Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun Control and the Next Big Lie
ChronWatch ^ | April 07, 2004 | Howard Nemerov

Posted on 04/08/2004 9:00:35 AM PDT by neverdem

''History will teach us that … of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.'' The Federalist Papers, Number 1.

Get ready for gun control with a happy face. Gun banners pretend to no longer want to confiscate your firearms. They are concerned about safety. With all those firearms on the streets, now that 37 states have Shall-Issue Concealed Carry laws, the gun banners want to know who has them and where they are at all times. In their hoplophobia (irrational fear of guns) they believe that anybody carrying a gun is a hair’s breadth away from becoming a homicidal maniac or that demon-possessed guns will leap out of holsters and fire of their own volition. Of course, the only way to keep track of all those guns is to have a registry, and history has shown that registration leads to confiscation, which leads to loss of other civil rights. (See last paper.*) So we come full circle to a new confiscation scheme.

An article posted by a Florida newspaper attempts to picture a longtime civil rights organization and supporter of military and police firearms training as turning against police officers. (1)

We will dissect and examine three quotes from the article.

NRA Bad ''Squeezed between the cop on the beat and the powerful National Rifle Association, the Senate leaned toward the NRA Wednesday, tentatively approving a bill that would ban government and private lists of gun owners.'' – Palm Beach Post

So now the NRA, with an extensive history of police training and competition programs, and with a lifelong law enforcement professional as president, is now anti-cop?

This is a bald attempt at divide and conquer, splitting the NRA from one of its closest relationships, the law enforcement professionals who protect and serve, many of whom are themselves NRA members. The NRA Law Enforcement Division has a long history of education and training. ''Our ultimate goal is the saving of lives and prevention of injuries through the safe, effective, and timely use of the law enforcement firearm.'' (2)

Does this sound like an organization that would plot to place law rnforcement professionals in greater danger?

When the Truth Does Not Support You, Use Innuendo ''But crime fighting has proven to be the toughest hurdle for supporters, with police agencies across the state expressing concern that the measure would make it harder to track criminals.'' – Palm Beach Post

Who are these ''police agencies'' and what are their concerns? The article mentions the Police Benevolent Association and the Florida Sheriffs Association later in the article, but no concerns. I went to each organization’s web site to search for information on this issue which reportedly is threatening their lives.

The Florida Police Benevolent Association represents over 30,000 law enforcement and corrections officers. Their five most recent online issues of the membership newsletter, the PBA Capitol Report, communicate primarily on the following issues: time limitations on internal affairs investigations; pay raises; retirement issues; secret agreements between state attorneys and criminals; and pensions. Nothing was mentioned about any need to track law-abiding gun owners in order to control crime. (3)

The Florida Sheriffs Association has been around since 1893. On its ''Frequently Asked Questions'' page, the second question is how new residents can apply for a Concealed Weapon Permit. The writers respond with instructions on how to proceed. There is nothing there or on their ''Legislative Update'' page that mentions any concerns about tracking law-abiding gun owners to help control crime. (4)

The Bias Against Guns ''Open-government advocates are also livid. 'There is no anecdotal evidence that I can find to show that people are being profiled,' said Barbara Petersen, president of the First Amendment Foundation. 'The danger is that there is no opportunity for law enforcement to keep track of people who are using guns to commit crimes.' '' – Palm Beach Post

Here we have the plain-spoken bigotry of the gun confiscator: if you carry a gun, you must be a criminal.

A report by the Department of Justice shows that in 1997, 78.8% of the guns purchased by criminals were from friends, family, or black market. This is up from 74.6% since 1991, perhaps showing an increasing ability of criminals to seek out illegal sources. (5) In 1997, the other 22.2% were supposedly purchased from legal sources, possibly leaving a paper trail of ownership. However, one must keep in mind that these could include straw purchases, meaning that the criminal asked a person with a clean record to buy the gun, in order to pass the background check.

Most criminals already have records and therefore will fail to pass the background check necessary to purchase a legal firearm, would not be affected by the proposed registry. (6) Therefore, we can only reliably keep track of law-abiding people. Since these people are unlikely to commit crime, there is no need to scrutinize them, unless we are planning to reverse our legal system and begin to presume guilt until proven innocent. I find this point particularly interesting, since the person making the statement in the above quotation claims to represent the First Amendment of our Constitution.

Only the Truth Will Keep Us Free

CCW holders, who must take firearms training, be fingerprinted, and have their background checked to qualify for a license, have lower crime rates than the general population.

