Column for July 26, 2012

Private businesses can do things that either endear themselves to you or drive you away from them.  I personally have a boycott on several local businesses because of their customer service, their political decisions, or the way they have treated me as a customer.  Recently, I found one business that just may get my business the next time I am in the market for a new automobile.

One large media outlet (that has a television broadcast channel position somewhere in between 4 and 6) thought that it would be a good idea to publish on their web site, a list of every concealed weapons permit holder in their viewing area.  Specifically, the permit holders are from “Chatham, Cumberland, Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Granville, Halifax, Harnett, Hoke, Johnston, Lee, Moore, Orange, Nash, Northampton, Person, Sampson, Vance, Warren, Wayne, Wilson and Wake counties.”  For instance, I can tell you that there are four concealed carry weapon permit (CCW) holders on the street on which I live and 435 of them in my home town of Selma.

Keep in mind that the recent shooting in Aurora, Colorado just happened within the last week, so this data publication was worked and planned for a long time.  It was not just thrown together in response to the shooting as a call for gun control.  It was a well thought out project.  Grass Roots North Carolina, a state wide gun rights group took notice of this and alerted the thousands of North Carolina residents on their email list of the data release.  I saw this information from several sources, so I went and checked out the information.  In many cases, the data lists only the number of permit owners on a particular street.  In other instances, street addresses are actually given.

What does this mean to the public?  Although this is public information, this television station’s web site aggregates this data into one place for the entire area.  There are two ways of looking at it.  Either this list gives criminals a list of addresses at which they can potentially steal weapons, or it gives them a list of places to avoid since there is the potential of getting shot while breaking into a home.  Either way, it is, in my opinion, a breach of public trust and privacy for the purpose of attempting to push an anti-gun agenda.

One business has officially taken a stand on this television station’s action.  A large automotive dealership chain in the Triangle area has decided to exercise a boycott of its own.  Chris Leith has placed an official statement on the dealership’s public web site.  This is only a partial quote.  “As you may be aware WRAL published an article that upset many of our customers and members of our community.  The people affected were those like me; strong believers in our US Constitution and our 2nd amendment rights…As for me and my company, I’m a concerned citizen and strong believer in our constitutional rights.  I have made contact with WRAL and I have instructed them to remove anything that bears the Chris Leith name.  At this point they have chosen not to pull the article and therefore I have severed ties with them.  I really hate that this situation has occurred and I hope my actions will speak louder than words. [sic]” 

Now that takes guts.  Normally I find some liberal weenie severing ties with and pulling advertising from a conservative media outlet or some talk show host over an off-handed comment.  However, this is a business decision to sever ties with a media outlet that has chosen to “out” gun owners, and specifically those who (like me) possess a concealed carry weapons permit.  Chris Leith has taken a stand that an attempt to expose gun ownership and specifically CCW permit holders is an unacceptable assault on both privacy and gun rights.  He has taken what is in my opinion, a courageous stand.  I appreciate that and will most likely reward him by shopping there first when I am looking for a new automobile.

For the record, it is my official opinion that nobody should not need to have a CCW permit to carry a handgun.  What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is so difficult to comprehend?  As famous author Robert Heinlein said, “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

Column for June 7, 2012

Why is someone from New York City that is worth an estimated $22 billion trying to affect gun rights in North Carolina?  Because some people just can’t stand not being able to control your life.  They think that they know more about how to properly run your life than you do.  Then again, Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, already thinks that he knows more about health, public safety,  and what is right for New Yorkers’ diets than they do.  Now he is working to force his whack job, leftist, totalitarian views on us here in North Carolina.

Once I heard about the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident in Florida, I predicted that gun Nazis would attempt to use that incident to repeal gun rights legislation everywhere.  Sure enough, here comes the deluge.  Michael Bloomberg, along with the NAACP and other leftist (remember, the Nazis were leftist socialists, not right wingers) groups are working with a group called “Second Chance on Shoot First”.  According to that group’s own web site, they are “committed to raising awareness about Shoot First and other unsafe, reckless gun laws”.  Of course there are no such things as “shoot first laws” in North Carolina and 25 other states that have enacted The Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws.  Liberals are attempting to mischaracterize laws that allow you to reasonably defend yourself against intruders.

