun laws. Only sports shooters can have a pistol that is limited to 10 bullet clips. These people must be part of a sporting shooters association and participate regulary in events or their license will be void. Yet this guy had an ILLEGAL firearm and shot three people.

I'm not exactly a pro gun extremist, America is very lax in some states imo BUT we have 2 rifles and a shotty at my house and all I can say it is not the people with legal firearms who should be hounded. Criminals will always get illegal weapons as is proof from the events I previously mentioned. People talk of crimes of passion where a licensed gun owner shoots someone, well that happens WITHOUT guns i'm afraid.

This guy has breached peoples rite to privacy and he replies "Thank you for your thoughtful comments about your support for secrecy in government"??? Go get your tin hat you conspiracy knob, he is nothing but a moron.

A big part of the problem with gun violence in the United States is capitalism.

These small gun companies, making shoddy guns, who sell them on the basis of them being cheaper than your Smith & Wessons and Sturm Rugers, and are easily obtainable by criminals.

These cheap guns have flooded the market in mass numbers, are often resold because they have no real value like a nice gun will to its owner, and these are the guns you always hear the cops complaining about.

In gunowning families, once a gun comes in, it does not go out. It's like adopting a new baby.

[Reaves]

These cheap guns have flooded the market in mass numbers, are often resold because they have no real value like a nice gun will to its owner, and these are the guns you always hear the cops complaining about.


Cheap guns that are easily obtainable. I'd agree with the cops on that one.

[Heibges]

These cheap guns have flooded the market in mass numbers, are often resold because they have no real value like a nice gun will to its owner, and these are the guns you always hear the cops complaining about.


Cheap guns that are easily obtainable. I'd agree with the cops on that one.

Yep, and at pawnshops and gunshows too. I'm going to venture a guess that most gun owners buy just about every gun they own from the same local gunshop owner.

When they show us a punk carrying an $850 S&W automatic pistol on Law and Order, that's just not grounded in reality. I wonder if they charge the gun companies to have criminals use their guns, like they would Coke to have detectives drinking a.....Coke.

[Reaves]

When they show us a punk carrying an $850 S&W automatic pistol on Law and Order, that's just not grounded in reality. I wonder if they charge the gun companies to have criminals use their guns, like they would Coke to have detectives drinking a.....Coke.


:rotfl:
Sos did u's see dat mofo on csi with da P-38? I's juz GOTZ 2 pop sum caps wid it. :doh:

[Heibges]

When they show us a punk carrying an $850 S&W automatic pistol on Law and Order, that's just not grounded in reality. I wonder if they charge the gun companies to have criminals use their guns, like they would Coke to have detectives drinking a.....Coke.


:rotfl:
Sos did u's see dat mofo on csi with da P-38? I's juz GOTZ 2 pop sum caps wid it. :doh:

Have you seen "Jackie Brown"? There is a great scene at the beginning where Samual L. Jackson, who is a gun smuggler, is talking about how clients always want the gun they see in the movies.:up:

[Tchocky]

Aye, but Ordell doesn't know what he's talking about :)

I don't buy the argument that he put those people in danger by producing this list, it looks like a list to stay away from. But I don't really understant why this was published. Unecessary, regardless of intent.

[Heibges]

Apparently, the list of folks with CFP's is legally obtainalbe?

[Puster Bill]

A big part of the problem with gun violence in the United States is capitalism.

These small gun companies, making shoddy guns, who sell them on the basis of them being cheaper than your Smith & Wessons and Sturm Rugers, and are easily obtainable by criminals.

These cheap guns have flooded the market in mass numbers, are often resold because they have no real value like a nice gun will to its owner, and these are the guns you always hear the cops complaining about.

In gunowning families, once a gun comes in, it does not go out. It's like adopting a new baby.
Wrong. Gun violence in the United States tracks almost exactly with where your ancestors came from.

Those of European descent (and by the way the most likely to own a gun), have homicide rates similar to that of Western Europe taken as a whole. Those of African descent (one of the least likely groups to own a gun) have the highest homicide rate.

I deduce, therefore, that homicide rates are cultural. It has nothing to do with the availability of cheap guns.

If you don't believe me, check for yourself. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have a nifty mortality tracking site here:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

Go ahead and check out the homicide rates for whites, blacks, hispanics, etc., and let us know what you find.

It also borders on classism and racism to blame the availability of those guns for the homicide rate in the US. Those guns are basically for the poor and disadvantaged, who shoulder the overwhelming majority of homicides. To deny them the ability to protect themselves legally, which is what legislation aimed at 'junk guns' is really about, is morally indefensible unless you deny ALL the ability to protect themselves (which is morally indefensible itself, but in a different way).


