Awesome story from a Massachusetts (of all places!) state representative:

The board conducted regular meetings regarding state library budgets, acquisitions, personnel, and maintained the security of the second oldest library in the country. Our duties included the preservation of the commonwealth’s one million book collection, special collection of documents, e.g. Mayflower Compact and the Bradford Manuscript.

The Bradford Manuscript is often described as the diary of the Mayflower’s personnel and passengers and is stored in the State House vault whose exact site is shared with very few individuals. Once we allowed the Plymouth Historical Society to “borrow” it for their 350th anniversary. After six months of negotiations to insure its safety, we sent the document to Plymouth escorted by state troopers. It is now ensconced in the State Archives, Dorchester – under 24-hour guard.

Probably the shortest term served was by a library director who “purged the collection” by throwing out leather-bound books because “we have several copies of those books.”

“What a waste,” I thought. So when I spotted the leather-bound books in a State House hallway Dumpster, I climbed in and retrieved them. I donated several to local collectors and libraries. I confess, I kept one for myself. “The Acts and Resolves of 1779.” Occasionally I would thumb through the book to experience the mind set of legislators in 1779. It was there I learned why the Legislature is often referred to as “The Great and General Court.” There was no court system in 1779 and a wide variety of issues were brought before the Legislature for resolution.

Some years later, the recurring argument of gun control surfaced. A new legislator proposed additional controls on gun ownership.

The debate went on for hours. I remembered the old leather-bound “Dumpster” book . I rushed to my office, found the book and rushed back to the Chamber to join the debate.

The proponent of new gun ownership controls was in hot pursuit of his opponents. I joined the fray. “Mr. Speaker.”

“For what purpose does the lady from Milford rise?”

“To debate, Mr. Speaker.”

And there I was at the podium, “I object to the proposed changes to our gun laws,” I said.

My opponent roared, “On what basis?”

“The second Constitutional amendment… the right to bear arms.” I stated, firmly.

My opponent was relentless. “And where is it written, that a man has the right to a private weapon? Where is that written?”

“I thought you would never ask.” I responded and read from the book’s withered pages:

“Whereas by a Resolve of the General Court of this State, past the 2nd of April 1778, for raising 1300 men for North River, it was among other Things resolved that every person who supply himself with a good firelock and bayonet, cartouche-box, haversack and blanket … shall receive, agreeable to a resolve by the Congress, … two dollars for the use of his firelock, bayonet and cartouche and two dollars for the use of his blanket and four dollars in like proportion for either of them.”

According to the Acts and Resolves of 1779, “after producing proper vouchers they were so provided. It is my considered belief the farmers earned tacit approval of private gun ownership.” In conclusion, I said, “Had not the farmers brought their private weapons to the Revolutionary War we might not be standing here today.”

I called for a roll call vote. The proposal to restrict ownership of private weapons went down in flames.

Additional data (other data is here) to oppose those that would claim the Second Amendment is not a right of the people but instead some sort of “state right”.

Via the encyclopedic gun law brain of Joe Waldron on the Washington CCW email list last Monday:

From 1968 to 1986, all purchasers of handgun ammunition nationwide had to sign a book and provide identification data. It was discontinued because it proved useless as a crime fighting tool.

Not that anyone in the California legislature cares.

Again, the anti-gun bigots not being able to answer Just One Question is no impediment to them infringing on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

After getting their hands slapped for shoddy research with predetermined anti-gun outcomes 13 years ago the NIH is again doing research on gun control topics:

More than a decade after Congress cut funding for firearms research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), another federal health agency has been spending millions of dollars to study such topics as whether teenagers who carry firearms run a different risk of getting shot compared with suffering other sorts of injuries.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also has been financing research to investigate whether having many liquor stores in a neighborhood puts people at greater risk of getting shot.

Such studies are coming under sharp scrutiny by Republican lawmakers who question whether the money could be better spent on biomedical research at a time of increasing competition for NIH funding. They’re also leery of NIH research relating to firearms in general, recalling how 13 years ago the House voted to cut CDC funding when critics complained that the agency was trying to win public support for gun control.

“It’s almost as if someone’s been looking for a way to get this study done ever since the Centers for Disease Control was banned from doing it 10 years ago,” Rep. Joe L. Barton, Texas Republican, said of one of the NIH studies. “But it doesn’t make any more sense now than it did then.”

“Gun related violence is a public health problem – it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH,” Don Ralbovsky, NIH spokesman, wrote in an e-mail responding to questions about the grants.

“These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances involved in many violent crimes, especially how alcohol policy may reduce the public health burden from gun-related injury and death,” he said.

It’s not guaranteed to be a bad thing. But it should be watched just as closely as if they were studying violence initiated by Jews/blacks/homosexuals with an eye to create public policy which restricts those groups more than others.