Keep in mind that the Trayvon Martin killing is still fresh in the news, now that George Zimmerman has been arrested with his bond revoked.  I am not a supporter of either Zimmerman or the Martin followers.  I am a supporter of the truth, regardless of what it is.  Florida does not have a problem with its laws.  It had an incident with either a teenage punk that attacked a zealous community watch volunteer, or a community watch zealot that inappropriately shot a teenager.  There was nothing inherent to the Florida law that caused the shooting.  If Zimmerman is at fault, then let him have his day in court and let the legal system takes its course.  If he was a victim then let the legal system take its course and stop crucifying him in the court of public opinion.  Above all, let us not have a knee jerk reaction to and incorrectly represent the law.

Aside from the idea of protecting the public against non-existent vigilante acts, Michael Bloomberg et al are simply trying to curb your personal freedom.  The more freedom you have, the less control government has over you.  This is the same Mayor Michael Bloomberg that has already made sure that New York City maintains strict gun control laws, has banned the use of trans-fats at restaurants, and is attempting to ban all fountain soda cups larger than 16 ounces.  This is all in the name of protecting the public against their own stupidity and promoting health.  The ideas of personal liberty and responsibility have been forsaken.  Limiting the size soft drink one can buy?  Really??  If that is not the epitome of intrusive government control, I don’t know what is.  If control freaks like that want to limit how much sugar you are allowed to consume by law, where does it end?  It certainly will extend to your right to keep and bear arms, since that right was under assault long before limits on soda consumption.

I have ceased to be amazed by people telling outright lies in order to curtail our rights in this country.  I watched the Trayvon Martin case get politicized by race, poverty, and gun control pimps since the incident happened, mostly with the use of slander, hyperbole, and false information.   We are now seeing this same case being used against responsible gun owners in North Carolina by a billionaire mayor 500 miles away.  Sorry, but my right to defend my life is worth far more than any right that some criminal thinks he has to take my life.  

Unfortunately, at least fourteen representatives to the NC House have signed on to HB1192, which is designed to repeal the Castle Doctrine in North Carolina.  The Castle Doctrine is a common sense law that allows people to reasonably use deadly force when defending themselves inside their own homes.  Not surprisingly, the Democrat leadership seems to be on board with this bill.

Why do politicians think that they know so much more than you do, are better at deciding how you should lead your life than you are, and have to protect you from yourself according to their own whimsical dictates?  When did we lose the idea of personal responsibility and personal freedom?  I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t want some wealthy politician that can afford armed security guards telling me how to defend myself, much less how much soda I can order when visiting The Big Apple.

Column for Dec. 8, 2011

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” - Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Recently, I got my concealed carry weapons permit renewed here in Johnston County. I have held such a permit for over a decade. That means that I had to take a class, prove that I am proficient in the use of a handgun, pass a criminal and mental health background check, and give my fingerprints for the state to have on file. A class costs time and money, gun range time costs money, ammunition costs money, and the application and renewal fees cost time and money every five years. I also hold a federal firearms curio and relic collector’s license. That means that I also got a thorough background check by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Notice the text of the Second Amendment. There are no qualifiers on that statement. Is simply says that my right shall not be infringed. Unfortunately, many such qualifications have been placed on that right. I have to obtain and carry a permit for carrying firearms. I have to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun, and submit to a background check if I want to purchase a firearm. I am prohibited from carrying firearms through certain states. I am prohibited from carrying firearms in certain places.

There are several debates going on right now about compliance with a new state law that prohibits municipalities from restrictions on where one can carry a weapon such as in parks but allows exceptions for “recreational facilities”. Of course freedom hating gun control nuts will attempt to make those exceptions as broad as possible.

Close to home, Smithfield is still banning the carrying of weapons at the aquatics center and at certain parks. They want to keep as much of the ban in place as legally possible. The police chief in Smithfield seems to be in support of this, based upon his quotes on the subject. Then again, that is not surprising considering how whiny his department has been about their most recent budget and how they handled it, but that is another column for another day.