The racism part is at the root of all gun control in the US: No one talks about it, but really only the black population has a serious problem with homicide rates. So, making guns more expensive to obtain, or by making the requirements strict, you will restrict the number of black people who will own them (at least legally). Historically, laws against cheap firearms originated in the post Civil War south, as a way to prevent blacks who now had the theoretical right to own a gun from owning one. Arkansas is a perfect example: A law passed in 1881 forbade the carrying of any pistol or revolver except "any such pistol as used in the army
or navy of the United States". That meant Colt or Remington revolvers, which were generally too expensive for blacks to own. Rich whites could be armed, but poor blacks couldn't.

There was a massive change in the laws in the South after the 14th Amendment was passed, from laws that explicitly forbade blacks from owning guns, to those that while their language is race neutral, their effect is mainly against blacks. Those laws, and the court cases that arose out of them, are the basis for gun control in the United States today.

Oh, one last little historical tidbit: Do you know why 'junk guns' in the US are exclusively made in the US? Protectionism. Congress passed laws against the importation of inexpensive handguns at the behest of the gun industry, to protect their markets. That isn't capitalism.

[SUBMAN1]

THis guy just opened himself and his paper up to a lawsuit. If any tiny thing happens now that can be tied to them publishing this information, who do you think is going to be held liable?

Talk about shooting ones self in the foot! :D Dumb *ss!

At least the fallout will probably make this guy lose his job.

-S

[fatty]

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of firearm ownership, but isn't deterrence part of the point of owning a gun? From what I know about deterrence theory in warfare, clearly communicating your capability to back up your threats to your opponent is usually necessary for success. Doesn't it follow that a gun is most useful for keeping people out of your house if they know you have it?

I think it makes less sense to be stealing a gun from an armed man than to be stealing more profitable computers, televisions, and cameras from an unarmed man. But then again, we are talking about criminals here :nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of firearm ownership, but isn't deterrence part of the point of owning a gun? From what I know about deterrence theory in warfare, clearly communicating your capability to back up your threats to your opponent is usually necessary for success. Doesn't it follow that a gun is most useful for keeping people out of your house if they know you have it?

I think it makes less sense to be stealing a gun from an armed man than to be stealing more profitable computers, televisions, and cameras from an unarmed man. But then again, we are talking about criminals here :nope:

Forgiven. It is best when one isn't sure or doesn't know in the event of armed conflict. Also, guns are far more valuable than most of the cheap electronics in most people houses. Guns never lose their value is why, and easily sold on any city street. Even UK's London has a thriving gun economy with handguns fetching upwards of 2000 pounds.

-S

[Puster Bill]

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of firearm ownership, but isn't deterrence part of the point of owning a gun? From what I know about deterrence theory in warfare, clearly communicating your capability to back up your threats to your opponent is usually necessary for success. Doesn't it follow that a gun is most useful for keeping people out of your house if they know you have it?

I think it makes less sense to be stealing a gun from an armed man than to be stealing more profitable computers, televisions, and cameras from an unarmed man. But then again, we are talking about criminals here :nope:

Not necessarily. First, the pattern of burglary in the United States is that burglars tend to go after homes that are unoccupied, simply because they fear being shot. That doesn't mean that they avoid houses known to have guns, indeed knowing that is an incentive to burglarize the house: Guns have a certain value among criminals, more so than televisions, computers, and cameras.

Secondly, while it is definitely a good thing for you personally if everyone knows that you are armed, it doesn't help those who are not (unless, of course, you happen to in the vicinity during an incident). Not knowing who is armed and who is not adds an uncertainty in the mind of the criminal contemplating an attack: He has to measure the likelyhood of success against the possibility that the person he is attacking will kill or injure him.

Think of it this way: Militarily, if you are thinking about bombing a city, knowing exactly where all the Anti-Aircraft sites are allows you to avoid them. If you do not know where they are, you are likely to run up against them sooner or later. That is why the military spends so much money to camoflage things, to preserve the element of surprise.

[SUBMAN1]

...Secondly, while it is definitely a good thing for you personally if everyone knows that you are armed, it doesn't help those who are not (unless, of course, you happen to in the vicinity during an incident). Not knowing who is armed and who is not adds an uncertainty in the mind of the criminal contemplating an attack: He has to measure the likelyhood of success against the possibility that the person he is attacking will kill or injure him.

Think of it this way: Militarily, if you are thinking about bombing a city, knowing exactly where all the Anti-Aircraft sites are allows you to avoid them. If you do not know where they are, you are likely to run up against them sooner or later. That is why the military spends so much money to camoflage things, to preserve the element of surprise.
I disagree. Having no one know who is armed and not armed is more of a deterrance then having everyone know who is armed. One more thing, if an armed criminal knows you are armed, then guess who gets to be the first target he shoots at? I'd rather conceal it. Most days, I am not armed though. Having a gun around is kind of like having to babysit it and worry about it all day. I only bring it along if I am going downdown or something.

