FYI - From GaryJohnson2012.com.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Message to the Honorable Kenneth E. Melson Concerning ATF Operation Gunrunner.
Dear Acting Director Melson,
Good afternoon Sir. I hope this finds you doing well. I am writing to you today concerning the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms' (ATF) Operation Gunrunner. The more I learn about this operation, the more I believe it is a grave infringement on our constitutional rights and civil liberties.
As I am sure you already know, through this program, the ATF has authorized gun dealers to purposely sale thousands of weapons to suspected smugglers in order to trace their movement. As more information is being made public, it has been suggested that one of those guns may have been used to kill U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. It is very disheartening to think that this government program may have assisted in the death of one of our nation's own law enforcement officers. We all know that criminals, by definition, break the law. So, all that this program does is entrap law abiding gun owners, taking away their ability to properly defend themselves.
As a member of both the Gun Owners of America and Democrats for Gun Ownership, I ask that you, as acting director of the ATF, allow more public transparency and congressional access into Operation Gunrunner. I appreciate any feedback or additional information that you may have on this issue. I hope to hear from you soon. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Aaron D. Yeargan
aaron.yeargan@gmail.com
CC: The Office of the Honorable Eric J. Holder, Attorney General of the United States;
The Office of the Honorable Mike McIntyre (D-NC07), U.S. House of Representatives;
The Honorable Andrew Napolitano;
The Honorable Susan N. Herman, President, American Civil Liberties Union;
Mr. John Velleco, Director of Federal Affairs, Gun Owners of America;
Mr. David M. Lauer, Govermental Affairs Officer, Democrats for Gun Ownership;
Mr. Brooks Nelson, Democratic Freedom Caucus.
Mr. Aaron Biterman, Republican Liberty Caucus;
Mr. Nick Gillespie, Editor-In-Chief, Reason TV;
Mr. Matt Welch, Editor-In-Chief, Reason Magazine.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Rep. Mike McIntyre Discusses Rep. Giffords.
FYI - For my fellow North Carolinians, Congressman Mike McIntyre (D-NC07) discussing Rep. Giffords, personal protection, the need to still meet with constituents, and the importance of open debate.
McIntyre reflects on Tuscon tragedy.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
McIntyre reflects on Tuscon tragedy.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Wayne Root: The Arizona tragedy means we need less gun control, not more!
FYI - Some very good food for thought! 2008 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential Nominee, Wayne Allyn Root, discussing the Arizona shootings and how the answer is less gun control, NOT more. I agree!
-ADY"A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Monday, July 19, 2010
Gun Sales Could Explode In Wake of Supreme Court Ruling on Chicago's Gun Law - ABC News
The Ugly Racial History of Gun Control
FYI - Some good food for thought.
-Aaron
______________________________________________________________________________________
The Ugly Racial History of Gun Control
Credit: TIMES-DISPATCH
By Staff Reports | Times-Dispatch
Published: July 18, 2010
Richmond, Va. --
•Editor's note: In his concurring statement in 'McDonald v. Chicago' -- the Supreme Court case affirming that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right to own firearms -- Justice Clarence Thomas discussed the history of gun-control laws, whose purpose was to stifle the rights of minorities and to prevent African-Americans from defending themselves against the likes of the Ku Klux Klan. Excerpts from Thomas' opinion appear below.
In the contentious years leading up to the Civil War, those who sought to retain the institution of slavery found that to do so, it was necessary to eliminate more and more of the basic liberties of slaves, free blacks, and white abolitionists. Congressman Tobias Plants explained that slaveholders "could not hold [slaves] safely where dissent was permitted," so they decided that "all dissent must be suppressed by the strong hand of power."
The measures they used were ruthless, repressed virtually every right recognized in the Constitution, and demonstrated that preventing only discriminatory state firearms restrictions would have been a hollow assurance for liberty. Public reaction indicates that the American people understood this point. The overarching goal of pro-slavery forces was to repress the spread of abolitionist thought and the concomitant risk of a slave rebellion.
Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the extent to which fear of a slave uprising gripped slaveholders and dictated the acts of Southern legislatures. Slaves and free blacks represented a substantial percentage of the population and posed a severe threat to Southern order if they were not kept in their place. According to the 1860 Census, slaves represented one quarter or more of the population in 11 of the 15 slave States, nearly half the population in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana, and more than 50 percent of the population in Mississippi and South Carolina.
. . .
The Southern fear of slave rebellion was not unfounded. Although there were others, two particularly notable slave uprisings heavily influenced slaveholders in the South. In 1822, a group of free blacks and slaves led by Denmark Vesey planned a rebellion in which they would slay their masters and flee to Haiti. The plan was foiled, leading to the swift arrest of 130 blacks, and the execution of 37, including Vesey.
Still, slaveowners took notice -- it was reportedly feared that as many as 6,600 to 9,000 slaves and free blacks were involved in the plot. A few years later, the fear of rebellion was realized. An uprising led by Nat Turner took the lives of at least 57 whites before it was suppressed.
The fear generated by these and other rebellions led Southern legislatures to take particularly vicious aim at the rights of free blacks and slaves to speak or to keep and bear arms for their defense. Teaching slaves to read (even the Bible) was a criminal offense punished severely in some States. Virginia made it a crime for a member of an "abolition" society to enter the State and argue "that the owners of slaves have no property in the same, or advocate or advise the abolition of slavery."
Other States prohibited the circulation of literature denying a master's right to property in his slaves and passed laws requiring postmasters to inspect the mails in search of such material. Many legislatures amended their laws prohibiting slaves from carrying firearms to apply the prohibition to free blacks as well.
Florida made it the "duty" of white citizen "patrol[s] to search negro houses or other suspected places, for firearms." If they found any firearms, the patrols were to take the offending slave or free black "to the nearest justice of the peace," whereupon he would be "severely punished" by "whipping on the bare back, not exceeding 39 lashes," unless he could give a "plain and satisfactory" explanation of how he came to possess the gun.
. . .
Southern blacks were not alone in facing threats to their personal liberty and security during the antebellum era. Mob violence in many Northern cities presented dangers as well . . .
After the Civil War, Southern anxiety about an uprising among the newly freed slaves peaked. As Representative Thaddeus Stevens is reported to have said, "[W]hen it was first proposed to free the slaves, and arm the blacks, did not half the nation tremble? The prim conservatives, the snobs, and the male waiting-maids in Congress, were in hysterics."
As the Court explains, this fear led to "systematic efforts" in the "old Confederacy" to disarm the more than 180,000 freedmen who had served in the Union Army, as well as other free blacks. Some States formally prohibited blacks from possessing firearms. Others enacted legislation prohibiting blacks from carrying firearms without a license, a restriction not imposed on whites. Additionally, "[T]hroughout the South, armed parties, often consisting of ex-Confederate soldiers serving in the state militias, forcibly took firearms from newly freed slaves."
As the Court makes crystal clear, if the Fourteenth Amendment "had outlawed only those laws that discriminate on the basis of race or previous condition of servitude, African-Americans in the South would likely have remained vulnerable to attack by many of their worst abusers: the state militia and state peace officers."
In the years following the Civil War, a law banning firearm possession outright "would have been nondiscriminatory only in the formal sense," for it would have "left firearms in the hands of the militia and local peace officers."
Evidence suggests that the public understood this at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. The publicly circulated Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction extensively detailed these abuses, and statements by citizens indicate that they looked to the Committee to provide a federal solution to this problem.
. . .
One way in which the Federal Government responded was to issue military orders countermanding Southern arms legislation . . . .The significance of these steps was not lost on those they were designed to protect. After one such order was issued, The Christian Recorder, published by the African Methodist Episcopal Church, published the following editorial:
"We have several times alluded to the fact that the Constitution of the United States, guaranties to every citizen the right to keep and bear arms . . . .All men, without the distinction of color, have the right to keep arms to defend their homes, families, or themselves.
"We are glad to learn that [the] Commissioner for this State . . . has given freedmen to understand that they have as good a right to keep fire arms as any other citizens. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and we will be governed by that at present."
The same month, The Loyal Georgian carried a letter to the editor asking "Have colored persons a right to own and carry fire arms? -- A Colored Citizen." The editors responded as follows:
"Almost every day, we are asked questions similar to the above. We answer certainly you have the same right to own and carry fire arms that other citizens have. You are not only free but citizens of the United States and, as such, entitled to the same privileges granted to other citizens by the Constitution of the United States . . . ."