In Garner, the same battle is being waged. State level gun rights groups have gotten involved there in the fight there, as well as in Smithfield. Grass Roots North Carolina is a great gun rights organization, and while typing this, I am reminded to renew my membership with them.

There are a few exceptions to the control freak behavior. Down Highway 70 is the town of Havelock. Though the town’s athletic director proposed maintaining restrictions like Garner and Smithfield, two of their town council members are strongly opposed to the idea of maintaining any such gun restrictions. One councilman, George Liner, argued that concealed carry permit holders are law abiding citizens and have passed all the state requirements and expense outlined earlier. The other, Danny Walsh, said, “The problem is that for 200 years it has been understood in America, and one of the reasons no one has invaded us, is that everyone here has a gun and can use it. And the fathers of those 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds have been going to war for that right and other rights. I don’t want to infringe on a right that the federal government gave us 200 years ago that is reasonable." Walsh is exactly correct with the exception that it was not a right bestowed by the federal government, it was seen as a God given right and the federal government was to preserve it.

These debates are an example of why I am no longer a member of the National Rifle Association. They have been known for a lot of compromise on gun rights rather than being rigid such as Gun Owners of America and Grass Roots North Carolina. The NRA will attempt to influence national level elections, such as for Congress, but will not get involved in local elections, even though they have local field representatives. They can pull local databases to solicit local people for donations but refuse to use the same database for helping gun friendly candidates get elected to public office. I know since I have been down that road with them personally. Ironically, the very week that the NRA told me that local elections were not their concern regarding gun control, they moved their annual conference to another city because of the original venue’s stance on gun control. What hypocrisy.

I hope that all elected officials at the county and municipal levels take heed that people are tired of their liberties being eroded. Freedom loving, law abiding citizens are just that. It is the criminal element that is the problem, not people like myself who went through stringent scrutiny in order to exercise their constitutional right. There are no qualifiers on that right, but we still underwent unconstitutional requirements in order to “legally” exercise it . If that right is infringed, it is no more a right and is rather a privilege beholden to the privilege granter. Had people like me been around and were armed on the campus of Columbine High School, Fort Hood, or Virginia Tech, the outcomes may have been very different and lives saved.

Column for March 3, 2011

The United States Constitution in Article IV Section 4 states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”. Not to be confused with the GOP (Republican Party), it simply means that we have a representative republic for a national government. We don’t have a democracy, an oligarchy, a monarchy, or a dictatorship. We allegedly have the rule of law, division of branches of government, and a system of checks and balances. That seems to be lost on our current Commander in Chief.

There were three decisions by the Obama administration that directly affect some or all of us, depending upon your status, all of which are beyond the constitutional authority granted to the executive branch of government. Over-reaching power is nothing new. As a matter of fact, as of this writing (Monday afternoon), I will be teaching in a few hours on a huge power grab by the Supreme Court in the Marbury vs. Madison decision of 1803.

The Obama administration has determined that they will continue to enforce the so-called Obama Care health care reform legislation even though two courts have ruled it as unconstitutional. In another instance, the Obama administration has refused to allow the re-importation of historic military surplus rifles back into the United States, thus violating the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Thirdly, the administration has decreed that the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by then President Bill Clinton is unconstitutional and therefore will not enforce its provisions.

In the instance of Obama Care, it is sheer arrogance to continue to ram down a defeated and unwanted agenda. The government and the American people have bought into the principle of judicial review, a power never granted the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) or judicial branch yet was usurped anyway. That power was specifically debated and denied the judicial branch during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. If the judicial usurpation is accepted, then it applies regardless and we can not cherry pick what laws they can declare null. Either the court’s decision stands or it does not. If the law is indeed unconstitutional, then its continuation must also therefore be considered as such.

In the case of rifle importation, the Obama administration has simply decided to disallow the return of what General George Patton termed “The greatest battle implement ever devised”, the M1 Garand rifle. It served us brilliantly in World War II. During the Korean War, we left nearly a million M1 Garands and M1 Carbine rifles with the South Korean government.