-S

PS. Unlicensed open carry is still an option for citizens in several states. A friend who is a 911 operator takes panicked calls on this all the time, and he has to tell them that it is his or her right to open carry, and that the caller should go about there business and forget about it. Typically these calls are made from Californians, who are all practically from a different world anyway.

[dean_acheson]

This happened in Virginia recently.

[Heibges]

A big part of the problem with gun violence in the United States is capitalism.

These small gun companies, making shoddy guns, who sell them on the basis of them being cheaper than your Smith & Wessons and Sturm Rugers, and are easily obtainable by criminals.

These cheap guns have flooded the market in mass numbers, are often resold because they have no real value like a nice gun will to its owner, and these are the guns you always hear the cops complaining about.

In gunowning families, once a gun comes in, it does not go out. It's like adopting a new baby.
Wrong. Gun violence in the United States tracks almost exactly with where your ancestors came from.

Those of European descent (and by the way the most likely to own a gun), have homicide rates similar to that of Western Europe taken as a whole. Those of African descent (one of the least likely groups to own a gun) have the highest homicide rate.

I deduce, therefore, that homicide rates are cultural. It has nothing to do with the availability of cheap guns.

If you don't believe me, check for yourself. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have a nifty mortality tracking site here:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

Go ahead and check out the homicide rates for whites, blacks, hispanics, etc., and let us know what you find.

It also borders on classism and racism to blame the availability of those guns for the homicide rate in the US. Those guns are basically for the poor and disadvantaged, who shoulder the overwhelming majority of homicides. To deny them the ability to protect themselves legally, which is what legislation aimed at 'junk guns' is really about, is morally indefensible unless you deny ALL the ability to protect themselves (which is morally indefensible itself, but in a different way).


The racism part is at the root of all gun control in the US: No one talks about it, but really only the black population has a serious problem with homicide rates. So, making guns more expensive to obtain, or by making the requirements strict, you will restrict the number of black people who will own them (at least legally). Historically, laws against cheap firearms originated in the post Civil War south, as a way to prevent blacks who now had the theoretical right to own a gun from owning one. Arkansas is a perfect example: A law passed in 1881 forbade the carrying of any pistol or revolver except "any such pistol as used in the army
or navy of the United States". That meant Colt or Remington revolvers, which were generally too expensive for blacks to own. Rich whites could be armed, but poor blacks couldn't.

There was a massive change in the laws in the South after the 14th Amendment was passed, from laws that explicitly forbade blacks from owning guns, to those that while their language is race neutral, their effect is mainly against blacks. Those laws, and the court cases that arose out of them, are the basis for gun control in the United States today.

Oh, one last little historical tidbit: Do you know why 'junk guns' in the US are exclusively made in the US? Protectionism. Congress passed laws against the importation of inexpensive handguns at the behest of the gun industry, to protect their markets. That isn't capitalism.

I see your point, but is hard to reconcile saying that one ethnic groups commits all the homocides, and that not selling cheap guns to same ethnic group is racist. I think you can only argue one or the other.

[Heibges]

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of firearm ownership, but isn't deterrence part of the point of owning a gun? From what I know about deterrence theory in warfare, clearly communicating your capability to back up your threats to your opponent is usually necessary for success. Doesn't it follow that a gun is most useful for keeping people out of your house if they know you have it?

I think it makes less sense to be stealing a gun from an armed man than to be stealing more profitable computers, televisions, and cameras from an unarmed man. But then again, we are talking about criminals here :nope:

Not necessarily. First, the pattern of burglary in the United States is that burglars tend to go after homes that are unoccupied, simply because they fear being shot. That doesn't mean that they avoid houses known to have guns, indeed knowing that is an incentive to burglarize the house: Guns have a certain value among criminals, more so than televisions, computers, and cameras.


Another reason for this is legal. Breaking and Entering is a misdemeanor. This is because folks are less likely to be home during the Day. Breaking and Entering After Dark is a felonly.

[SUBMAN1]

This happened in Virginia recently.

Nice. Got lists in two states now. This makes it real easy now for criminals just having to go down the list to find houses to steal guns from. Pathetic.

-S

[Puster Bill]

I see your point, but is hard to reconcile saying that one ethnic groups commits all the homocides, and that not selling cheap guns to same ethnic group is racist. I think you can only argue one or the other.

No. The fact of the matter is that blacks comprise roughly half of all homicide victims in the United States, despite being only 12 to 13% of the population. That is a fact.

Does that mean that we should prevent blacks from owning guns? Of course not, that would be racist and unconstitutional, Second Amendment aside, because it fails other parts of the Constitution.

However, blacks also tend to be economically disadvanged. They can't afford to buy a $400 Taurus, or a $500 Colt (hell, *I'd* be hard pressed to pay that for a gun, and I'm a white collar professional). They can afford a $109 Jennings, though.

If you take away the guns that they can afford to buy, you've essentially disarmed them. True, it will also affect poor whites, but they are a smaller proportion, and can essentially be ignored. The problem is we are talking about legal gun ownership, not criminal gun ownership. You are preventing people who have the right to own a gun from owning one by making it economically out of their reach.