These statements are consistent with the arguments of abolitionists during the antebellum era that slavery, and the slave States' efforts to retain it, violated the constitutional rights of individuals -- rights the abolitionists described as among the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The problem abolitionists sought to remedy was that, under Dred Scott, blacks were not entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens under the Federal Constitution and that, in many States, whatever inalienable rights state law recognized did not apply to blacks . . . .
Cruikshank's holding that blacks could look only to state governments for protection of their right to keep and bear arms enabled private forces, often with the assistance of local governments, to subjugate the newly freed slaves and their descendants through a wave of private violence designed to drive blacks from the voting booth and force them into peonage, an effective return to slavery. Without federal enforcement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, these militias and mobs were tragically successful in waging a campaign of terror against the very people the Fourteenth Amendment had just made citizens.
Take, for example, the Hamburg Massacre of 1876.There, a white citizen militia sought out and murdered a troop of black militiamen for no other reason than that they had dared to conduct a celebratory Fourth of July parade through their mostly black town. The white militia commander, "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman, later described this massacre with pride: "[T]he leading white men of Edgefield" had decided "to seize the first opportunity that the negroes might offer them to provoke a riot and teach the negroes a lesson by having the whites demonstrate their superiority by killing as many of them as was justifiable."
. . .
Organized terrorism like that perpetuated by Tillman and his cohorts proliferated in the absence of federal enforcement of constitutional rights. Militias such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, the White Brotherhood, the Pale Faces, and the '76 Association spread terror among blacks and white Republicans by breaking up Republican meetings, threatening political leaders, and whipping black militiamen. These groups raped, murdered, lynched, and robbed as a means of intimidating, and instilling pervasive fear in, those whom they despised.
Although Congress enacted legislation to suppress these activities, Klan tactics remained a constant presence in the lives of Southern blacks for decades. Between 1882 and 1968, there were at least 3,446 reported lynchings of blacks in the South. They were tortured and killed for a wide array of alleged crimes, without even the slightest hint of due process. Emmit Till, for example, was killed in 1955 for allegedly whistling at a white woman. The fates of other targets of mob violence were equally depraved.
The use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence. As Eli Cooper, one target of such violence, is said to have explained, "[T]he Negro has been run over for fifty years, but it must stop now, and pistols and shotguns are the only weapons to stop a mob."
Sometimes, as in Cooper's case, self defense did not succeed. He was dragged from his home by a mob and killed as his wife looked on. But at other times, the use of firearms allowed targets of mob violence to survive. One man recalled the night during his childhood when his father stood armed at a jail until morning to ward off lynchers. The experience left him with a sense, "not of powerlessness," but of the "possibilities of salvation" that came from standing up to intimidation
In my view, the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood --just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did -- that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty. The record makes equally plain that they deemed this right necessary to include in the minimum baseline of federal rights that the Privileges or Immunities Clause established in the wake of the War over slavery
-Aaron
______________________________________________________________________________________
The Ugly Racial History of Gun Control
Credit: TIMES-DISPATCH
By Staff Reports | Times-Dispatch
Published: July 18, 2010
Richmond, Va. --
•Editor's note: In his concurring statement in 'McDonald v. Chicago' -- the Supreme Court case affirming that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right to own firearms -- Justice Clarence Thomas discussed the history of gun-control laws, whose purpose was to stifle the rights of minorities and to prevent African-Americans from defending themselves against the likes of the Ku Klux Klan. Excerpts from Thomas' opinion appear below.
In the contentious years leading up to the Civil War, those who sought to retain the institution of slavery found that to do so, it was necessary to eliminate more and more of the basic liberties of slaves, free blacks, and white abolitionists. Congressman Tobias Plants explained that slaveholders "could not hold [slaves] safely where dissent was permitted," so they decided that "all dissent must be suppressed by the strong hand of power."
The measures they used were ruthless, repressed virtually every right recognized in the Constitution, and demonstrated that preventing only discriminatory state firearms restrictions would have been a hollow assurance for liberty. Public reaction indicates that the American people understood this point. The overarching goal of pro-slavery forces was to repress the spread of abolitionist thought and the concomitant risk of a slave rebellion.
Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the extent to which fear of a slave uprising gripped slaveholders and dictated the acts of Southern legislatures. Slaves and free blacks represented a substantial percentage of the population and posed a severe threat to Southern order if they were not kept in their place. According to the 1860 Census, slaves represented one quarter or more of the population in 11 of the 15 slave States, nearly half the population in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana, and more than 50 percent of the population in Mississippi and South Carolina.
. . .
The Southern fear of slave rebellion was not unfounded. Although there were others, two particularly notable slave uprisings heavily influenced slaveholders in the South. In 1822, a group of free blacks and slaves led by Denmark Vesey planned a rebellion in which they would slay their masters and flee to Haiti. The plan was foiled, leading to the swift arrest of 130 blacks, and the execution of 37, including Vesey.
Still, slaveowners took notice -- it was reportedly feared that as many as 6,600 to 9,000 slaves and free blacks were involved in the plot. A few years later, the fear of rebellion was realized. An uprising led by Nat Turner took the lives of at least 57 whites before it was suppressed.
The fear generated by these and other rebellions led Southern legislatures to take particularly vicious aim at the rights of free blacks and slaves to speak or to keep and bear arms for their defense. Teaching slaves to read (even the Bible) was a criminal offense punished severely in some States. Virginia made it a crime for a member of an "abolition" society to enter the State and argue "that the owners of slaves have no property in the same, or advocate or advise the abolition of slavery."
Other States prohibited the circulation of literature denying a master's right to property in his slaves and passed laws requiring postmasters to inspect the mails in search of such material. Many legislatures amended their laws prohibiting slaves from carrying firearms to apply the prohibition to free blacks as well.
Florida made it the "duty" of white citizen "patrol[s] to search negro houses or other suspected places, for firearms." If they found any firearms, the patrols were to take the offending slave or free black "to the nearest justice of the peace," whereupon he would be "severely punished" by "whipping on the bare back, not exceeding 39 lashes," unless he could give a "plain and satisfactory" explanation of how he came to possess the gun.
. . .
Southern blacks were not alone in facing threats to their personal liberty and security during the antebellum era. Mob violence in many Northern cities presented dangers as well . . .
After the Civil War, Southern anxiety about an uprising among the newly freed slaves peaked. As Representative Thaddeus Stevens is reported to have said, "[W]hen it was first proposed to free the slaves, and arm the blacks, did not half the nation tremble? The prim conservatives, the snobs, and the male waiting-maids in Congress, were in hysterics."
As the Court explains, this fear led to "systematic efforts" in the "old Confederacy" to disarm the more than 180,000 freedmen who had served in the Union Army, as well as other free blacks. Some States formally prohibited blacks from possessing firearms. Others enacted legislation prohibiting blacks from carrying firearms without a license, a restriction not imposed on whites. Additionally, "[T]hroughout the South, armed parties, often consisting of ex-Confederate soldiers serving in the state militias, forcibly took firearms from newly freed slaves."
As the Court makes crystal clear, if the Fourteenth Amendment "had outlawed only those laws that discriminate on the basis of race or previous condition of servitude, African-Americans in the South would likely have remained vulnerable to attack by many of their worst abusers: the state militia and state peace officers."
In the years following the Civil War, a law banning firearm possession outright "would have been nondiscriminatory only in the formal sense," for it would have "left firearms in the hands of the militia and local peace officers."
Evidence suggests that the public understood this at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. The publicly circulated Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction extensively detailed these abuses, and statements by citizens indicate that they looked to the Committee to provide a federal solution to this problem.
. . .
One way in which the Federal Government responded was to issue military orders countermanding Southern arms legislation . . . .The significance of these steps was not lost on those they were designed to protect. After one such order was issued, The Christian Recorder, published by the African Methodist Episcopal Church, published the following editorial:
"We have several times alluded to the fact that the Constitution of the United States, guaranties to every citizen the right to keep and bear arms . . . .All men, without the distinction of color, have the right to keep arms to defend their homes, families, or themselves.
"We are glad to learn that [the] Commissioner for this State . . . has given freedmen to understand that they have as good a right to keep fire arms as any other citizens. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and we will be governed by that at present."
