Open Letter

I, a U.S. citizen, own Barrett Firearms Mfg. Inc., and for 20 years I have built .50 caliber rifles for my fellow citizens, for their Law Enforcement departments and for their nation's armed forces.

You may be aware of the latest negative misinformation campaign from a Washington based anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center. The VPC has, for three or so years, been unsuccessful in Washington, D.C. trying to demonize and ban a new subclass of firearms, the .50 caliber and other "too powerful" rifles. This type of nibbling process has been historically successful in civilian disarmament of other nations governed by totalitarian and other regimes less tolerant of individual rights than the United States .

The Ohio Legislature is considering a right-to-carry proposal to lift some of the state restrictions on citizensı rights to carry concealed firearms. This indicates that even politicians can have occasional flashes of insight and wisdom. Liberals are, of course, convinced that this leads to street gunfights. Considering the shallow, emotional liberal philosophy, this reaction is expected. The truth is quite the contrary. For decades, gun control laws passed across the country, to the delight of our criminal element. While the crime rate rose, some communities and states recently eased some restrictions. In every case, stricter controls led to increases in violent crime while places that removed some laws preventing people from protecting themselves, experienced a decline in those same types of criminal activity. The statistics are absolutely indisputable.

It is unfortunate that Iowa Alumni Magazine chose to give Gordon McLauchlan a platform in which to express his prejudice against American gun owners, as well as his ignorance of guns and gun control laws in the American context. He states that American gun owners have an "almost erotic enslavement of so many to that instrument of death, the gun." He asserts that the NRA and Charlton Heston have made guns a symbol of "machismo." He also claims that there is a "widespread belief that guns maketh the man." McLauchlan offers, of course, no facts to support his bias.

Normally I don't post pointers to letters written in response to articles; they are typically too short to be worthwhile. This one is an exception, and well worth reading.

The ban itself is unconstitutional, sir. It violates the second amendment. The key term here is ''shall not be infringed.'' It would also violate the spirit of the fourth amendment, which provides ''the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'' of an item already guaranteed to be protected under the second amendment. It can also be argued that the ninth amendment may come into play here, sir, in that although the second amendment doesn't specifically denote assault weapons, that lack does not deny or disparage the right of people to own them. From a historical perspective, during the Revolutionary War, the long musket could indeed be viewed as an assault weapon.

In a rare address to his nation, coming at a time of grave crisis, President Vladimir V. Putin said Saturday that the school siege in the southern city of Beslan was an attack on all of Russia and called for the mobilization of society to resist what he called "a total and full-scale war" to splinter the country.

Mr. Putin spoke as the death toll from the violent end of the hostage crisis at Middle School No. 1 in Beslan rose to 330; half of the dead were children. Officials warned that the number of dead would rise further in the city, not far from Chechnya, as workers searched the school's charred wreckage and as more victims succumbed to their wounds in hospitals.

"This is challenge to all of Russia, to all our people," Mr. Putin said. "This is an attack against all of us."

Welcome, Mr. President, to the War on Terrorism. I wish I could say it is good to have you with us, but I extend my heartfelt sympathies to the victims.

In America, the War on Terror is now almost three years old. We have learned a few things from our experiences, and I would like to share those things with you.

We have learned that it is better to fight terrorists where they live, rather than where you live. This will not be easy for you to do. Your terrorists are in large part already within your borders.

We have learned that expensive beaurocracies with a license to hassle provide no safety, and that treating terrorists as ordinary criminals is a license to fail. Instead, seek to intercept and attack terrorists before they strike. Terrorists can be identified by their connections to other, known terrorists. If you seek to identify terrorists you cannot treat them as individuals. Treat it as an espionage case. Trace their connections.

We have learned that it is easy to pass laws that restrict civil liberties under a terrorist threat. We have also learned that it is useless to do so. There are many protestors, dissenters, and petty criminals, but there are few terrorists. Do not be distracted by shadows, Vladimir. Focus on the terrorists.

Combine these aggressive tactics with a distributed defense by allowing your people the right to arm themselves and to carry firearms with them as protection. Soldiers and police cannot be everywhere your people are. But your people are already everywhere. You can trust 99% of your people to handle a gun for self-defense safely, if they are given simple, basic training in gun safety. The people you cannot trust with a firearm are the same people who have no intention of asking your permission before carrying one.

If you cannot summon the courage to give firearms to your people, then give firearms to your pilots and your schoolteachers. That is better than nothing. You will not regret it. Trust your people, and they will trust you.