[Puster Bill]

Another reason for this is legal. Breaking and Entering is a misdemeanor. This is because folks are less likely to be home during the Day. Breaking and Entering After Dark is a felonly.


Not necessarily. In New York State, Burglary is classified as a felony (Class B, C, or D for First, Second, or Third degree, respectively). No where does it specify the time of day of the offense as a characteristic of the crime, nor does it specify whether an occupant is home or not (although to get First Degree you have to physically harm someone not involved in committing the crime, ie., most likely the owner).

Even some forms of Criminal Trespass are felonies, if you are armed.

Besides which, you can compare the rate of 'hot' burglaries (where the occupant is home) in the UK to the rate in the US: It's just under 50% in the UK, and about 13% in the US: Clearly, burglars in the UK are less afraid of the immediate consequences (ie., being shot), and take advantage of the fact that people often have highly liquid assests (ie., cash and jewelery) with them.

California law does make a distinction as to whether a home is occupied or not:

460. (a) Every burglary of an inhabited dwelling house, vessel, as
defined in the Harbors and Navigation Code, which is inhabited and
designed for habitation, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d)
of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, or trailer coach,
as defined by the Vehicle Code, or the inhabited portion of any
other building, is burglary of the first degree.
(b) All other kinds of burglary are of the second degree.
(c) This section shall not be construed to supersede or affect
Section 464 of the Penal Code.


461. Burglary is punishable as follows:
1. Burglary in the first degree: by imprisonment in the state
prison for two, four, or six years.
2. Burglary in the second degree: by imprisonment in the county
jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison.

However, the pattern is nationwide, so individual differences in the laws regarding burglary can't have the effect you state.

[Heibges]

I see your point, but is hard to reconcile saying that one ethnic groups commits all the homocides, and that not selling cheap guns to same ethnic group is racist. I think you can only argue one or the other.

No. The fact of the matter is that blacks comprise roughly half of all homicide victims in the United States, despite being only 12 to 13% of the population. That is a fact.

Does that mean that we should prevent blacks from owning guns? Of course not, that would be racist and unconstitutional, Second Amendment aside, because it fails other parts of the Constitution.

However, blacks also tend to be economically disadvanged. They can't afford to buy a $400 Taurus, or a $500 Colt (hell, *I'd* be hard pressed to pay that for a gun, and I'm a white collar professional). They can afford a $109 Jennings, though.

If you take away the guns that they can afford to buy, you've essentially disarmed them. True, it will also affect poor whites, but they are a smaller proportion, and can essentially be ignored. The problem is we are talking about legal gun ownership, not criminal gun ownership. You are preventing people who have the right to own a gun from owning one by making it economically out of their reach.

Although I hate using the term "them", but are you making it easier for them to protect themselves, or easier for them to kill each other?

[Skybird]

I reject supporting this guy if he reveals the names of concealed gun-holders who are working in according governmental services (policemen, agents, etc) - revealing their identity could prevent them from successfully working, or even put their life's at risk when doing their job. In fact I think in this scenario he should be brought to court.

I support him if he reveals private persons who hold such a permission - I regard the protection of privacy as secondary to the public interest in this case. Or as Spock would put it: the reasonable and valid interest of the many weighs heavier than the interest of the few, or the one.

[waste gate]

[quote=Skybird]I reject supporting this guy if he reveals the names of concealed gun-holders who are working in according governmental services (policemen, agents, etc) - revealing their identity could prevent them from successfully working, or even put their life's at risk when doing their job.[quote]


One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and military should have handguns or any type of firearm. They must believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization. But in light of court decisions we find such is not the case.

[VipertheSniper]

I reject supporting this guy if he reveals the names of concealed gun-holders who are working in according governmental services (policemen, agents, etc) - revealing their identity could prevent them from successfully working, or even put their life's at risk when doing their job.


One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and military should have handguns or any type of firearm. They must believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization. But in light of court decisions we find such is not the case.

What ??? Could you please write that again in a way I can actually comprehend what you're wanting to tell us?

I mean the police is there to protect the citizenry. What court decisions are you talking of?

[Heibges]

I reject supporting this guy if he reveals the names of concealed gun-holders who are working in according governmental services (policemen, agents, etc) - revealing their identity could prevent them from successfully working, or even put their life's at risk when doing their job.


One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and military should have handguns or any type of firearm. They must believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization. But in light of court decisions we find such is not the case.

What ??? Could you please write that again in a way I can actually comprehend what you're wanting to tell us?

I mean the police is there to protect the citizenry. What court decisions are you talking of?

Basically, cops cannot be sued for non-performance of duty, and failing to respond to citizens in distress.

[waste gate]

I reject supporting this guy if he reveals the names of concealed gun-holders who are working in according governmental services (policemen, agents, etc) - revealing their identity could prevent them from successfully working, or even put their life's at risk when doing their job.


One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and military should have handguns or any type of firearm. They must believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization. But in light of court decisions we find such is not the case.

What ??? Could you please write that again in a way I can actually comprehend what you're wanting to tell us?

I mean the police is there to protect the citizenry. What court decisions are you talking of?

Here you go

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)
Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.)
Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990)

Edit:
Many states have specifically precluded claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''

The Court in DeShaney held that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves.
``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.'' (ability to defend ones self)

[Yahoshua]

And entrusting only the police and the military with firearms requires the basic foundation that you will rarely come across a corrupt cop. In the United States the corruption is becoming more widespread, more noticeable, and more open than before.

In the last few weeks and months this has become more pronounced.

Examples: Atlanta Ga, the ENTIRE drug enforcement division was pulled from duty work and is under investigation, several officers in Va and Tennessee have been arrested for running prostitution rings and distributing and selling drugs they seized from people they've arrested. A police officer lost his pension and was dismissed from the force after getting a....um,..... "rim job" (for lack of a better euphemism) froma porn star during a speeding stop, and another officer wanked off on a woman he pulled over a few weeks before that.

Things are deteriorating here in the U.S. REALLY quick and it worries me alot when people want to only let police and military have the guns while the citizens are forcibly disarmed. That isn't a democracy, that's a dictatorship and you can see the examples of forced disarmament of the citizens and the near draconian enslavement right afterward in nations like Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China, and in North Korea.

While these examples may not exactly be recent, the lessons learned from how each acquired power and how it was abused still applies today.

[Wxman]

Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold should expand his search. I bet he could learn a lot by walking around certain places in Cleveland and demanding the citizens tell him if they have a gun. I bet in some places they would be happy to show it to him also.

For a little over $220 a entrepreneurial individual can buy the entire financial, tax, criminal, and genealogical database entries for this managing editor’s life. The public has a right to know where, and how many, conflicts of interest this outstanding journalist has with various financial, social and political institutions that his newspaper covers.

Under this journalists definition of “right to know”, any subscriber to the newspaper would be justified in publicly posting this information, to as large an audience as possible, with the greatest effect possible

Checked the Sandusky Register today. They seem to have pulled the list off their front page and off their original article.

The original article now has:

How many residents are licensed to carry concealed handguns?
(By county)
Erie — 1,071
Huron — 367
Sandusky — 329
Ottawa — 644
Seneca — 270

In place of links to the lists themselves.

[Wxman]

...you can see the examples of forced disarmament of the citizens and the near draconian enslavement right afterward in nations like Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China, and in North Korea.

That's all fine and dandy, but what I find to be the most interesting statistic in places where Draconian gun-ownership restrictions have been enacted: the number one fastest rising crime in places like GB, Austrailia and Canada is that of home invasions. In and of itself pretty ho hum, right? Well, not so fast, the particular statistic cited is especially noteworthy considering the overwhelming majority of cases are when the occupants of the home are actually present.

You watch, they'll next enact laws prohibiting actually possessing stuff. The logic being, well, if you didn't have anything worth taking they'd not bust into your home to rob you at gunpoint.

[VipertheSniper]

I reject supporting this guy if he reveals the names of concealed gun-holders who are working in according governmental services (policemen, agents, etc) - revealing their identity could prevent them from successfully working, or even put their life's at risk when doing their job.


One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and military should have handguns or any type of firearm. They must believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization. But in light of court decisions we find such is not the case.

What ??? Could you please write that again in a way I can actually comprehend what you're wanting to tell us?

I mean the police is there to protect the citizenry. What court decisions are you talking of?

Here you go

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)
Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.)
Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990)

Edit:
Many states have specifically precluded claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''

The Court in DeShaney held that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves.
``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.'' (ability to defend ones self)


OK that puts things into perspective, but I think that if a cop tried to the best of his abilities to prevent a crime and it still happened, it wouldn't be in anyones interest, that this cop might get sued. So I guess to rule that possibility out, they had to make sure no cop, whether he did his job to the best of his abilities or not, doesn't get sued. I guess if internal affairs see's something wrong with a cops response to an emergency call or something he'll be discharged pretty soon, I imagine.

[Heibges]

...you can see the examples of forced disarmament of the citizens and the near draconian enslavement right afterward in nations like Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China, and in North Korea.

That's all fine and dandy, but what I find to be the most interesting statistic in places where Draconian gun-ownership restrictions have been enacted: the number one fastest rising crime in places like GB, Austrailia and Canada is that of home invasions. In and of itself pretty ho hum, right? Well, not so fast, the particular statistic cited is especially noteworthy considering the overwhelming majority of cases are when the occupants of the home are actually present.

You watch, they'll next enact laws prohibiting actually possessing stuff. The logic being, well, if you didn't have anything worth taking they'd not bust into your home to rob you at gunpoint.