Here are the most recent statistics compiled by the Florida department responsible for issuing and monitoring Concealed Weapons licensees:

Total licenses issued: 897,986 Licenses revoked due to crime after licensure: 2,234 Crime rate: 249 per 100,000 (7)

Compare this to Florida’s overall crime rate of 5,421 per 100,000 in 2002, the most recent final data available. (8)

The arrest rate for permit holders in Texas from 1996 through 1999, covering the first five years of their Concealed Carry law, was 473 arrests per 100,000 people. Compare this to 5,589 for entire population. (9) Keep in mind that arrests do not equal convictions. Even in cases of lawful self-defense against criminal attacks, it is likely the permit holder will be arrested, and the judicial system will decide if prosecution is indicated. The actual conviction rate for license holders was under 25% of arrests in 1998, or 260 per 100,000. (10,11) Compare this to the FBI Crime Index for Texas in 2002 of 5,190, a more accurate measure of actual crime as opposed to arrests. (12)

And as usual, the confiscators do not present the complete equation: how many crimes were stopped by law-abiding permit holders. This also does not figure in the cost of those crimes, as the violent crime rate was 18.8% lower, and the property crime rate was 3.2% lower, in CCW states. (13)

Who’s Shooting at Police? I performed a Google search looking for news stories about police officers being shot. In his book, ''The Bias Against Guns,'' John Lott presents a detailed case on how the media provides extensive coverage of guns being used in crime, while ignoring defensive gun use. (14) So I figured if a cop was shot, it would be covered on some media web site.

There were three valid results from the first three pages of the search:

One cop was shot when confronting an armed robber at a credit union. (15)

A sheriff’s deputy was shot while searching for methamphetamine labs in wild area. (16)

Two officers were shot when trying to stop a thief driving a stolen SUV. (17)

Conclusion The Florida legislature is simply doing its job of representing the People. CCW laws are written in a way that upholds the right to bear arms for defense of self and the community at large, while protecting the privacy of the license holder.

Rush Limbaugh is wont to say ''It’s not the evidence that matters; it’s the seriousness of the charge.'' When confronting the issue of guns and crime, gun confiscators react with knee-jerk predictability: ''let’s get rid of guns. That will cure our discomfort, by making us feel good about ourselves that we care and are doing something.''

In no society has civilian disarmament led to reduced crime. To the contrary, it has led to reduced civil rights, and increased opportunity for criminals, who because of illegal distribution channels have even more access to guns, and a greater disparity of force favoring them.

Footnotes * Gun Control, Dianne Feinstein and the ''Assault Weapons'' Ban

(1) $5 million fine proposed for listing of gun owners, Jim Ash, Palm Beach Post Capital Bureau, Thursday, March 25, 2004.

(2) National Rifle Association Law Enforcement Main Page

(3) Florida Police Benevolent Association

(4) Florida Sheriffs Association

(5) Firearm Use by Offenders, U.S. Department of Justice, November 2001, page 1.

(6) Ibid, page 6.

(7) Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapon/ Firearm Summary Report, October 1, 1987 - February 29, 2004.

(8) FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Index of Crime by State for 2002.

(9) An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population, William E. Sturdevant, September, 2000.

(10) Rebuttal to VPC Study, Larry Arnold, 1999.

(11) Texas Department of Public Safety, Basis for Revocation or Suspension of Texas Concealed Handgun Licenses. (Data Compiled 12/01/1998)

(12) FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Index of Crime by State for 2002.

(13) Ibid. (Compilation of crime rates and manually cross-indexed by Shall-Issue states compared to non-Issue states.)

(14) ''The Bias Against Guns,'' John R. Lott, Jr., 2003.

(15) Reality sets in for shot police officer, Matthew Roy, Virginian-Pilot, August 18, 2003.

(16) Officer Shot, Police Search for Suspect, Beth Hunt, KATV News, January 16, 2004.

(17) Police officers shot, Heath Druzin, 2theadvocate News, January 24, 2004.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; guncontrol; gunprohibition; secondamendment
Please visit their website and enter your vote regarding the reason or effects of Chappy Kennedy's and KKK Bobby's, as well as other rats, most recent comparisons of Iraq and Vietnam.
1 posted on 04/08/2004 9:00:37 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d; Travis McGee; Joe Brower; archy
2 posted on 04/08/2004 9:01:55 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Thanks for the pic sciencediet :0)

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at

It is in the breaking news sidebar!

3 posted on 04/08/2004 9:02:48 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
It seems that an Importer of military surplus ammuniton had a shipment of handgun ammunition held up at Customs because it is alledgedly "Armor Peircing Handgun" ammo, which is already prohibited from importation from Russia or China but has been (up till recently) available from other countries.

