Every one of them.
Posted on 10/16/2001 9:01:58 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
An Open Letter to the NRA
March 27, 2000
Mr. Charlton Heston
President
National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Rd.
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Dear Mr. Heston,
We are law professors and historians who have a deep interest in the Second Amendment and its implications for the regulation of guns and of gun ownership. Our politics run the gamut. But we are united on the vital importance of putting to rest any misperception that the Second Amendment prohibits a wide range of effective and reasonable firearms regulations.
There is room for debate about which firearms policies will best serve Americans. But the law is well-settled that the Second Amendment permits broad and intensive regulation of firearms, including laws that ban certain types of weapons, require safety devices on others, mandate registration and licensing and otherwise impose strict regulatory oversight of the firearms industry. These and similar regulations are fully consistent with the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment quoted in full states that A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The United States Supreme Court and every federal appellate court to consider the issue have held that the Second Amendment permits a wide range of reasonable gun control laws. And although academic views differ regarding whether the Second Amendment does more than protect the state militia from being disarmed by federal law, we all agree that the Amendment plainly permits reasonable firearms regulations including those set forth above.
The National Rifle Association’s repeated suggestions that the Second Amendment somehow stands in the way of effective and reasonable regulation of guns and gun ownership is a distortion of legal precedent and a disservice to all Americans, the great majority of whom support thoughtful firearms policies. The issue at hand transcends the liberal/conservative divide: prominent conservatives like the late Chief Justice Warren Burger and the late Solicitor General Erwin Griswold allied themselves against the NRA’s overbroad reading of the Second Amendment. Moreover, as this letter makes clear, it is false and misleading for the NRA to cite any of us or our scholarship as authority for the notion that the Second Amendment prohibits reasonable regulation of the manufacture, transfer, ownership and possession of guns.
We encourage you and your supporters to focus on the real issue facing our country and it isn’t the Second Amendment. The central issue on which we all should focus is what sort of firearms legislation and policies will best prevent the killings and violence that plague our country today.
Sincerely,
(see attached list of endorsers)
cc: Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice-President
Academic Endorsers of the Letter to Charlton Heston Regarding the Second Amendment:
1. Akhil Reed Amar Southmayd Professor of Law Yale Law School On leave of absence, spring term, 2000.
2. Edward Ayers Hugh P. Kelly Professor of History University of Virginia
3. Michael Bellesiles Professor of History Emory University
4. Carl T. Bogus Professor of Law Roger Williams University Law School
et al
Every one of them.
There are a couple of questions I would love to ask these distinguished and intelligent gentlemen. (1) You have singled out the tool of choice for the perpetrators of this violence you speak of, but can you describe the root causes of this violence? (2) Would the loss or reduction of the deterrent affect, provided by an armed population, be far worse than a reduction of gun related violence? Isn't the threat of tyranny far greater that the present weakness in our social fabric? (3)Wouldn't it be far wiser for government to examine why Americans are violent...and use guns? (hint:drug prohibition)And shouldn't we use our resources to reduce the sociopath tendencies of many Americans.....And not focus on a tool that the large majority of Americans posses and use legally...and with care?
Not true--if it were true they would cite the U.S. Supreme Court cases that say that (Of course the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has said an individual does not have a right to a gun)
These idiots want to make the masses believe that regulated means burdened with rules and nonsense.
Just insert speech or its equivalent in place of firearms and imagine that they are talking about the right to free speech.
You quickly get the idea of what their brand of reasonable is and it is somthing aligned with communism.
I think the thing you miss is that these people are all for tyranny as long as they are in charge.
....from orthodox Marxism to Left-wing socialism.
He's correct about that.
The 2nd Amendment does not confer that right. It only proscribes government infringement on that right. Read it yourself and see. It doesn't say "The people shall have the right to bear arms.", it says "...the right ... shall not be infringed".
Only God grants rights.
The best policy would be to follow the 2nd amendment and eliminate gun control. That would reduce killings and violence.
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.