Home invasion is also a major problem in the Bay Area in California. Perpetrated by these very violent Asian gangs. Paritculary down on the Peninsula south of San Francisco, where the folks are pretty rich. :-?

[Heibges]

I reject supporting this guy if he reveals the names of concealed gun-holders who are working in according governmental services (policemen, agents, etc) - revealing their identity could prevent them from successfully working, or even put their life's at risk when doing their job.


One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and military should have handguns or any type of firearm. They must believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization. But in light of court decisions we find such is not the case.

What ??? Could you please write that again in a way I can actually comprehend what you're wanting to tell us?

I mean the police is there to protect the citizenry. What court decisions are you talking of?

Here you go

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)
Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.)
Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990)

Edit:
Many states have specifically precluded claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''

The Court in DeShaney held that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves.
``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.'' (ability to defend ones self)


OK that puts things into perspective, but I think that if a cop tried to the best of his abilities to prevent a crime and it still happened, it wouldn't be in anyones interest, that this cop might get sued. So I guess to rule that possibility out, they had to make sure no cop, whether he did his job to the best of his abilities or not, doesn't get sued. I guess if internal affairs see's something wrong with a cops response to an emergency call or something he'll be discharged pretty soon, I imagine.

I think the legislation was probably enacted to prevent frivilous lawsuits, but I can see the concern that wastegate has.

It's sort of like eminent domain which can really screw over the average citizen.

I had a friend who fell down through an open manhole cover while drunk. He had little luck suing until it was discovered that the City Worker had been written up several times for......forgetting to put the manhole covers back on. :lol:

[VipertheSniper]

I think the legislation was probably enacted to prevent frivilous lawsuits, but I can see the concern that wastegate has.

It's sort of like eminent domain which can really screw over the average citizen.

I had a friend who fell down through an open manhole cover while drunk. He had little luck suing until it was discovered that the City Worker had been written up several times for......forgetting to put the manhole covers back on. :lol:

I can see that concern too, but I guess that's a price you have to pay in a sue-happy society. :-?

[Puster Bill]

Although I hate using the term "them", but are you making it easier for them to protect themselves, or easier for them to kill each other?

White Man's Burden, eh? We have to protect them from themselves?

Sorry, but punishing a group for the actions of individuals within that group is unacceptable, especially when it comes to something as serious as this.

[Skybird]

In Germany, we have a difference between "Waffenschein" (weapons license, 2 classes) and "Waffenbesitzkarte" (permission card to possess weapons, 3 classes). German weapon laws are said to be amongst the tightest in Europe.

Excluding professionals like police, and talking of private persons in the following:

A main/full Waffenschein you only get as a private man when you can prove that your life and health is seriously threateend, for which the general risk everybody is accepting to become a victim of random crime is not suffient. Sport shooters do not need nor get it. So, usually it is impossible for normal citizens to get a Waffenschein. You need this type of license to carry (concealed or unconcealed) an action-ready (loaded) weapon outside your house and/or private property. You need to pass a (tough) theory exam, a clean record with the police, and some more. This license is valid for three years, after that it needs to be confirmed every year. If the strong private interest (threat for life etc) is no longer proved, the license expires.

A small Waffenschein was introduced 2002. It regulates the sale of gas- and blank guns, which are rated as a rsik due to their often stunning visual similiarity to real weapons. We had quite some crimes being commited by use of fake guns.

A green Waffenbesitzkarte (WBK) you use to have when you are doing shooting as a sport, or are a registered hunter (hunters need a hunting license to buy and own rifles, too). This type of license allows you to transport an unloaded, not action-ready weapon, from your home to your sport club, or after having bought it from a trader for example, and to store a weapon at home, which means you need to lock it in a safe, and the ammunition separately from it in a locked place. You are not allowed to carry your weapons in public, for fun or a subjectively perceived threat to you, outside private property. Usually you are allowed to buy two pistols/revolvers, and eventually a third one if you prove the need (using several different callibres in registred sport training). Concealed carrying of even unloaded weapons also if not allowed.
The exam (Sachkundeprüfung) is tough, and needs you to really sit down and learn books about kjoules, callibres, distances, effects of ammunitions. My father has this kind of license, and I saw how much work he had to invest to get competent in the theory. It is meant to scare away Sunday shooters and only half-heartedly interested people. Additionally you need to log one year of regular (weekly) club shooting to get a third weapon, and you need to log quite some time with regular shooting in a club with using weapons that are constantly stored there to get your green card at all.
The vast majority of people in Germany who have firearms have this kind of license, theys use to be sport shooters, or hunters.

A yellow WBK affects the possession of certain types of single-bolt rifles and rifles with certain specifics I cannot translate into English. It is meant for sport shooters using according types of rifles, since the green card exclude many types of rifles, if not all.