The same month, The Loyal Georgian carried a letter to the editor asking "Have colored persons a right to own and carry fire arms? -- A Colored Citizen." The editors responded as follows:
"Almost every day, we are asked questions similar to the above. We answer certainly you have the same right to own and carry fire arms that other citizens have. You are not only free but citizens of the United States and, as such, entitled to the same privileges granted to other citizens by the Constitution of the United States . . . ."
These statements are consistent with the arguments of abolitionists during the antebellum era that slavery, and the slave States' efforts to retain it, violated the constitutional rights of individuals -- rights the abolitionists described as among the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The problem abolitionists sought to remedy was that, under Dred Scott, blacks were not entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens under the Federal Constitution and that, in many States, whatever inalienable rights state law recognized did not apply to blacks . . . .
Cruikshank's holding that blacks could look only to state governments for protection of their right to keep and bear arms enabled private forces, often with the assistance of local governments, to subjugate the newly freed slaves and their descendants through a wave of private violence designed to drive blacks from the voting booth and force them into peonage, an effective return to slavery. Without federal enforcement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, these militias and mobs were tragically successful in waging a campaign of terror against the very people the Fourteenth Amendment had just made citizens.
Take, for example, the Hamburg Massacre of 1876.There, a white citizen militia sought out and murdered a troop of black militiamen for no other reason than that they had dared to conduct a celebratory Fourth of July parade through their mostly black town. The white militia commander, "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman, later described this massacre with pride: "[T]he leading white men of Edgefield" had decided "to seize the first opportunity that the negroes might offer them to provoke a riot and teach the negroes a lesson by having the whites demonstrate their superiority by killing as many of them as was justifiable."
. . .
Organized terrorism like that perpetuated by Tillman and his cohorts proliferated in the absence of federal enforcement of constitutional rights. Militias such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, the White Brotherhood, the Pale Faces, and the '76 Association spread terror among blacks and white Republicans by breaking up Republican meetings, threatening political leaders, and whipping black militiamen. These groups raped, murdered, lynched, and robbed as a means of intimidating, and instilling pervasive fear in, those whom they despised.
Although Congress enacted legislation to suppress these activities, Klan tactics remained a constant presence in the lives of Southern blacks for decades. Between 1882 and 1968, there were at least 3,446 reported lynchings of blacks in the South. They were tortured and killed for a wide array of alleged crimes, without even the slightest hint of due process. Emmit Till, for example, was killed in 1955 for allegedly whistling at a white woman. The fates of other targets of mob violence were equally depraved.
The use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence. As Eli Cooper, one target of such violence, is said to have explained, "[T]he Negro has been run over for fifty years, but it must stop now, and pistols and shotguns are the only weapons to stop a mob."
Sometimes, as in Cooper's case, self defense did not succeed. He was dragged from his home by a mob and killed as his wife looked on. But at other times, the use of firearms allowed targets of mob violence to survive. One man recalled the night during his childhood when his father stood armed at a jail until morning to ward off lynchers. The experience left him with a sense, "not of powerlessness," but of the "possibilities of salvation" that came from standing up to intimidation
In my view, the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood --just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did -- that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty. The record makes equally plain that they deemed this right necessary to include in the minimum baseline of federal rights that the Privileges or Immunities Clause established in the wake of the War over slavery
Sunday, July 4, 2010
A 2nd Amendment Victory! Libertarians Pleased By Ruling On Gun Rights
Press Release
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Libertarians pleased by ruling on gun rights
WASHINGTON - Following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on gun control in the McDonald v. Chicago case, Libertarian National Committee Chairman Mark Hinkle issued the following statement today:
"We are very pleased that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects individuals from state governments wishing to violate their right to own handguns.
"Libertarians have always firmly supported the individual right of self-defense.
"Now there is some hope that Chicago's horrible violent crime problem can be reduced by law-abiding citizens who will now be able to deter and resist criminals. More guns = less crime.
"It is disturbing that four justices voted to uphold Chicago's gun ban. Their position is an attempt to pursue a policy goal from the bench, not to apply the Constitution -- and to make matters worse, it is a policy goal that would be very harmful to the people of Chicago, and potentially to everyone in America.
"This ruling follows the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling, which overturned D.C.'s ban on handguns. That case was originally brought by Dick Heller, Libertarian Party member and treasurer of the D.C. Libertarian Party.
"We hope that this ruling will lead to further court decisions that reduce the government's ability to infringe on gun rights with burdensome restrictions and red tape.
"Republicans and Democrats both deserve blame for violating gun rights. While Republicans often position themselves as Second Amendment defenders, it is worth noting major examples to the contrary:
"Republican 2008 presidential nominee John McCain received an F- rating from Gun Owners of America;
"Republican president George W. Bush supported a program called Project Safe Neighborhoods that sought to toughen and federalize prosecution of gun control laws;
"When he was running for Massachusetts Governor in 2002, Republican Mitt Romney said, 'We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them; I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.';
"In 1991, former Republican President Ronald Reagan announced his support for the Brady federal gun control bill."
The Libertarian candidate for New York Governor, Warren Redlich, has commented that the ruling will affect New York gun control laws. On June 28 Redlich wrote, "This landmark ruling will require New York State to take immediate action to amend its gun laws so they do not violate the constitution. It is a striking victory for gun owners and for anyone who believes in the fundamental rights the constitution provides."
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222. For more information on the Libertarian Party, please visit http://www.lp.org
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Victory for concealed carry on campus
Victory for concealed carry on campus
Friends,
Despite the looming specter of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, attempts to ban all private firearm sales and establish a national gun registry, gun rights activist do have cause to celebrate.
The increasingly acrimonious battle over right to carry on campus is becoming a winning battle ground for gun rights activists.
Just last week the National Association for Gun Rights and our Colorado ally, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (I serve as Executive Director of both organizations), scored a decisive victory for concealed carry on campus. Working with Students for Concealed Carry on Campus at CSU, our attorney filed suit against Colorado State University over their attempt to ban self-defense on campus.
Under pressure from the lawsuit and a recent appeals court ruling that overturned a similar ban at the University of Colorado, CSU officials rescinded their anti-gun policy.
In light of CSU’s decision, the Colorado Community College system released a statement acknowledging that students, faculty, and citizens have the legal authority to defend themselves on community college campuses across the state.
It is outrageous that these universities and secondary education facilities would try to make students and faculty into potential victims, especially when their policy is in direct contradiction to existing state law.
I believe that over the next several years we’re going to see the right-to-carry on campus being pushed across the country.
Rest assured, the National Association for Gun Rights will continue to be a leader for the self-defense rights of students and faculty across the country.
Please know that is was you – the donors, members and activists – who made this possible. So give yourself a quick pat on the back, then roll up your sleeves, and let’s continue to work for freedom.
Keep up the fight,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
NRA-ILA :: NRA-Backed Second Amendment Enforcement Act Introduced in U.S. Congress
A great step forward in protecting 2nd Amendment Rights! Call, write, or e-mail your Congressman and Senators and urge them to support this piece of legislation!
NRA-ILA :: NRA-Backed Second Amendment Enforcement Act Introduced in U.S. Congress
NRA-ILA :: NRA-Backed Second Amendment Enforcement Act Introduced in U.S. Congress
Monday, March 15, 2010
Tell Congress To Say "NO!" To The U.N. Small Arms Treaty!!!
Entering into a treaty like this could infringe on U.S. sovereignty, privacy, and 2ND Amendment rights! Write your representative and senators and/or visit the below web link and TAKE ACTION TODAY!!!
http://campaigns.ratepoint.com/campaigns/0542406fcc13296d75333cc234d2ff6c?r=6d3ceeef39756cb1ae396e9ad290daec
-Aaron
http://campaigns.ratepoint.com/campaigns/0542406fcc13296d75333cc234d2ff6c?r=6d3ceeef39756cb1ae396e9ad290daec
-Aaron
Monday, January 11, 2010
Tennessee Gubernatorial Candidates Answer Questions About Guns
FYI...a little food for thought for my Tennessee readers via Mr. Richard Locker @ The Memphis Commericial Appeal. You can also view the online/web version of this article at http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/jan/10/tennessee-gubernatorial-candidates-answer-question/
-Aaron
_____________________________________________________________________________________
One in a series of question-and-answer sessions about specific topics with Tennessee gubernatorial candidates:
1. A Nashville judge has struck down as “unconstitutionally vague” the law passed by the legislature in 2009 allowing people with handgun-carry permits to take guns into places serving alcohol. The bill’s sponsors say they will ask the legislature to approve a new version. Do you support or oppose a bill to allow handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into places that serve alcohol?