I am a federally licensed Curio and Relics firearms collector. That means like thousands of other collectors in the nation, I went through a background check with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Many freedom loving, law abiding Americans, and/or shooting and history enthusiasts would also love to own an M1. This right is being denied by Barack Obama under the guise of not wanting the guns to “fall into the wrong hands”. Somehow I doubt that criminals will be engaged in using a long gun designed in the 1930’s that only holds 8 rounds when handguns are the preferred weapon of your average criminal. It is sort of hard for gang members to conceal the rifle, to carjack a car with, or for burglars to carry an M1 Garand during a break-in. This ban on the re-importation of historic rifles made by Americans for Americans is ridiculous.

Believe it or not, I tend to agree with Obama that the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional. However, the opportunity for the executive branch of government to declare it as unconstitutional rested with President Clinton. A later President can not simply declare something as unconstitutional and therefore not enforce the laws of the country. If you find the law repulsive, repeal it. We have a process set up for that. If we really want DOMA to be the law of the land, we should make it an amendment to The Constitution.

I have a copy of the letter sent to the Speaker of the House by the Attorney General’s office. The reasoning that DOMA “violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment” is preposterous. Not only is the Attorney General in error (the equal protection clause is not in the Fifth Amendment, it is in the 14th), but the amendment was designed to provide equal treatment under the law to people regardless of their skin color. Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as I do, so there is therefore equal protection under the law.

For the executive branch to simply deem a law unconstitutional and therefore refuse to enforce the law is a dangerous precedent, not to mention that ironically is in itself unconstitutional. What if a future president decided that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional and therefore refused to enforce it? This sort of thing can cut both ways.

We are supposed to be a representative republic, but if we allow things to continue, we are well on the way to becoming the very sort of dictatorship that President Obama has recently condemned in Libya, Egypt, and the Middle East.

Column for Sept. 30, 2010

I recently sent a letter to the largest toy centered business in the world. I am not going to mention the name of the company, but I will share the letter with you.

"Just when I was about to continue my practice of getting my Christmas shopping done early for two boys and a bunch of nephews and nieces, I read that your company has unfortunately decided to disallow concealed carrying of firearms in your stores by law abiding customers like myself. It is not the law abiding citizen who has at his own expense taken classes on firearms law and handling, not to mention gone through an extensive background check by state law enforcement and local sheriffs that you have to worry about. You have to worry about the lawless, which steal weapons and use them to suit their own illegal practices. If there is ever a deranged or criminal shooter in one of your stores, it is people like me who you want to have as patrons in your stores to protect your customers and your employees.

"I make it a practice to not patronize businesses that wish to abridge the freedoms of honest Americans but still want our money. In America I not only have the right to carry a firearm to defend myself and those around me, I have the freedom to spend my money where I so choose. As long as your "no concealed weapons" policy is in effect, I shall choose to spend my money with your competitors."

Do you know why there are a lot of carjackings perpetrated near airports? It is because criminals know that anyone who just stepped off an airplane and is renting an automobile is unarmed because of security restrictions for air travel. That makes them an easy target.

Do you know what tells me that a business is an easy target for armed robbery? It is a sign on the front door that says something like, "All weapons prohibited", or "Concealed weapons prohibited". It announces that there is a good likelihood that there is nobody inside the business that is armed and can fight back. Then again, a house in an affluent neighborhood with a car in the driveway displaying a pro-Obama bumper sticker serves the same purpose to a burglar.

If schools allowed safe, concealed carry of firearms by trained, mature individuals, perhaps the shootings in Paducah, Columbine, and at Virginia Tech would not have been so deadly. Just maybe someone could have taken out the shooters before they killed more people. Police can not be everywhere all the time.

The State of New York proposed an amendment to the US Constitution for the Bill of Rights that explained the role of an armed populace. Their proposal included "That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State". The responsibility was that of the citizenry to serve as the militia as well as to act as a constabulary force. The idea of a standing army was anathema to them, so it was expected that every able bodied man who could bear arms would be a participant in the putting down of insurrections, helping to repel invasion, and keeping order in their towns.