The red WBK is interesting only for people collecting certain types of historical firearms.

Carrying weapons during public assemblies is always forbidden, no matter if you have a full Waffenschein or not.

Possession or carrying of military weapons like machine guns, submachine guns, assault rifles, is never, never allowed, under no conditions. Which makes very much sense. If this kind of weapons is allowed for pirvate possession, than in principle it cannot be prohibited to possess a priovate B-52 with full ordanance as well. Military weapons are for the military, not for the private man. Private interest has to step back here.

We do well with these regulations. You can do sport shooting in germany and own a weapon, or two or three, but it is a must that you spend time and effort into it (and prove it) in order to get a green WBK-type of license.

I heared that in Switzerland the public pressure is raising that the 14% of households, were reservists store their military rifles at home, are no longer allowed (required) to do so anymore. If it makes sense with their type of army is something different, but it illustrates the widespread European perception that having heavy weaponry available to considerable parts of society is not needed, nor wishable.

[Yahoshua]

...you can see the examples of forced disarmament of the citizens and the near draconian enslavement right afterward in nations like Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China, and in North Korea.

That's all fine and dandy, but what I find to be the most interesting statistic in places where Draconian gun-ownership restrictions have been enacted: the number one fastest rising crime in places like GB, Austrailia and Canada is that of home invasions. In and of itself pretty ho hum, right? Well, not so fast, the particular statistic cited is especially noteworthy considering the overwhelming majority of cases are when the occupants of the home are actually present.

You watch, they'll next enact laws prohibiting actually possessing stuff. The logic being, well, if you didn't have anything worth taking they'd not bust into your home to rob you at gunpoint.

I remember reading at one point that the Home Office wanted to ban kitchen knives for being too sharp!!

Although the joke of banning "pointy sticks" is well used here in the states, it isn't considered a joke anymore after most of us heard that statement from the HO.

[Puster Bill]

We do well with these regulations. You can do sport shooting in germany and own a weapon, or two or three, but it is a must that you spend time and effort into it (and prove it) in order to get a green WBK-type of license.


Good for you. That will never work in the United States, however, for several different reasons:

1. A very large percentage of the population interprets the Second Amendment of the US Constitution as protecting the right of an individual to keep and bear arms with little or no interference from the government.

2. As Americans, we tend to be more distrustful of authority, and less likely to follow the law if we think it is ineffectual, malicious, or stupid.

3. We have an enormous number of guns in the United States already. If the guns were distributed evenly, fully 3/4ths of the total population would be armed.

4. There are a significant number of people in the United States who make firearms as a hobby. Mostly, they tend to be antique type weapons, like this one (made for me by my father):
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/6217/miniflint4pm.jpg
Switching to the manufacturing of more modern weapons would be relatively easy. Since there would be a market for guns, you would drive the manufacture of handguns from a handful of manufacturers each making tens of thousands of guns a year to tens of thousands of manufacturers each making a handful of guns a year.

5. You couldn't impliment something like that in the United States without violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, which provide protections against unreasonable search and seizures, and against self-incrimination.

6. Any administration and congress foolish enough to attempt such a system would quickly find itself facing a large number of very upset armed people. The very people the government would consider to be a danger to itself are the ones who in practice will be the hardest to disarm.

7. Given #6, there would be some serious incidences of violence targeted at those who voted for the law, and those tasked to enforce it. Whether you agree with the actions or not, there is little doubt that heavy-handed enforcement of gun laws at Ruby Ridge, ID and Waco, TX, combined with the Brady Law and the now defunct Assault Weapons Ban, lead to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City. The paradigm has changed, however, from the 'Turner Diaries' style of bombing government buildings, to the 'Unintended Consequences*' style of selected assassination of those directly responsible.

This is why gun laws like those in Europe are neither practical nor adviseable in the United States. We have a history of shooting at those who try to take our guns away.

*Unintended Consequences by John Ross is a very popular novel among the American Gun Culture. It describes a leaderless, distributed 'rebellion' that targets the ATF and anti-gun politicians.

[Skybird]

Constitutions and amandements can be changed - they must not be seen to be valid until the end of time. Also, it might help to remember that they were written in a certain time and world, both of which were different and were defined by very different kind of situational realities that are no longer valid. There is no more threat that the english troops will try to retake their colonies, and no more Indians sneaking around your house. I would not assume that the authors back then would write the consitution and/or the amandements in the same way they did back then: the world has chnaged, so changes the way to adress it, and intentions.

This is just meant as a direct reply, not as an attempt to tell you what you should do in your country.

[Heibges]

Although I hate using the term "them", but are you making it easier for them to protect themselves, or easier for them to kill each other?

White Man's Burden, eh? We have to protect them from themselves?

Sorry, but punishing a group for the actions of individuals within that group is unacceptable, especially when it comes to something as serious as this.

I really should have been more careful the way I phrased that, but I was really just hoping to avoid a discussion of the socio-economic causes of crime.