Jim Kyle
Kim McMillan
Mike McWherter
Bill Gibbons
Bill Haslam
Ron Ramsey
Zach Wamp
Democrats:
Jim Kyle:
I strongly oppose it. Even in the Wild West you had to check your firearms at the door of the saloons. In the 21st century we should have the common sense to know that guns and alcohol do not mix.
Kim McMillan:
I oppose allowing individuals taking guns into places that serve alcohol. It’s just not a good idea to encourage taking loaded weapons into places where alcohol is served. Having a loaded gun readily accessibly to someone whose judgment could be impaired isn’t safe for anyone including innocent bystanders. Guns and alcohol just don’t mix.
Mike McWherter:
I strongly believe that guns and alcohol simply don’t mix. That’s just common sense, and I think most Tennesseans would agree. I do think it’s important that with any new legislation there should be attempts to seek common ground in an effort to build consensus. But the reality is that there is a clear difference between a family restaurant like Applebee’s at 3 o’clock in the afternoon and a honky-tonk at midnight. Whatever bill the legislature comes up with should do more to acknowledge those sorts of differences.
Republicans:
Bill Gibbons:
As a district attorney, I am the only candidate for governor who, as part of my job, actually supports citizens’ legitimate exercise of their Second Amendment rights. On over twenty occasions in the last two years, the Shelby County DA’s office has concluded that citizens were justified in using deadly force with a firearm. Most of these cases involved home break-ins. As DA in Shelby County, I’ve seen far too many cases involving the deadly combination of guns and alcohol. Allowing guns in establishments that serve alcohol is simply a bad idea. I’m convinced the vast majority of Tennesseans agree with me on that. If the General Assembly enacts a new version, it is important that it give (bar and restaurant) owners the freedom to “opt out” and still prohibit guns in their establishments.
Bill Haslam:
I support the legislative goal of the bill and encourage the General Assembly to approve a new version.
Ron Ramsey:
As the author of legislation that created state-issued handgun carry permits in Tennessee, I support allowing permit holders to take their handgun into restaurants that serve alcohol. Permit holders face a severe penalty if they consume alcohol while carrying a firearm. To obtain a permit, a citizen must be fingerprinted, pass a background check, and pass a test to measure accuracy — it’s a strong standard. These citizens are likely to prevent crime, not commit it.
Zach Wamp:
This law certainly needs to be perfected, but I support Second Amendment rights that allow law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally carry handguns for personal protection to take their guns with them. Right to carry laws help make Tennessee and law-abiding Tennesseans more safe and secure, and restaurants that serve alcohol should not be exempted from the law because we should not pick or predict where law-abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against violent criminals.
2. The legislature approved a law last year allowing handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into city, county and state parks — but it gave city councils and county commissions authority to designate one, some or all of their parks off limits to guns. Gun advocacy groups and some legislators say they will ask the legislature to remove the authority of local governments to “opt out” of the law — in effect, opening all local parks to guns whether local governments want that or not. First, do you support or oppose repealing the law that allows guns in state parks? And do you support or oppose removing the “opt-out” provision for local government?
Democrats:
Kyle:
My son and I have had great times together hunting and those memories that will last a lifetime. I respect and believe in the Second Amendment right of the people, but I do not believe there is a place for guns in parks. I am proud of Tennessee’s state parks, which are consistently recognized as some of the safest in the nation. Citizens elect local governments to make decisions for their communities. To take that decision-making ability away and put it in the hands of special interests is not in the best interest of our communities or the families that live there.
McMillan:
While I don’t believe that guns should be allowed in areas where families and children go to play, repealing the “guns in parks” legislation would probably not be a priority as long as the opt-out portion of the law is in place. However, I believe this legislation would work better for all interested parties if the law had an opt-in provision rather than an opt-out provision. The difference, obviously, is that local governments would retain control over their parks without having to take some affirmative action. The bottom line is that local governments should have that control and an opt-out provision is the least we must afford if this law remains in effect.
McWherter:
I supported the 2009 legislation as it was passed. I believe it is important for local governments to make decisions about what’s best for their respective parks. After all, common sense dictates that there is a big difference between a secluded, wooded state park and a little league baseball park. I would not be in favor of removing the “opt-out” provision for local governments.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
I support the legislation as it is currently written. I believe local communities should be allowed to decide whether or not to have guns in their local parks.
Haslam:
I support the new law allowing handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into parks and I would oppose its repeal. I also favor giving local communities as much autonomy as possible. I’m proud of the fact that Knoxville is the only big city in the state where there is no criminal penalty for legal gun permit holders carrying in parks.
Ramsey:
I oppose the repeal of the 2009 law.
I do not support an opt-out provision and believe we need as much as possible to pursue uniform statewide firearm rights protections that are easy to follow and not overly burdensome on law-abiding gun owners.
Wamp:
I oppose repealing the 2009 law because we should not pick and predict where law abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against violent criminals. A park is just like any other public place and the same rule should apply to parks that apply elsewhere. While I would support an “opt-out” provision for local governments, I would not vote to opt out on this law because it keeps Tennesseans safe. But just as there is a separation of powers between the federal and state governments, there is also a separation of powers between state and local governments. If a local government wants to opt out, they should be allowed to do so.
3. The legislature last year delayed action until 2010 on a bill requiring businesses to allow employees with handgun-carry permits to take their guns onto the company’s parking lot if the gun is left in the employee’s locked car. Gun advocacy groups support the bill. A coalition of business groups opposed the bill. Do you support or oppose the bill?
Democrats:
Kyle:
Private property is just that, private property. Any business should be able to say they do not want guns on their property. We should not make that decision for them.
McMillan:
I am always in favor of allowing property owners, including business owners, to decide the best use of, and security for, their property. I trust business owners to know what is best for their business, their employees and their customers. I am in favor of businesses making decisions about whether employees should be able to enter the premises with or without guns.
McWherter:
Once again, I would hope that the legislature would consider a common sense approach to addressing this issue. In principle, I believe that businesses should have the right to determine whether or not to ban guns from their premises, while on balance I would hope that businesses would take into consideration what’s in the best interests and convenience of their employees.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
As part of basic property rights, businesses should retain the right to prohibit employees from bringing guns onto business property.
Haslam:
I am a strong supporter of both gun and property rights, and I understand the importance of carefully considering specific circumstances when these rights conflict. For many employees, particularly those who work at night or travel through high-crime areas, the ability to keep their gun in their car is important to their safety. I support allowing a legal carrier to keep a gun locked up inside his or her own car while at work.
Ramsey:
I support the bill. Permit-holding citizens are some of our safest, most responsible citizens and their constitutional rights should not expire at the entrance to a parking lot. Asking a citizen to give up his or her safety and constitutional rights en route from home to work is an unreasonable burden. Our state recently saw the most brutal torture-slaying in Tennessee history — and it began with a carjacking. I cannot in good conscience ask law-abiding men and women to give up their right to self-defense in the workplace or anywhere else.
Wamp:
I support this bill. I support allowing law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally-carry handguns for personal protection to take their legal guns with them in their vehicles. We should not pick or predict when or where law-abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against violent criminals.
4. The legislature also enacted the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act last year, which declares that guns made in Tennessee and sold in Tennessee are not subject to federal firearms laws and regulations. In July, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) notified all federally-licensed firearms dealers in Tennessee that federal law supercedes the new state law and all existing federal laws and regulations applying to gun sales are unchanged in Tennessee. Do you support or oppose the Firearms Freedom Act? Should the act be repealed?
Democrats:
Kyle:
I support the Second Amendment, but I also support federal law and regulations applying to gun sales. Yes, I believe the act should be repealed. I believe law-abiding citizens have the right to own guns and to defend their families, but I think gun laws are in place to help keep those same families safe.
McMillan:
There is a long-standing and well-recognized series of legal cases determining when federal law supersedes state law. It isn’t simply a matter of preference or politics. Unless and until federal law recognizes the state’s ability to regulate in this area, federal law will generally rule. Supporting, opposing or repealing the Firearms Freedom Act will not change the outcome.
McWherter:
I agree that federal law supercedes state law in this instance, and as such I would not support legislation that the federal government has deemed invalid.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
This is an example of why we should be careful to examine the consequences of legislative action. Thank goodness we have tough federal laws dealing with the possession of firearms by convicted felons. Under federal law, they face tough sentences with no parole. On the other hand, state law on this subject is very weak. If the result of the act is to eliminate tough federal sentences for convicted felons caught with guns made in Tennessee, then we need to repeal it.
Haslam:
In general, I want to see Tennesseans setting their own rules as much as possible. The Tenth Amendment is an important and neglected part of our country’s constitution. And as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the individual’s right to bear arms, I can certainly understand the concern over whether the Administration in Washington shares our view of gun rights. I’m not a lawyer, but I hope we can get legal confirmation of the constitutionality of our new law.
Ramsey:
I support the Firearms Freedom Act and it should not be repealed. The Act pertains to firearms and ammunition that are not involved in interstate commerce. The purpose of the FFA is to allow a state regulatory role but not a federal one — a proper division consistent with the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution.
Wamp:
I fully support the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act. The act was passed by large margins in both the State House and State Senate, and although the ATF has said that federal law supercedes here, this is a clear case of the overreach of the federal government. I believe that the ATF has no business telling Tennessee-licensed firearm dealers that federal law supercedes our state law in this case. I am proud that Tennessee has taken a lead on this issue.
5. A bill that would close public access to all information in public records identifying people with handgun-carry permits failed in the legislature by one vote this year. Its supporters say they will ask the General Assembly to try again. Do you support or oppose closing these records to the public? Do you support or oppose a bill that would prohibit Internet posting of searchable databases of gun-carry permit holders?
Democrats:
Kyle: I believe gun-carry permit records should be open to the public and the media. Open records provide a system of checks and balances for all of us. Though I do not believe individual’s private information, such as social security numbers and addresses, should be posted on Web sites simply because they have a gun-carry permit.
McMillan:
As my record shows, I have always been in favor of open government and accountability. The key here is that these are “public” records and, as such, I believe the public has a right to access them.
McWherter:
I strongly agree with the bipartisan principle that these records should continue to remain public. However, I feel that posting a searchable database on a Web site would invade the privacy of permit holders
Republicans:
Gibbons:
I support limited public access to this information for the purpose of determining whether a particular individual has a permit. I oppose the mass disclosure or dissemination of the database, whether it be to the press or to candidates or groups for political purposes.
Haslam:
Gun-carry permit holders should be able to exercise their constitutionally-protected rights without sacrificing their privacy. Providing a list to the public containing every household that possesses a gun is a bad idea and poses a public safety risk.
Ramsey:
I do not support closing these records to the public. I certainly oppose legislation which would allow a searchable database. Such legislation would, at the click of a mouse, allow gun carrying criminals to know who does not have a permit and make more citizens targets for home invasion.
Wamp:
I signed on to a letter earlier this year with Congressman Blackburn asking that these records not be published due to concerns about individual privacy rights. Right-to-carry permits for law-abiding citizens and the protection of their individual liberties and privacy rights should be protected.
6. Bills have been filed in the legislature allowing handgun carry permit holders to carry their guns on college and university campuses. Do you support or oppose this bill?
Democrats:
Kyle:
Oppose. College campuses should provide a safe learning environment for all students. There is no need for guns on college and university campuses.
McMillan:
I have always fought any proposed legislation or policy that would allow guns in an educational environment. Whether it’s a rural elementary school, an urban high school or a college campus, meaningful education can only happen in a place where students feel safe. College campuses are no exception to this rule. As a faculty member of a state university, I can assure you that a college campus is no place for handguns.
McWherter:
Given the fact that many colleges and universities are home to teens barely out of high school, I would oppose any blanket attempt to allow handguns on our campuses. As parents, we have enough to worry about with our children being away from home and subject to new experiences. To compound those concerns by allowing guns in dorms and in other areas where students might congregate seems irresponsible
Republicans:
Gibbons:
Allowing firearms on college campuses is not a good idea. Whether we like it or not, social activities on many college campuses end up involving alcohol. Allowing firearms on campuses would increase the probability of an unfortunate mix of guns and alcohol. I cannot imagine passing a law that would, in effect, sanction the carrying of firearms at on-campus keg parties. We need to preserve and secure a proper learning environment by making sure campus security personnel are provided with the training and tools to keep campuses safe.
Haslam:
First of all, I oppose a blanket prohibition. While I support making college campuses as safe as possible, I believe that each individual school has that responsibility. College administrators face a complex security situation and need flexibility to set appropriate rules for students, adult employees, and visitors.
Ramsey: I support legislation allowing permit holders to carry guns onto college campuses. First, employees of universities have the same rights to self-protection on their commute as every other employee of every other employer. Second, the list of tragedies that could have been prevented by allowing responsible, licensed, permit holders on college campuses is growing. The carnage at Virginia Tech serves as the most recent example of why we must empower conscientious citizens to aid public safety efforts.
Wamp:
Right-to-carry permits for law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally carry handguns for personal protection should not be exempted from college campuses. Pinpointing a location where law-abiding citizens with a right-to-carry permit cannot be armed could make that location a magnet for more criminal activity. The shootings at Virginia Tech a few years ago were a good example of how law abiding citizens with right-to-carry permits might have prevented or stopped the crazed criminal before he continued to kill.
7. Acting on a request by a member of the Tennessee legislature, the state attorney general issued an advisory opinion in October that says a landlord can prohibit tenants — including those with handgun-carry permits — from possessing firearms within their leased premises. Do you support or oppose changing the law so that landlords could not prohibit tenants from possessing firearms in leased property?
Democrats:
Kyle:
A person’s home is their home, leased or owned. If you have a handgun-carry permit you should be able to keep a gun in your home.
McMillan:
As I’ve said, I favor property owners deciding what is best for their property. As with other business owners, landlords should be able to direct their property’s safety management and this includes whether or not tenants can carry handguns. I would oppose any law that prohibits property owners from making these business decisions.
McWherter:
I view this issue as a property rights matter and as such would not support changing the current law.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
By leasing the property, a property owner is giving up some control over that property to the tenant. A tenant with a carry permit should be allowed to possess a firearm on leased property.
Haslam:
I fundamentally believe that all law-abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves in their own homes, regardless of whether they own or rent.
Ramsey:
I support legislation allowing permit holders to keep their firearm on leased premises.
Wamp:
I support changing this law so that landlords cannot prohibit tenants from possessing legal firearms on leased property. I support allowing law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally carry handguns for personal protection to keep their guns with them. We should not pick or predict where law-abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against criminals.
8. Do you support or oppose stronger penalties in state law — including mandatory jail terms — for people convicted of crimes involving guns?
Democrats:
Kyle:
I have supported enhanced penalties for people who commit crimes involving guns. The Regional Medical Center at Memphis treats $25 million in gunshot wounds yearly. Reduction of gun violence is as much an economic issue as it is a gun issue. We have always accounted for these enhanced penalties through appropriations.
McMillan:
As a member of the legislature, I always supported efforts to increase penalties for crimes committed with the use of a firearm. As a legislator and a member of the Governor’s Cabinet, I worked with members of the legislature from both parties to pass the most comprehensive legislation ever passed focused on increasing the penalties for crimes with guns, known as the “Crooks with Guns” bill. We were able to work together and get the bill passed because we made it a priority. I am proud to have been an instrumental part of this legislation. I believe it’s important to note that the law is necessary and, as with gun legislation in general, was not directed at law-abiding citizens who are licensed to carry a weapon for legal purposes. These laws penalize criminals who not only broke the law but did so without any regard for the lives around them. Public safety and justice demand that we increase penalties in these situations.
McWherter:
In principle, I would support stiffer penalties for criminals caught in the act of using a weapon, but on balance the legislature will need to weigh the matter based on specific merits of a given bill’s language and any fiscal notes that may be attached to such legislation.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
I support and will push for stronger penalties. The very first sentence of our state constitution says that state government exists to insure the peace and safety of the people. Tennessee has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation, most of which is gun-related. One of the biggest reasons is our weak state laws dealing with gun crimes. Under Tennessee law, someone can be convicted of robbery with a gun and be paroled within about two years.! Under our state law, a convicted felon can be convicted of illegally possessing a gun and get probation.! The General Assembly needs to focus more of its time on getting people who commit crimes with guns off the streets and out of our neighborhoods. As governor, this will be one of my top priorities. If it costs more because of the need for more prison space, so be it.! But I’m not convinced that will happen because I think we’ll see a significant drop in the number of violent crimes committed in our state.
Haslam:
I support stronger penalties for all violent crimes. We should review in detail the factors driving the costs of incarceration and look for smarter, more cost-effective systems and procedures.
Ramsey:
I support stronger penalties. Longer periods of incarceration actually decrease the cost to local police departments as they generally re-arrest the same criminals over and over again. However, savings could be achieved by suspending inmate recreation programs. In addition, more inmates should be put to work so they can pay for a greater percentage of their incarceration.
Wamp:
Just as I support protecting the Second amendment rights of law-abiding gun-owners, I strongly support the strict enforcement of laws against violent criminals who misuse firearms. Criminals who commit violent crimes with a gun should have strengthened sentencing guidelines. Violent criminals who commit gun crimes must not be allowed to freely roam our streets.
9. Are there other changes in state gun laws that you advocate?
Democrats:
Kyle:
Gun ownership is a way of life in many small towns across Tennessee. I believe law-abiding citizens have the right to own guns and to defend their families. I do not believe a person previously convicted of a violent crime should be able to get out of prison and go buy a gun. We need to take every step to keep guns safe, out of the hands of children and off school campuses. I will always fight to protect Second Amendment rights for all law-abiding citizens, but I will also fight just as hard to stop criminals from getting guns to harm those citizens.
McMillan:
Given the changes in the laws that offer people the chance to carry handguns into public places, I will recommend a review of the training requirements necessary for obtaining a carry permit. Increased opportunity results in increased responsibility and the state must make sure that the people who receive permits fully understand the appropriate response to situations that may arise while they are armed. As any licensed gun owner will tell you, being responsible requires more than aiming and pulling the trigger. It is in everyone’s best interest to make sure that a carry permit is given to those who have been adequately trained.
McWherter:
Quite frankly, with record unemployment that is hurting so many families across our state, as governor I would devote my energies toward creating new jobs and helping Tennesseans get back to work. While I will always be mindful of legislative initiatives that others may wish to deliberate, my focus would be on turning this economy around first and foremost
Republicans:
Gibbons:
For years, DAs, police chiefs and sheriffs across the state have pushed for tougher sentencing laws for gun crimes, specifically laws eliminating parole or requiring tougher sentences for people convicted of robbery and other violent crimes with a gun, providing enhanced sentences for gang crimes committed with guns, and requiring mandatory sentences for convicted felons in possession of firearms. Enactment of such tougher sentencing laws is also part of the strategic plan initiative in Memphis I chair called Operation: Safe Community. As governor, I will place top priority on getting these needed changes made in our sentencing laws. So far, I am the only candidate for governor who promises to make tougher sentencing laws for gun crimes a top priority. If you want a governor who is determined to strengthen our sentencing laws on gun crimes, I am your clear choice.
Haslam:
Generally, I am in favor of the least amount of restrictions, clearly stated and uniformly enforced.
Ramsey:
I believe we are expanding Second Amendment rights in a very responsible way in Tennessee and the questions above illustrate just that.
Wamp:
Not at this time.
-Aaron
_____________________________________________________________________________________
One in a series of question-and-answer sessions about specific topics with Tennessee gubernatorial candidates:
1. A Nashville judge has struck down as “unconstitutionally vague” the law passed by the legislature in 2009 allowing people with handgun-carry permits to take guns into places serving alcohol. The bill’s sponsors say they will ask the legislature to approve a new version. Do you support or oppose a bill to allow handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into places that serve alcohol?
Jim Kyle
Kim McMillan
Mike McWherter
Bill Gibbons
Bill Haslam
Ron Ramsey
Zach Wamp
Democrats:
Jim Kyle:
I strongly oppose it. Even in the Wild West you had to check your firearms at the door of the saloons. In the 21st century we should have the common sense to know that guns and alcohol do not mix.
Kim McMillan:
I oppose allowing individuals taking guns into places that serve alcohol. It’s just not a good idea to encourage taking loaded weapons into places where alcohol is served. Having a loaded gun readily accessibly to someone whose judgment could be impaired isn’t safe for anyone including innocent bystanders. Guns and alcohol just don’t mix.
Mike McWherter:
I strongly believe that guns and alcohol simply don’t mix. That’s just common sense, and I think most Tennesseans would agree. I do think it’s important that with any new legislation there should be attempts to seek common ground in an effort to build consensus. But the reality is that there is a clear difference between a family restaurant like Applebee’s at 3 o’clock in the afternoon and a honky-tonk at midnight. Whatever bill the legislature comes up with should do more to acknowledge those sorts of differences.
Republicans:
Bill Gibbons:
As a district attorney, I am the only candidate for governor who, as part of my job, actually supports citizens’ legitimate exercise of their Second Amendment rights. On over twenty occasions in the last two years, the Shelby County DA’s office has concluded that citizens were justified in using deadly force with a firearm. Most of these cases involved home break-ins. As DA in Shelby County, I’ve seen far too many cases involving the deadly combination of guns and alcohol. Allowing guns in establishments that serve alcohol is simply a bad idea. I’m convinced the vast majority of Tennesseans agree with me on that. If the General Assembly enacts a new version, it is important that it give (bar and restaurant) owners the freedom to “opt out” and still prohibit guns in their establishments.
Bill Haslam:
I support the legislative goal of the bill and encourage the General Assembly to approve a new version.
Ron Ramsey:
As the author of legislation that created state-issued handgun carry permits in Tennessee, I support allowing permit holders to take their handgun into restaurants that serve alcohol. Permit holders face a severe penalty if they consume alcohol while carrying a firearm. To obtain a permit, a citizen must be fingerprinted, pass a background check, and pass a test to measure accuracy — it’s a strong standard. These citizens are likely to prevent crime, not commit it.
Zach Wamp:
This law certainly needs to be perfected, but I support Second Amendment rights that allow law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally carry handguns for personal protection to take their guns with them. Right to carry laws help make Tennessee and law-abiding Tennesseans more safe and secure, and restaurants that serve alcohol should not be exempted from the law because we should not pick or predict where law-abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against violent criminals.
2. The legislature approved a law last year allowing handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into city, county and state parks — but it gave city councils and county commissions authority to designate one, some or all of their parks off limits to guns. Gun advocacy groups and some legislators say they will ask the legislature to remove the authority of local governments to “opt out” of the law — in effect, opening all local parks to guns whether local governments want that or not. First, do you support or oppose repealing the law that allows guns in state parks? And do you support or oppose removing the “opt-out” provision for local government?
Democrats:
Kyle:
My son and I have had great times together hunting and those memories that will last a lifetime. I respect and believe in the Second Amendment right of the people, but I do not believe there is a place for guns in parks. I am proud of Tennessee’s state parks, which are consistently recognized as some of the safest in the nation. Citizens elect local governments to make decisions for their communities. To take that decision-making ability away and put it in the hands of special interests is not in the best interest of our communities or the families that live there.
McMillan:
While I don’t believe that guns should be allowed in areas where families and children go to play, repealing the “guns in parks” legislation would probably not be a priority as long as the opt-out portion of the law is in place. However, I believe this legislation would work better for all interested parties if the law had an opt-in provision rather than an opt-out provision. The difference, obviously, is that local governments would retain control over their parks without having to take some affirmative action. The bottom line is that local governments should have that control and an opt-out provision is the least we must afford if this law remains in effect.
McWherter:
I supported the 2009 legislation as it was passed. I believe it is important for local governments to make decisions about what’s best for their respective parks. After all, common sense dictates that there is a big difference between a secluded, wooded state park and a little league baseball park. I would not be in favor of removing the “opt-out” provision for local governments.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
I support the legislation as it is currently written. I believe local communities should be allowed to decide whether or not to have guns in their local parks.