When I was asked why I would want to carry a gun, my answer was, "Because a cop is too heavy to carry around." I am a concealed carry permit holder. That means that I have demonstrated proficiency with a handgun, I have taken a class to learn the legal responsibilities of carrying a firearm, and have undergone a full background check by the State Bureau of Investigations. My fingerprints are on file with the state. In my own case, I have also undergone a background check by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives because I also hold a Curio and Relics federal firearms license.

There are millions of people like myself who are law abiding, honest citizens. These are not the people you have to worry about. They are not criminals. They are the ones who have jumped through hoops of unconstitutional red tape in order to exercise their rights. Constitutionally, nobody should be required to get a permit to carry a firearm.

Business owners have every right to restrict what people should be allowed to carry into their establishments. At the same time, they are exercising their right to alienate their customer base and advertise themselves as easy targets for armed robbery.

Now compare the above to this business in the video below. I would do business with them in a minute.

Column for Oct. 15, 2009

"Shut up, dogs!" I hollered from my bedroom. The barking stopped for just a moment, then continued. Both Barack Odoga and Daisy the killer Pekingese kept yapping...and yapping. "That's unusual," I thought. Hearing the dogs bark in the middle of the night was not especially odd. We get that a lot in this area. One of the neighborhood dogs barks at a pedestrian or cat, and the alarm system travels throughout the neighborhood. This time, however, something was different in how my two canines kept barking.

I wiped the sleepiness out of my eyes, as it was about 1:30 in the morning. I stumbled my way towards the bedroom door to make my way to the living room, where the pups were both on alert. "What is it, babies?" I asked. I looked around the room after turning on the ceiling fan light switch and saw a normal living room, just as I left it earlier in the evening. I walked into the bathroom, my office, and around the kitchen to ensure that nothing was wrong. I had listened to hear if I could hear what the dogs were barking about before I even got out of bed. The baby monitor often amplifies sound that only the dogs hear before I do. I often hear movement, outside dogs, and outdoor noises on the monitor before I do naturally. I did not hear anything out of the ordinary.

When I walked back into the living room, both dogs stood at attention, pointing towards the door to the carport. I flipped on the floodlight to the driveway and cracked open the living room door to the carport. I peered out to see if anyone was standing in my driveway, but saw nothing. When I looked down at the three brick stairs below my door stoop, I saw a body laying there clad in denim, sneakers, and white socks. I peered through the living room window and could not see much better.

Since the door opening, the dogs barking, and the light did not make the person stir, I figured that some drunken individual had passed out on my door step. I immediately put on some jeans, shoes, a shirt, and went to one of my gun safes. I despise the gun control laws that require me to lock up firearms since I have children in the house. I believe in safe handling, teaching respect for firearms, and having loaded weapons available at a moment's notice. Since becoming a dad, I complied with state law and locked them up (that's my story and I'm sticking to it). I went to the safe with my favorite revolver for concealed carry purposes, which also has a laser grip sight and wanted to at least carry it, should I need to take action. Since this is not where I keep my quick grab firearms, I had not used this piece in months. I found that the electronic lock was dead. This is not what one wants to run across when needing quick access to a gun. Fortunately, there was no imminent danger in this situation, so I took the time to try to solve the lock issue. Eventually, I used key access and figured I would fix the stupid thing later. Thankfully, that particular safe only held one gun.

I debated whether it was tactically better to handle this vagrant myself or to simply let the local constabulary force handle the situation. I weighed the pros and cons. If I took care of it myself, I would ensure that this individual was removed from my property on my terms and if medical assistance was necessary, my long expired emergency medical technician skills would come in handy. On the other hand, I am one person, and the police usually send at least two officers should things get physical. I had no idea if this person is armed or not or what would happen if he was startled awake suddenly. I could have gone out another door and approached the subject. However, I figured it was tactically best to have the local police to come remove the drunk.