In most respects I agree with your arguments, and being from Vermont, the state with almost no gun control, am well aware with the standard talking points.

But I believe the 2nd Ammendment only gives folks the right to protect themselves against a despotic government, not to protect themselves from each other. I think that is anarchy or vigilantism.

And although I tend not to be a pragmatist, living in the neighborhood in SF with the most murders, and across the Bay from Oakland, I have to respect the opinion of the folks in these neighborhoods who say they want these cheap guns off the street.

The gang violence in these areas is not condusive to being able to protect yourself with a gun. What you end up with is a lot of innocent people caught in the crossfire from driveby's.

And again, as to the topic of this thread, I am totally against what this guy did in printing the names in the paper.

[Puster Bill]

Although I hate using the term "them", but are you making it easier for them to protect themselves, or easier for them to kill each other?
White Man's Burden, eh? We have to protect them from themselves?

Sorry, but punishing a group for the actions of individuals within that group is unacceptable, especially when it comes to something as serious as this.
I really should have been more careful the way I phrased that, but I was really just hoping to avoid a discussion of the socio-economic causes of crime.
Well, that *IS* at the heart of the discussion. Being from where you are from, you should know that.

In most respects I agree with your arguments, and being from Vermont, the state with almost no gun control, am well aware with the standard talking points.
PM where, if you care to. I live not far from Southern Vermont, and in fact used to live in a town just across the border.


But I believe the 2nd Ammendment only gives folks the right to protect themselves against a despotic government, not to protect themselves from each other. I think that is anarchy or vigilantism.
There is more justification for the personal self defense than there is for defense against a despotic government. You are more likely, given that you live in the United States, to be a victim of crime than the victim of government violence.

And self defense is *NOT* vigilantism. Vigilantism is the dispensing of frontier justice with out due process. A vigilante is someone who takes the enforcement of law into their own hands. Self defense doesn't count: You aren't dispensing 'justice', you are saving your own life.

As for it being anarchy, I'm sorry I just don't see that. Given that self defense almost always happens at times when law enforcement isn't around, how can you reasonably expect them to be there? Society doesn't fall apart when you defend yourself, in fact it is strengthened by either removing or discouraging future anarchic acts (ie., crime).


And although I tend not to be a pragmatist, living in the neighborhood in SF with the most murders, and across the Bay from Oakland, I have to respect the opinion of the folks in these neighborhoods who say they want these cheap guns off the street.
Do you know why they want more gun control? It puzzled me to, I questioned why people in high crime areas would want more, until I read this:
http://www.john-ross.net/race&rtc.htm
The important part is in the last half of the essay.


The gang violence in these areas is not condusive to being able to protect yourself with a gun. What you end up with is a lot of innocent people caught in the crossfire from driveby's.
Well, you have that anyway. So why not allow people to defend themselves? Just doesn't make sense. That is like saying it is foolish to allow (not require, allow) teachers to have guns in schools, because more kids will be killed in the crossfire. Which is patently obsurd, because as it stands now the assailants can kill at their leisure, taking time to aim. That is what allowed Mr. Cho to be so effective at VT: It is much easier to kill methodically when no one is shooting back at you.

And again, as to the topic of this thread, I am totally against what this guy did in printing the names in the paper.
Agreed.

[Puster Bill]

Constitutions and amandements can be changed - they must not be seen to be valid until the end of time. Also, it might help to remember that they were written in a certain time and world, both of which were different and were defined by very different kind of situational realities that are no longer valid. There is no more threat that the english troops will try to retake their colonies, and no more Indians sneaking around your house. I would not assume that the authors back then would write the consitution and/or the amandements in the same way they did back then: the world has chnaged, so changes the way to adress it, and intentions.

This is just meant as a direct reply, not as an attempt to tell you what you should do in your country.

You are correct, Amendments to the Constitution can be changed. It's happened before. Yet no one ever seriously proposes to repeal the Second Amendment.

I wonder why?

After all, if it's a dead letter, just make it official. Surely, if the people agree, it won't be hard to get a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate, and to have it ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures.

Of course, many people view that possibility as a 'tripwire' to start shooting at the people who voted for it, but hey, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right?

What many people forget is that the founding document of the United States is not the Constitution, it is the Declaration of Independence, which justifies the use of force to overthrow a tyrannical government.

[waste gate]

What many people forget is that the founding document of the United States is not the Constitution, it is the Declaration of Independence, which justifies the use of force to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Calvin Coolidge observed that the Declaration of Independence unleashed not only a revolution against Britain, but also a revolution in human affairs.

[waste gate]

Now the Feds

The mayors say gun trace data helps local police departments figure out where illegal guns are coming from, who buys them


How can you find illegal gun carriers from looking at the legal ones?

More BS from the gun grabbers.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,287037,00.html

[Yahoshua]

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/7812557.html