Column for April 9, 2009

Gun control only disarms the innocent

It is tragic to see how many lives have been taken this past week in various incidents of killing rampages. There have been shootings in an immigration office in New York, shootings in Pittsburgh, in Washington State, and of course the recent mass shooting in a Carthage nursing home here in North Carolina. All of these incidents have made national news.

Of course there is the typical knee-jerk reaction to violence committed by individuals wielding firearms. What you rarely hear in such news reports is whether or not the perpetrators obtained the firearm in a legal or illegal manner to begin with. If the guns were legally obtained, then no new gun law would have helped stop the crime. If the guns were illegally obtained, then laws would have been irrelevant, anyway, since that is the definition of the word illegal.

Criminals do not follow the law by definition. For every nut job out there with a gun, there are millions more who are responsible, sane gun owners. So how do government officials try to keep nut jobs from attacking? They put further restrictions on law abiding, responsible people.

I have read about several attempts to curb your freedom in the name of protecting you. One has even been hidden in the guise of a health care rider on the spending stimulus bill. One way or another, your privacy, your freedom, and safety will be abridged in the name of safety and security.

Here in North Carolina, Senate Bill 664, deemed "The Rapist Protection Act" bill by opponents has resurrected the idea of "safe storage" of firearms. As a collector myself, I do own safes for storage of firearms. I want to protect my investment from theft. I do not want to prevent my access to them when needed. Firearms would have to be stored in locked locations, essentially with ammunition stored separate from the gun itself under this proposed law. There are numerous other insane requirements, including holding a property owner liable for what those who step foot on his property do.

In the United States House of Representatives, HR 45 is a bill that would require licensing for all people who purchase firearms as well as a record for each and every gun sale. Of course we already have laws that do that. The bill has language to seize further regulatory control under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. It used verbiage such as, "…to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youths, and other persons prohibited by federal law from receiving firearms…" If it is already illegal for these people to obtain firearms, then we don't need yet another law that does the same thing. Further laws only make criminals out of already law abiding citizens or seriously infringe upon their freedoms. What part of the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" is so hard to comprehend?

The stimulus bill signed into law requires that your health care records be placed into a huge database. People who have had any issues in the past would be heavily scrutinized and judgment calls would prohibit them from obtaining a firearm for personal protection.

I know of one person whose home was almost broken into this weekend. He lives out in the country. A burglar was at his home and attempted to get in through a window. Now this man is concerned about protecting himself and his wife, and rightly so. He wishes to purchase a gun for home defense. He served honorably as a Vietnam War combat veteran.

However, since he had a few problems coping with the horrors of war after his return to the United States almost forty years ago, his health records are available in a database and he will most likely be placed on a "prohibited persons" list maintained by the FBI. In case you think that I am exaggerating here, I also had a family member who was denied a pistol carry permit right here in North Carolina for having sought mental health care after a traumatic experience several years ago. That person's health record was available to law enforcement for determination of whether or not to infringe upon gun rights.

The bottom line is that criminals will get guns and whack jobs will use them if they want to, regardless of whether guns are legal or not. Further gun restrictions only harm law abiding, innocent people and produce victims. The story in Carthage may have been much different had someone who worked there been trained to use a firearm and had one available to stop the attack. Instead, it was a "gun free zone" and a lot of people died as a result.