·11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683
Posted on 08/17/2007 2:38:57 PM PDT by neverdem
Recently, concerns have been raised in response to statements made by NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson to Texas Monthly in 2005. We have received For more information on NRA's legislative efforts to protect and defend the Second Amendment, please visit www.NRAILA.org and www.Clintongunban.com.
STATEMENT OF JOAQUIN JACKSON
Recently, some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview in which I participated a few years ago. After recently watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine. And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.
In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.
In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans. And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms. And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right – and a Second Amendment right – to own them.
As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship. Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible. That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting. In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.
But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines. In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to be abject failures.
Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American – I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.
I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.
I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.
####
Brecourt Manor.
Unless you have an ammo truck following you around, full auto won’t help you.
The OSS "Liberator" pistol was designed as "a gun to get a real gun." I think in that same sense, should the unthinkable happen, a saavy militia leader would need to use the resources at hand to gain access to additional resources...
Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. --- "
Jackson, you are still sworn to uphold the Constitution, and your agreement with unconstitutional 'laws' about background checks and 'rigorous regulations' [actually prohibitive infringements] to own automatic firearms is a violation of your oath as an officer, and as a citizen.
Be ashamed. -- As the NRA should be ashamed.
Here’s Jackson’s statement. I should be able to remember not to vote for him.
Assuming that the Second Amendment is there for the purpose of preventing tyrannical government from becoming entrenched, is he saying that the government against which the Second is intended to protect us may enact laws to disarm us and we are bound to obey those? Or is he saying that any gun ownership consistent with the original intent of the Second IS lawful, more recent laws to the contrary notwithstanding? Cause if he means the first thing, I have no use for the guy.
Are you a life member or a 5 year(not 5 one year) member of the NRA?
You have just said what I've always thought. We need to keep ourselves armed at least to the extent that we can "harvest" more and better firepower with good tactics when the time comes.
Next election, you’re getting kicked to the curb.
Sincerely,
Shooter 2.5
The whole response smells of ass... see what happens when you confront these dicks, they quickly make up a statement about hunting, legal owners... yada yada yada.. it’s horsecrap!
"Here’s Jackson’s statement. I should be able to remember not to vote for him."
After reading it a second time, I believe I was too harsh. While originalist interpretations of the Constitution are good, I believe the NRA's approach has been smart politically, i.e. using an incremental approach. We need to get an individual right recognized first, e.g. Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma, which has since been renamed, DC Gun Case: "Parker is now Heller" , before going after the ex post facto Lautenberg Amendment, the 1986 FOPA ban on new MGs, 1968 GCA or the 1934 NFA.
Be ashamed. -- As the NRA should be ashamed of that same incremental position.
While originalist interpretations of the Constitution are good, I believe the NRA's approach has been smart politically, i.e. using an incremental approach.
I've seen where that 'incremental approach' got us. In '67 I owned a few firearms that I can no longer buy or own today.
We need to get an individual right recognized first, e.g. "Parker v. Heller" -- before going after the ex post facto Lautenberg Amendment, the 1986 FOPA ban on new MGs, 1968 GCA or the 1934 NFA.
We can get our individual rights recognized without acknowledging those 'laws' as constitutional.
We must stand on our principles -- or the SCOTUS will simply throw us a bone that an 'individual right' exists, but 'rule' it is subject to virtually any regulatory scheme that any level of gov't can dream up.
Which is why I recommend adding a 9mm and something in 7.62/5.45x39. Why do I recommend it, I see a war with China and having such weapons will make it easier to use their ammo against them.
They have a second amendment right to own them without begging Uncle Sammy and the local chief LEO for permission.
Joaquin is also smart enough to know that their are no "rigorous regulations", at least not any objective ones. The law requires the signature of the chief LEO to attest that their is no reason why the supplicant *should not* own such a weapon. In most jurisdictions, even a few Texas ones, that has been turned into only signing if their is some reason the supplicant *should* own one. Sometimes a "good reason" takes the form of a generous campaign contribuition to the sheriff's relection campaign.
If full autos must be restricted, and it's a violation of the second amendment to do so, then it should be on an objective, Shall Issue, basis, as Joaquin pretends to think it is.
That said, it is pretty easy to obtain the needed signatures in most Texas and other Western jurisdictions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.