Haslam:
I support the new law allowing handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into parks and I would oppose its repeal. I also favor giving local communities as much autonomy as possible. I’m proud of the fact that Knoxville is the only big city in the state where there is no criminal penalty for legal gun permit holders carrying in parks.
Ramsey:
I oppose the repeal of the 2009 law.
I do not support an opt-out provision and believe we need as much as possible to pursue uniform statewide firearm rights protections that are easy to follow and not overly burdensome on law-abiding gun owners.
Wamp:
I oppose repealing the 2009 law because we should not pick and predict where law abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against violent criminals. A park is just like any other public place and the same rule should apply to parks that apply elsewhere. While I would support an “opt-out” provision for local governments, I would not vote to opt out on this law because it keeps Tennesseans safe. But just as there is a separation of powers between the federal and state governments, there is also a separation of powers between state and local governments. If a local government wants to opt out, they should be allowed to do so.
3. The legislature last year delayed action until 2010 on a bill requiring businesses to allow employees with handgun-carry permits to take their guns onto the company’s parking lot if the gun is left in the employee’s locked car. Gun advocacy groups support the bill. A coalition of business groups opposed the bill. Do you support or oppose the bill?
Democrats:
Kyle:
Private property is just that, private property. Any business should be able to say they do not want guns on their property. We should not make that decision for them.
McMillan:
I am always in favor of allowing property owners, including business owners, to decide the best use of, and security for, their property. I trust business owners to know what is best for their business, their employees and their customers. I am in favor of businesses making decisions about whether employees should be able to enter the premises with or without guns.
McWherter:
Once again, I would hope that the legislature would consider a common sense approach to addressing this issue. In principle, I believe that businesses should have the right to determine whether or not to ban guns from their premises, while on balance I would hope that businesses would take into consideration what’s in the best interests and convenience of their employees.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
As part of basic property rights, businesses should retain the right to prohibit employees from bringing guns onto business property.
Haslam:
I am a strong supporter of both gun and property rights, and I understand the importance of carefully considering specific circumstances when these rights conflict. For many employees, particularly those who work at night or travel through high-crime areas, the ability to keep their gun in their car is important to their safety. I support allowing a legal carrier to keep a gun locked up inside his or her own car while at work.
Ramsey:
I support the bill. Permit-holding citizens are some of our safest, most responsible citizens and their constitutional rights should not expire at the entrance to a parking lot. Asking a citizen to give up his or her safety and constitutional rights en route from home to work is an unreasonable burden. Our state recently saw the most brutal torture-slaying in Tennessee history — and it began with a carjacking. I cannot in good conscience ask law-abiding men and women to give up their right to self-defense in the workplace or anywhere else.
Wamp:
I support this bill. I support allowing law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally-carry handguns for personal protection to take their legal guns with them in their vehicles. We should not pick or predict when or where law-abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against violent criminals.
4. The legislature also enacted the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act last year, which declares that guns made in Tennessee and sold in Tennessee are not subject to federal firearms laws and regulations. In July, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) notified all federally-licensed firearms dealers in Tennessee that federal law supercedes the new state law and all existing federal laws and regulations applying to gun sales are unchanged in Tennessee. Do you support or oppose the Firearms Freedom Act? Should the act be repealed?
Democrats:
Kyle:
I support the Second Amendment, but I also support federal law and regulations applying to gun sales. Yes, I believe the act should be repealed. I believe law-abiding citizens have the right to own guns and to defend their families, but I think gun laws are in place to help keep those same families safe.
McMillan:
There is a long-standing and well-recognized series of legal cases determining when federal law supersedes state law. It isn’t simply a matter of preference or politics. Unless and until federal law recognizes the state’s ability to regulate in this area, federal law will generally rule. Supporting, opposing or repealing the Firearms Freedom Act will not change the outcome.
McWherter:
I agree that federal law supercedes state law in this instance, and as such I would not support legislation that the federal government has deemed invalid.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
This is an example of why we should be careful to examine the consequences of legislative action. Thank goodness we have tough federal laws dealing with the possession of firearms by convicted felons. Under federal law, they face tough sentences with no parole. On the other hand, state law on this subject is very weak. If the result of the act is to eliminate tough federal sentences for convicted felons caught with guns made in Tennessee, then we need to repeal it.
Haslam:
In general, I want to see Tennesseans setting their own rules as much as possible. The Tenth Amendment is an important and neglected part of our country’s constitution. And as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the individual’s right to bear arms, I can certainly understand the concern over whether the Administration in Washington shares our view of gun rights. I’m not a lawyer, but I hope we can get legal confirmation of the constitutionality of our new law.
Ramsey:
I support the Firearms Freedom Act and it should not be repealed. The Act pertains to firearms and ammunition that are not involved in interstate commerce. The purpose of the FFA is to allow a state regulatory role but not a federal one — a proper division consistent with the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution.
Wamp:
I fully support the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act. The act was passed by large margins in both the State House and State Senate, and although the ATF has said that federal law supercedes here, this is a clear case of the overreach of the federal government. I believe that the ATF has no business telling Tennessee-licensed firearm dealers that federal law supercedes our state law in this case. I am proud that Tennessee has taken a lead on this issue.
5. A bill that would close public access to all information in public records identifying people with handgun-carry permits failed in the legislature by one vote this year. Its supporters say they will ask the General Assembly to try again. Do you support or oppose closing these records to the public? Do you support or oppose a bill that would prohibit Internet posting of searchable databases of gun-carry permit holders?
Democrats:
Kyle: I believe gun-carry permit records should be open to the public and the media. Open records provide a system of checks and balances for all of us. Though I do not believe individual’s private information, such as social security numbers and addresses, should be posted on Web sites simply because they have a gun-carry permit.
McMillan:
As my record shows, I have always been in favor of open government and accountability. The key here is that these are “public” records and, as such, I believe the public has a right to access them.
McWherter:
I strongly agree with the bipartisan principle that these records should continue to remain public. However, I feel that posting a searchable database on a Web site would invade the privacy of permit holders
Republicans:
Gibbons:
I support limited public access to this information for the purpose of determining whether a particular individual has a permit. I oppose the mass disclosure or dissemination of the database, whether it be to the press or to candidates or groups for political purposes.
Haslam:
Gun-carry permit holders should be able to exercise their constitutionally-protected rights without sacrificing their privacy. Providing a list to the public containing every household that possesses a gun is a bad idea and poses a public safety risk.
Ramsey:
I do not support closing these records to the public. I certainly oppose legislation which would allow a searchable database. Such legislation would, at the click of a mouse, allow gun carrying criminals to know who does not have a permit and make more citizens targets for home invasion.
Wamp:
I signed on to a letter earlier this year with Congressman Blackburn asking that these records not be published due to concerns about individual privacy rights. Right-to-carry permits for law-abiding citizens and the protection of their individual liberties and privacy rights should be protected.
6. Bills have been filed in the legislature allowing handgun carry permit holders to carry their guns on college and university campuses. Do you support or oppose this bill?
Democrats:
Kyle:
Oppose. College campuses should provide a safe learning environment for all students. There is no need for guns on college and university campuses.
McMillan:
I have always fought any proposed legislation or policy that would allow guns in an educational environment. Whether it’s a rural elementary school, an urban high school or a college campus, meaningful education can only happen in a place where students feel safe. College campuses are no exception to this rule. As a faculty member of a state university, I can assure you that a college campus is no place for handguns.
McWherter:
Given the fact that many colleges and universities are home to teens barely out of high school, I would oppose any blanket attempt to allow handguns on our campuses. As parents, we have enough to worry about with our children being away from home and subject to new experiences. To compound those concerns by allowing guns in dorms and in other areas where students might congregate seems irresponsible
Republicans:
Gibbons:
Allowing firearms on college campuses is not a good idea. Whether we like it or not, social activities on many college campuses end up involving alcohol. Allowing firearms on campuses would increase the probability of an unfortunate mix of guns and alcohol. I cannot imagine passing a law that would, in effect, sanction the carrying of firearms at on-campus keg parties. We need to preserve and secure a proper learning environment by making sure campus security personnel are provided with the training and tools to keep campuses safe.
Haslam:
First of all, I oppose a blanket prohibition. While I support making college campuses as safe as possible, I believe that each individual school has that responsibility. College administrators face a complex security situation and need flexibility to set appropriate rules for students, adult employees, and visitors.
