Viewed logically, virtually all “gun-control” legislation protects criminals from armed victims.

Think about that for a moment. Law-abiding citizens are prevented from using self-defense and protecting their own life and property.

For most of the past century, “gun-control” laws have been tested in America. Each and every one of them has failed miserably. Criminals and their criminal activities have not been affected by even the most draconian (unconstitutional) laws. The reason for their universal failure is no mystery: Criminals – by definition – do not obey laws!

Ironically, the anti-gun activists use the very fact that “gun-control” legislation is universally ineffective as a rallying cry for more of the same. That is sheer lunacy!

Samuel A. Hill
June 8, 2009
Gun-control laws should be repealed
[It’s as if he had read Just One Question or arrived at the same conclusion on his own. Nice job!–Joe]

For years, the gun prohibitionist lobby has perpetuated a sense of fear against armed citizens in various public venues, including restaurants, Yet in Washington State, where the Citizens Committee is headquartered, it has been legal for many years to carry firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol, and it has not resulted in the kind of violence predicted by opponents of the Tennessee measure.

Alan Gottlieb
CCRKBA Chairman
June 4, 2009
CCRKBA SAYS TENNESSEE LAWMAKERS ACTED CORRECTLY ON OVERRIDE
[And here is a list of restaurants that are putting up the equivalent of “no coloreds allowed” signs up in response to the new law.–Joe]

Robertson v. Baldwin declared “the carrying of concealed weapons” (presumably, handguns and knives) to be an exception to the Second Amendment. 165 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1897). The exception proves the rule: that a ban on all handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment. Similarly, Justice Holmes’ opinion in Patsone v. Pennsylvania upheld a state statute against legal aliens possessing long guns for hunting, because the statute “does not extend to weapons such as pistols that may be supposed to be needed occasionally for self-defence.” 232 U.S. 138, 143 (1914).

David B. Kopel
Brief of The International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), The International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), Maryland State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Southern States Police Benevolent Association, 29 Elected California District Attorneys, San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, Long Beach Police Officers Association, Texas Police Chiefs Association, Texas Municipal Police Association, New York State Association of Auxiliary Police, Mendocino County, Calif., Sheriff Thomas D. Allman, Oregon State Rep. Andy Olson, National Police Defense Foundation, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and The Independence Institute as amici curiae in support of respondent. D.C. v. Heller

The District’s current prohibition against handguns and immediately serviceable firearms in the home effectively eliminates a woman’s ability to defend her very life and those of her children against violent attack. Women are simply less likely to be able to thwart violence using means currently permitted under D.C. law. Women are generally less physically strong, making it less likely that most physical confrontations will end favorably for women. Women with access to immediately disabling means, however, have been proven to benefit from the equalization of strength differential a handgun provides. Women’s ability to own such serviceable firearms is indeed of even greater importance given the holdings of both federal and state courts that there is no individual right to police protection.

M. Carol Bambery
Brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondent.