End the War on Freedom

Skytrooper at Get Your Hands Dirty! - a good personal account of the slow death of the right to keep and bear arms, starting with the 1968 Gun Control Act. I have printed the whole post below, with Skytrooper's permission.

by Skytrooper

Perhaps I'm older than you because I can remember the 1950s and 60s. I can recall firearms for sale in the Sears and J.C. Penney mail order catalogs and 20mm anti-tank cannon for sale for $190 in Shotgun News. I recall walking into Stan Lisk Sporting Goods in Salinas, CA in 1966 at age 14, handing over $45, and walking out with a new Remington bolt-action .22 rifle, soft case, cleaning kit and some ammo. Even in California there was no paperwork (other than a cash register receipt), waiting period, background check, or other infringement of my RKBA.

Every Thursday night for the next year, I walked halfway across town, openly carrying my rifle, to shoot at an indoor range in the police department's basement. A teenager who tried that today couldn't walk a block before 50 sheeple would place 911 calls and he'd be lucky if the SWAT team didn't shoot him on sight. During the 20 years I lived in Salinas, somehow the city muddled along without a SWAT team. Now, most every small town and rural sheriff's department has a herd of pot-bellied, wannabe commandos anxious to use their Fed-supplied machine guns, battering rams, armored cars, etc.

I joined the NRA in 1966 because it claimed to staunchly oppose the proposed legislation which eventually became GCA-68. When Lyndon (May He Burn in Hell) Johnson signed GCA-68 into law, I could no longer purchase ammunition for my .22 rifle, let alone a firearm of any type. When I returned home from Vietnam at age 20, despite Uncle Sam issuing me a M-60 machine gun, M-16A1 rifle, M-203 grenade launcher, and a M1911A1 pistol, I still wasn't old enough thanks to GCA-68 to buy ammo for my .22 rifle, let alone purchase a handgun. In case anyone forgot (or never bothered to learn in the first place), GCA-68 was drafted by Senator Thomas Dodd (D-CT) using an English translation (obtained from the Library of Congress) of the Nazi Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938. Unlike the NRA and the politicians it endorses, I have a problem with this.

In 1974, I visited the office of my NRA-endorsed U.S. Representative, Burt L. Talcott, a conservative Republican. Burt clearly resented a lowly college student wasting his precious time. He said he had no problem with GCA-68's restrictions and saw no contradiction between the government issuing automatic weapons to young men forbidden to purchase rimfire ammunition or pistols for their own use. He further said telescopic sights should be banned for no better reason than he didn't have one as a kid growing up in Montana.

When Burt approached me a few weeks later, his jaw dropped. Instead of the blue jeans-wearing college kid, he saw an elected representative of the Monterey County Republican Central Committee clad in a suit and tie. I was also carrying concealed, "illegally" to dgg9 and his ilk, a loaded S&W model 39. Unlike dgg9, I would die on a torture rack before I'd beg permission to exercise an unalienable individual right every human being is born with. Burt's manner changed remarkably since he was there to beg for help raising campaign funds. He later fawned over me for awhile and said, "I'm really not trying to take your telescopic sight away." [What, just other peoples' scopes?] We didn't part as friends. Despite the advantages of incumbency, he lost reelection in 1976 to Leon Panetta and that House seat has been occupied by ardent anti-gun Democrats since.

I believe it was in 1974 that the waiting period on handgun purchases in California was increased from 3 to 15 days. The fiend responsible for that was the NRA-endorsed, conservative Republican state senator from my district. I used my RP position to gain an audience with the rascal. When I castigated him for betraying his oath to adhere to the Second Amendment, he was befuddled. All he could do was stammer, "but ... but the police want it." "It" being the 15-day waiting period. "There's a name for a country where the police get what they want," I said. "It's called a Police State." He didn't run for reelection so I missed the opportunity to vote against him.

In 1968, Richard Nixon was barely elected president and then only with the votes of gun owners still angry over LBJ signing GCA-68 into law. Nixon had the tacit endorsement of the NRA. In 1969, Nixon appointed the vehemently anti-RKBA Warren E. Burger as Chief Justice of SCOTUS. Nixon created the BATF and years later told reporters there was no anti-gun law he wouldn't approve of.

In 1975, NRA-endorsed Gerald Ford appointed the anti-RKBA John Paul Steven to SCOTUS. This is the same Gerald Ford who urged Republican legislators to vote for the Brady Act and AWB.

Quote from: dgg9 on June 29, 2008, 10:21:49 am
In the late 70s and in the early to mid 80s, gun control was on the rise. Like socialism in the 30s, it seemed like an irresistible force, an inevitability whose time was coming. Defense of RKBA was very much a rear-guard action, with low chances for success. Neither the public nor any majority of legislators were behind RKBA.

This was the period when a number of states (starting with Georgia in 1976) enacted dgg9's beloved "shall issue" CCW permit laws. Voters in Massachusetts (of all places) voted down a handgun ban. Anti-gun Senator John Tunney lost reelection in California in 1976 due to his vocal support for gun control. In 1982, despite overwhelming press support for Proposition 15, a near-ban on handguns, Californians voted it down 2-to-1. dgg9's "irresistible force" for gun control wasn't so irresistible even in liberal Massachusetts and California.

In 1982, Harlon Carter, NRA Executive VP, fired Neal Knox from his position as head of NRA-ILA. Knox was an ardent RKBA champion and many NRA members were confounded by Carter's action. I attended the NRA annual meeting in Phoenix in 1983 where members pressed Carter for an explanation for firing Knox. In his typical arrogant manner, Carter exclaimed if the members demanded an answer, he'd give it then quit. I was the guy yelling, "Quit, Harlon, quit!" But I was drowned out by mindless loons shouting, "No, Harlon, the NRA can't survive without you!" Knox was fired because he seriously insisted members of Congress who sought NRA endorsements and money actually do more than pay lip service to the RKBA.

In 1982, Republican George Deukmejian was barely elected as governor of California. He was only elected due to the turnout of gun owners opposing Prop. 15. One of his first official acts was to appoint the vehemently anti-gun police chief of Foster City as head of the California State Police. California NRA members were outraged. At the Phoenix convention they asked NRA officials to issue a public condemnation of Deukmejian's action. What did Carter and his pals say? "No, no ... we might make the governor upset at us." Perhaps this is what dgg9 considers "pragmatism."

In 1985, I attended the NRA convention in Seattle where Knox was running for Executive VP. His opponent was a guy most NRA members had never heard of, Ray Arnett. The big event was a video presentation by Ronald Reagan (the same guy who promised in 1980 to abolish the BATF if he was elected president, but expanded it's size and powers instead). While Reagan was supposed to be making a tribute to the NRA, it was actually a NRA-financed commercial on behalf of his crony, Arnett, who had been Reagan's DFG chief when he was governor of California. Between Reagan's praise and a speech filled with lies by Wayne LaPierre, Arnett won the election. Within a year, Arnett was ousted for having an affair with a female staffer (then getting a 6-digit "hush money" payment from the NRA) and Wayne LaPierre was the new honcho. NRA publications were curiously silent about why Arnett was gone or the payout of members' money to Arnett.

In 1987, President (and NRA Life Member) Ronald Reagan attempted to appoint Robert Bork as a justice on SCOTUS. Bork has repeatedly declared the Second Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. He also said the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are dead; the Ninth because he can't figure out what it means and the Tenth because SCOTUS refused to enforce it for so long.

In 1989, President (and NRA Life Member) G.H.W. Bush signed an executive order banning the importation of many superb semiauto firearms. His son, NRA-endorsed G.W. Bush, refuses to rescind his father's order, just as he refuses to rescind Bill Clinton's executive order banning the sale of surplus military ammunition to private citizens. In 1990, President (and NRA Life Member) G.H.W. Bush appointed anti-RKBA David Souter as a justice on SCOTUS. This is the same G.H.W. Bush who voted for GCA-68 when he was a member of Congress from Texas.

In 1993, the Brady Act was passed thanks to the votes of many NRA-endorsed members of Congress. The original Brady Bill imposed a waiting period and background checks on handgun purchases from licensed dealers. The NRA lobbied and got an "InstaCheck" system and expanded the bill to cover long guns; something Sarah Brady never even asked for. Many congresscreatures cited NRA-sponsored amendments as political cover for voting for the Brady Act. Despite having enough votes in the Senate to filibuster the Brady Act, Republicans caved in and the NRA didn't hold it against them. NRA-endorsed Bob Dole congratulated Sarah Brady when the act passed.

In 1994, the federal AWB was enacted. A switch of just one or two votes in the House could have killed it. Where did the necessary votes come from? NRA Life Member Ronald Reagan wrote every Republican member of the House and urged them to support the AWB. Several "pro-gun" Republicans changed their votes and cited Reagan's letter as political cover. Did the NRA denounce Reagan's treachery? Not a chance.

When I attended the NRA annual meeting in Minneapolis in 1994, during the question-and-answer session a member attempted to ask Wayne LaPierre why the NRA co-wrote Pennsylvania's anti-gun Act 17 along with Handgun Control, Inc. How did NRA officials respond? They turned off the power to the guy's microphone. The first gun owner convicted under Act 17 was a NRA member.

As usually happens at every NRA meeting, nearly every time a member attempted to introduce a genuinely pro-RKBA measure or resolution, some LaPierre shill would jump up and move for a vote to table it. There was only one exception. NRA officials were pushing for a federal law requiring states to have drivers licenses indicate whether a person was a convicted felon. A well-known Texas judge argued on behalf of a resolution prohibiting the NRA's support for such a law. Despite their best efforts, LaPierre's crew couldn't prevent it from passing. Predictably, the resolution, and the NRA's support for such a law, was never mentioned in NRA magazines.

On 16 May 1995, while speaking before the National Press Club (along with Sarah Brady; televised on C-SPAN2), Tanya Metaksa, then head of NRA-ILA, was asked if there was any anti-gun statute which the NRA endorsed. Rather than say, "no," she stated "the NRA fully supports the Gun Control Act of 1968." My wife and I nearly fainted.

We had barely recovered from that shock when Wayne LaPierre appeared on Larry King's CNN program on 18 May 1995. He was there to publicly apologize for calling the deputy U.S. marshals, BATF agents, and FBI agents at Ruby Ridge and Waco "jack-booted thugs." That wasn't bad enough. When King asked LaPierre if the NRA wanted to abolish the BATF, rather than say "yes," the duplicitous scoundrel said the NRA "didn't want to restrict the BATF in any way." My wife and I promptly resigned our NRA Life Memberships.

In 1996, every NRA-endorsed U.S. Senator, including NRA Director Larry ("widestance") Craig, voted for the Lautenberg Amendment which made it a federal felony for persons convicted of certain misdemeanors from possessing any firearm or ammunition. Thousands of LEOs and military personnel (even USAF fighter pilots) lost their careers thanks to that law. Despite being a major anti-gun statute, the NRA never penalized any member of Congress for their vote in favor of the Lautenberg Amendment.

In 2000 and 2004, the NRA endorsed G.W. Bush for president despite the fact he supported the same anti-gun laws as Al Gore and John Kerry: NFA-34, GCA-68, Brady Act, Lautenberg Amendment, and making the federal AWB permanent. In 2004, I watched a NRA spokesweasel on TV brag about the NRA supporting all existing federal anti-gun laws, specifically mentioning NFA-34 and GCA-68. These are the same riffraff who piously exclaim, "It's the Second Amendment, stupid" and "It's an individual right" to dull-witted, cheering members at NRA conventions yet turn around and betray those same members again and again and again.

The NRA is citing the decision in Heller to raise funds and recruit more members, omitting the small detail that NRA officials sought to prevent the Heller case from even being filed. Anti-gun groups are also praising the Heller decision and for good reason: other than complete bans, the language in Heller is supportive of virtually any gun control legislation.

Much is being made by cognitively- and ethically-impaired gun owners about five of the Nine Nazgul proclaiming the Second Amendment protects an individual RKBA. It's true Antonin Scalia (who endorsed torturing prisoners, admitted to stretching the language in the Constitution beyond recognition to rationalize police misdeeds, and who resurrected the medieval concept of deodands to justify asset forfeitures) used the words "individual right" and an "inherent right" of self-defense. The majority also excluded millions of Americans -- felons, persons convicted of various misdemeanors under Lautenberg, and other "prohibited persons" -- from any Second Amendment protection. The fact a woman with a tax or marijuana conviction a decade ago faces ten years in federal prison if she possesses a firearm for protection against wannabe robbers, rapists and murderers is fine with Scalia & Company ... and the NRA. So much for the "inherent right" of self-defense.

The "individual right" recognized in Heller only applies to some Americans and then is subject to arbitrary restriction, licensing, registration and even revocation by the government. The "individual right" only applies to government-approved firearms and the carrying of such weapons is at the whim of legislative caprice. Scalia's "individual right" is actually nothing more than a mere privilege subject to the usual government regulations, conditions and abridgments. In his opinion, Scalia never bothered to explain how the majority's decision squares with the words "unalienable" in the Declaration of Independence and "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment.

The majority correctly held the words "the people" in the Second Amendment referred to the same "the people" mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendments then promptly contradicted themselves. Even in Scalia's authoritarian mind, "the people" in the First and Fourth Amendments applies to everyone inside the USA. Per the majority in Heller, "the people" referred to in the Second Amendment are only those folks which the government "allows" to possess firearms. In his otherwise ludicrous dissent, Justice Stevens pointed out this obvious inconsistency in the majority's decision.

Add comment Edit post Add post