Ramsey: I support legislation allowing permit holders to carry guns onto college campuses. First, employees of universities have the same rights to self-protection on their commute as every other employee of every other employer. Second, the list of tragedies that could have been prevented by allowing responsible, licensed, permit holders on college campuses is growing. The carnage at Virginia Tech serves as the most recent example of why we must empower conscientious citizens to aid public safety efforts.
Wamp:
Right-to-carry permits for law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally carry handguns for personal protection should not be exempted from college campuses. Pinpointing a location where law-abiding citizens with a right-to-carry permit cannot be armed could make that location a magnet for more criminal activity. The shootings at Virginia Tech a few years ago were a good example of how law abiding citizens with right-to-carry permits might have prevented or stopped the crazed criminal before he continued to kill.
7. Acting on a request by a member of the Tennessee legislature, the state attorney general issued an advisory opinion in October that says a landlord can prohibit tenants — including those with handgun-carry permits — from possessing firearms within their leased premises. Do you support or oppose changing the law so that landlords could not prohibit tenants from possessing firearms in leased property?
Democrats:
Kyle:
A person’s home is their home, leased or owned. If you have a handgun-carry permit you should be able to keep a gun in your home.
McMillan:
As I’ve said, I favor property owners deciding what is best for their property. As with other business owners, landlords should be able to direct their property’s safety management and this includes whether or not tenants can carry handguns. I would oppose any law that prohibits property owners from making these business decisions.
McWherter:
I view this issue as a property rights matter and as such would not support changing the current law.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
By leasing the property, a property owner is giving up some control over that property to the tenant. A tenant with a carry permit should be allowed to possess a firearm on leased property.
Haslam:
I fundamentally believe that all law-abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves in their own homes, regardless of whether they own or rent.
Ramsey:
I support legislation allowing permit holders to keep their firearm on leased premises.
Wamp:
I support changing this law so that landlords cannot prohibit tenants from possessing legal firearms on leased property. I support allowing law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally carry handguns for personal protection to keep their guns with them. We should not pick or predict where law-abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against criminals.
8. Do you support or oppose stronger penalties in state law — including mandatory jail terms — for people convicted of crimes involving guns?
Democrats:
Kyle:
I have supported enhanced penalties for people who commit crimes involving guns. The Regional Medical Center at Memphis treats $25 million in gunshot wounds yearly. Reduction of gun violence is as much an economic issue as it is a gun issue. We have always accounted for these enhanced penalties through appropriations.
McMillan:
As a member of the legislature, I always supported efforts to increase penalties for crimes committed with the use of a firearm. As a legislator and a member of the Governor’s Cabinet, I worked with members of the legislature from both parties to pass the most comprehensive legislation ever passed focused on increasing the penalties for crimes with guns, known as the “Crooks with Guns” bill. We were able to work together and get the bill passed because we made it a priority. I am proud to have been an instrumental part of this legislation. I believe it’s important to note that the law is necessary and, as with gun legislation in general, was not directed at law-abiding citizens who are licensed to carry a weapon for legal purposes. These laws penalize criminals who not only broke the law but did so without any regard for the lives around them. Public safety and justice demand that we increase penalties in these situations.
McWherter:
In principle, I would support stiffer penalties for criminals caught in the act of using a weapon, but on balance the legislature will need to weigh the matter based on specific merits of a given bill’s language and any fiscal notes that may be attached to such legislation.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
I support and will push for stronger penalties. The very first sentence of our state constitution says that state government exists to insure the peace and safety of the people. Tennessee has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation, most of which is gun-related. One of the biggest reasons is our weak state laws dealing with gun crimes. Under Tennessee law, someone can be convicted of robbery with a gun and be paroled within about two years.! Under our state law, a convicted felon can be convicted of illegally possessing a gun and get probation.! The General Assembly needs to focus more of its time on getting people who commit crimes with guns off the streets and out of our neighborhoods. As governor, this will be one of my top priorities. If it costs more because of the need for more prison space, so be it.! But I’m not convinced that will happen because I think we’ll see a significant drop in the number of violent crimes committed in our state.
Haslam:
I support stronger penalties for all violent crimes. We should review in detail the factors driving the costs of incarceration and look for smarter, more cost-effective systems and procedures.
Ramsey:
I support stronger penalties. Longer periods of incarceration actually decrease the cost to local police departments as they generally re-arrest the same criminals over and over again. However, savings could be achieved by suspending inmate recreation programs. In addition, more inmates should be put to work so they can pay for a greater percentage of their incarceration.
Wamp:
Just as I support protecting the Second amendment rights of law-abiding gun-owners, I strongly support the strict enforcement of laws against violent criminals who misuse firearms. Criminals who commit violent crimes with a gun should have strengthened sentencing guidelines. Violent criminals who commit gun crimes must not be allowed to freely roam our streets.
9. Are there other changes in state gun laws that you advocate?
Democrats:
Kyle:
Gun ownership is a way of life in many small towns across Tennessee. I believe law-abiding citizens have the right to own guns and to defend their families. I do not believe a person previously convicted of a violent crime should be able to get out of prison and go buy a gun. We need to take every step to keep guns safe, out of the hands of children and off school campuses. I will always fight to protect Second Amendment rights for all law-abiding citizens, but I will also fight just as hard to stop criminals from getting guns to harm those citizens.
McMillan:
Given the changes in the laws that offer people the chance to carry handguns into public places, I will recommend a review of the training requirements necessary for obtaining a carry permit. Increased opportunity results in increased responsibility and the state must make sure that the people who receive permits fully understand the appropriate response to situations that may arise while they are armed. As any licensed gun owner will tell you, being responsible requires more than aiming and pulling the trigger. It is in everyone’s best interest to make sure that a carry permit is given to those who have been adequately trained.
McWherter:
Quite frankly, with record unemployment that is hurting so many families across our state, as governor I would devote my energies toward creating new jobs and helping Tennesseans get back to work. While I will always be mindful of legislative initiatives that others may wish to deliberate, my focus would be on turning this economy around first and foremost
Republicans:
Gibbons:
For years, DAs, police chiefs and sheriffs across the state have pushed for tougher sentencing laws for gun crimes, specifically laws eliminating parole or requiring tougher sentences for people convicted of robbery and other violent crimes with a gun, providing enhanced sentences for gang crimes committed with guns, and requiring mandatory sentences for convicted felons in possession of firearms. Enactment of such tougher sentencing laws is also part of the strategic plan initiative in Memphis I chair called Operation: Safe Community. As governor, I will place top priority on getting these needed changes made in our sentencing laws. So far, I am the only candidate for governor who promises to make tougher sentencing laws for gun crimes a top priority. If you want a governor who is determined to strengthen our sentencing laws on gun crimes, I am your clear choice.
Haslam:
Generally, I am in favor of the least amount of restrictions, clearly stated and uniformly enforced.
Ramsey:
I believe we are expanding Second Amendment rights in a very responsible way in Tennessee and the questions above illustrate just that.
Wamp:
Not at this time.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Cory Maye Granted A New Trial!...A MUST READ!!!
Some very good food for thought from The Reason Foundation and Reason TV.
-Aaron
*UPDATE!!! - On Tuesday of this week, the Mississippi State Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Cory Maye. This is heartening news for Maye, who has been in prison since December of 2001. Defense attorney Bob Evans said of the decision, "I am, needless to say, delighted. I'm just ecstatic. We hoped against hope all along that this would happen." Reason senior editor Radley Balko, who has written extensively about the case, had this to say: "At worst, he's guilty of poor judgment under some pretty traumatic circumstances. He had no criminal record, wasn't a drug dealer and has been a model prisoner. Cory Maye isn't a threat to society. Let him go back to Monticello to be a father."
-Aaron
*UPDATE!!! - On Tuesday of this week, the Mississippi State Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Cory Maye. This is heartening news for Maye, who has been in prison since December of 2001. Defense attorney Bob Evans said of the decision, "I am, needless to say, delighted. I'm just ecstatic. We hoped against hope all along that this would happen." Reason senior editor Radley Balko, who has written extensively about the case, had this to say: "At worst, he's guilty of poor judgment under some pretty traumatic circumstances. He had no criminal record, wasn't a drug dealer and has been a model prisoner. Cory Maye isn't a threat to society. Let him go back to Monticello to be a father."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)