Well, it turned out that an illegal immigrant with little or no English speaking capability had been so intoxicated that he either could not make it back to his residence or thought that my house was his and he just could not get through the door. Unfortunately, the Latino population, especially those here illegally, have a high instance of alcohol abuse. I understand being away from home and lonely, but there is still no excuse for drunkenness. Or illegal immigration, for that matter. At least he was not driving. I read far too many stories of drunken Latino drivers killing innocent people.

I have a t-shirt that says, "I DON'T DIAL 911" and has a picture of a Smith and Wesson 45 auto pistol firing (it looks like a model 4506, for you gun aficionados out there). Two things I know are that when it is not an emergency situation, it is worth it to sit back and wait for local law enforcement to handle non emergency situations. If it was a life threatening situation, I would have definitely done things differently. I also know that I despise gun laws, since they seldom deter law breakers but often inhibit law abiding citizens.

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.

Column for Jan. 1, 2009

A permit to purchase ammunition coming to a town near you?

I was told that I was yelling "the sky is falling". I was told that I am an alarmist using scare tactics. And yet I have been proven right yet again. I am a freedom advocate. I believe in your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I believe that there are plenty of people who will stop at nothing to take away that right. And of course, I am correct.

Three years ago, I had a disagreement with the National Rifle Association over the efficacy of their involvement in a grass roots manner, especially on the local level. I was informed that their organization only attempts to involve itself on the national and maybe state level. I was told that local politics were not important and not worthy of their efforts. The ironic thing was that they told me this while relocating their annual convention from one Ohio city in protest of municipal ordinances in that town against gun ownership and freedom. The NRA is so myopic in their activism that I gave up my membership a couple of years ago.

It figures that gun control nuts will attempt to subvert the right to keep and bear arms in any way that they can. The latest attempts are nothing new to me, but are new to many people in Durham, North Carolina. On the other side of the Triangle, Reverend Melvin Whitley is attempting to have enacted a "bullet ownership" law. Melvin Whitley is a so-called community organizer and activist. He is a liberal and is active with the NAACP. He believes that by curbing or severely controlling who can purchase ammunition, that we will cut down on gun related violence.

I personally invited "Reverend" Whitley to sit down for an interview about a year and a half ago when I first heard of his proposal. I offered to give him a full hour on my talk show to make his case for the plan. He never responded.

Melvin Whitley's plan would call for anyone purchasing ammunition in Durham to have procured a special permit from the local sheriff in order to do so, just as is required to purchase a pistol in NC. There are a couple of problems with this idea. First, the City of Durham has no right to impose upon the local sheriff for anything of the sort. Second, the program is yet another tax upon law abiding citizens that will go through the procedure and pay for a permit while the lawless will avoid the procedure. Third, what part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to comprehend? One can not utilize a firearm for which one can not obtain ammunition. As a collector of antiquated firearms, I am all too familiar with this concept. Available ammunition is part and parcel of keeping and bearing arms.

Want to know the funny thing about this whole proposal? The system of obtaining a permit from the local county sheriff for the purchase of a pistol is a 1950's era law that was intended to legally institutionalize racism. Since all sheriffs were (at the time) White in a segregated society, they could use their personal discretion to deny a pistol purchase permit for anyone they chose. This was a "good old boy" way of prohibiting Blacks from getting guns and thereby limiting their freedom and ability to defend themselves. Requiring people to get a permit for ammunition is using the same system from the roots of racist oppression to ostensibly prevent gun violence, particularly the Black community.

Mr. Whitley has yet to find a willing sponsor for the bill in the NC General Assembly, but he has two willing accomplices on the Durham City Council already. If passed in Durham, it would be a matter of time before other towns would follow suit. Once the concept gains traction, it will be a matter of time before it gains support on a state-wide level.

I tried to tell the NRA that such issues are worthy of their attention and support of pro freedom candidates at the local levels of government. I saw issues such as this coming to the municipal level years ago. I pray that no elected official in Johnston County would be so stupid as to consider such a permit.

If the "good reverend" Melvin Whitley is so concerned about protecting the Black community from violence, as he so states, then perhaps his goal would be better served by proclaiming the gospel for which he is ordained rather than attempting to limit the freedoms of his fellow, law abiding Americans.