I keep hearing that the Patriot Act and homeland security would act like Marshall law if the adminstration declared all guns be taken away from the public. The two new policys have given them this ability. So far I have not found the wording I need to prove this can be done. Logic tells me that it exists but I need to prove it. Could anyone help with the black and white of this question. Where is it located in either of the new laws.

Passage of S. 1805 is critical -- but not worth allowing legislation going to the President including either an extension of the Clinton gun ban or restrictions at gun shows. There will be no compromise. The only choice is a "clean" bill or no bill.

The legislative process in Congress is complex and far from perfect. Fortunately, Congress is a bicameral (two house) legislative body and both the House and Senate must agree on the same bill before enactment. While we are uncertain of the outcome of several pending anti-gun amendments in the Senate, the House is strongly pro-gun and it (or a conference committee) will not accept any anti-gun Senate-passed amendment as part of the final product to be sent to the President.

This is from a statement the NRA is sending out via email to people who write them expressing concerns about an AWB compromise. It sends a mixed message; the NRA is claiming they won't compromise on the final bill sent to the President, but implying that they'll accept a compromise bill from the Senate that includes anti-gun amendments, in the hopes of stripping those provisions out in the conference committee. I'm willing to let the NRA play their game with respect to some of this stuff, but the gun show amendment and the assault weapons ban amendment are off-limits. If those get attached in the Senate, the bill must not leave the Senate.

All of this could mean two things, as both campaigns intensify their appeal to swing voters in the coming months: Kerry, with his orange vest and military credo, might very will sway the minds of some of the 'salt of the earth sportsmen,' as Kristin Goss calls them. And Bush might very well lose support from some of those Second Amendment stalwarts if the ban on automatic weapons becomes a political hot potato.

This is incorrect. The ban at issue is a ban on "assault weapons", a term that (while very loosely defined) does not include automatic weapons. Automatic weapons, while protected under the 2nd Amendment per US v Miller, have been heavily regulated since 1933 and their manufacture for civilian ownership banned since 1986.

The "Assault Weapons Ban" bans 19 specific semi-automatic firearms by name, additional semi-automatic firearms by possession of more than one of several characteristics, and normal-capacity magazines (limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds or less).

The confusion between machine guns and the assault weapons ban is longstanding and the result of a deliberate choice to mislead the electorate by the Violence Policy Center. From their own website:

Assault weapons -- just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms -- are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

I will note for the record that "armor piercing bullets" and "plastic firearms" are similar to assault weapons in that they are a phantom menace; scary, while presenting no significant threat.

"Plastic firearms" are allegedly scary because they can pass through metal detectors, but no such firearm actually exists; the Glock brand of handguns that the VPC is so concerned about still contain a large quantity of metal parts, including the barrel, and are readily detectable by metal detectors.

"Armor-piercing bullets" are bullets which can supposedly pierce a bulletproof vest. This is a capability shared by almost every type of ammunition suitable for hunting, and depending on the vest, often entirely normal handgun rounds will suffice. The type of bullet makes very little difference.

Of course, "machine guns" are real. But are they a real threat? They are already banned from manufacture, banned from ownership in some states, and each transfer is registered with the BATF (for a $200 fee), subject to BATF approval, requires a local law enforcement signature, and includes fingerprinting. As you might expect, legally owned machine guns are rarely used in crime. By "rarely", I mean there is one commonly known incident -- and that was a police officer committing a contract killing.

Please do not contribute to further public confusion over this issue. I will look for your published correction.

Dear Senator Kerry:

As you prepare for your address before the American Legion in Nashville, Tennessee, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth encourages you to use this opportunity to clarify your actions in Vietnam and your statements about your fellow Veterans and shipmates when you returned home. Since you have made your four-month tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of your campaign, we respectfully insist that you be truthful. The public is owed a full and honest accounting of your actions. Veterans are owed an apology from you and an acknowledgement that there was no basis in fact for the accusations you made against them.

[...]

If you undertake these steps we will be satisfied that the American public has been sufficiently apprised as to these aspects of your career, and we will discontinue the media advertisements you have sought so fervently to silence.

Please know that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are eager to close our own personal chapters on Vietnam and instead focus on the war we're currently fighting?the ongoing war on terrorism. In the absence of full public disclosure and a public apology, we will continue efforts to carry our message to an ever-expanding base of grassroots supporters.

That's gonna leave a bruise. Go read.