Because of the high velocity of the 7.62 X 25MM "Tokarev" ammo it is known to defeat some types of body armor commonly worn by LEOs, even with lead-core FMJ military bullets.

I posted this "Rant" in response, but it might be appropriate FYI & comment here.

As I have speculated on previous threads, our supply of 7.62X25MM ammo, at least from import sources, remains tenuous at best.

I am frankly a little surprised, given the increasingly liberal (a word which ironically enough now essentially means "tyrannical") drift of our society and the current Administration, that us mere Subjects are still allowed to possess, much less acquire, this "evil cop-killer" ammunition at all.

I have 2 recent letters from my Senators indicating that the President supports an extension of the AWB, which should serve as a warning that any alliance this Administration might have once had with the NRA and Second A. Supporters nationwide (which even Don Klintione admitted was instrumental in the outcome of the 2K Elections) is now null and void as the favor of the "Moderates" among us is increasingly sought.

Whatever advances we have enjoyed in recent years may well be in jeopardy as the proverbial pendulum begins to swing back towards the Brady model of "civil pacification" in America.

This governmental hijack of AIM's shipment may be a shakedown for a bribe (which would not surprise me), or it may be symbolic of the pendulum's brief pause at the end of it's cyclic arc, as it prepares to reverse direction.

I hate to be too pessimistic about this guys, but I do not have a good feeling about this at all.

Those of us who have yet to lay in a stash of CZ-52 fodder may be out of luck sooner than we think.

Personally, I'm glad I reload... but did you know that in Mexico (as I'm sure is the case in most of the rest of the World) the mere possession of reloading equipment / tools is an imprisonable crime?

Sign of things to come in America?

Stay tuned.

Once "Due Process" is negated, in that anyone who possesses ammunition or weapons capable of causing mayhem - be it murdering a Police Officer or whatever - can be legally assumed to be plotting just such a crime and criminalized / punished as if he were indeed attempting by said possession to commit the heinous act.

When that happens, our Constitution becomes null and void and we succumb to a dictatorship of the elite.

And guess what?; ALL "Gun Laws" essentially IGNORE the concept of "Due Process".

If we dare have a tommygun, we obviously want to rub out anyone we don't like, and if you can afford a Ma Deuce, you surely want to overthrow the Government... etc...
The burden of proof of innocence is upon the applicant for a special "license" to own such suspect property. Is that how our Judicial system was set up to work under the Constitution?

So that same logic means we’re all aspiring rapists, guys!
(Unless of course we can afford and/ or are privileged to official permission to keep and bear the means for... well, you know... "procreation".

All not so favored by the Powers that Be, Cue up in this line for "voluntary" castration, or the other line for the train to the concentration camps. The only other option is resistance and certain swift death.

Funny, huh?

It's just an absurd extension of the same rationale that gives us "gun control", isn't it?

But... is it really all that absurd?

Read History much?

...for those of you who pre-ordered that AIM ammo...

Good luck, Mates!

(Edited by UJ)

4 posted on 04/08/2004 11:33:55 AM PDT by Uncle Jaque ("Scots; WaeHae Where Wallace Bled; Scots Wham Bruce Hae Aften Led;... ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Ahhh, the SIMPLE solution: if you have a permit, you MUST wear a neon-reflective sandwich-board sign stating that you are carrying a deadly weapon.

Makes sense to me! /sarcasm
5 posted on 04/08/2004 12:25:53 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
The Second Amendment - Quotes & Commentaries
6 posted on 04/08/2004 1:23:58 PM PDT by PsyOp (The commonwealth is theirs who hold the arms.... - Aristotle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Jaque
This ex-LEO says that I will never register and I will never turn over my guns. And if anyone comes for them under the pretext that I have broken a law, they will need to ask themselves if this is the front porch they want to die for. And once you challenge them, there is no going back [Waco and Ruby Ridge]. I am prepared for that.
7 posted on 04/08/2004 4:01:26 PM PDT by Indie (We don't need no steenkin' experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp; *bang_list
8 posted on 04/08/2004 11:48:47 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Most criminals already have records and therefore will fail to pass the background check necessary to purchase a legal firearm, would not be affected by the proposed registry.

AND they cannot be punished for lying on the yellow sheet, since that would be self incrimination, since they are not allowed to own firearms, and thus a violation of the 5th amendment. There's case law to that effect.

9 posted on 04/09/2004 7:49:38 PM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson