|
|
|||
|
GOCRA is on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/gocra Twitter here: http://twitter.com/mn_gocra RSS updates are available here: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Mn-gocra Email news updates are available here: http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=Mn-gocra&loc=en_US Accordingly, the States have
an interest in ensuring that citizens who must travel in the course of their personal or professional lives remain free from unconstitutional arrest and prosecution for engaging in their right to self-defense by carrying properly-licensed weapons." p. 2 The common thread in these transformative events
in our Nation’s history was the fundamental importance of the right to keep and bear arms as the ultimate guarantor of all the other liberties enjoyed by Americans. The source of the threat to liberty shifted arms, as an essential component of the natural right of For the vast majority of Americans who do not live
in a federal enclave, the stakes involved in this case could not be higher. If Chicago’s ban is upheld, it will confirm that local governments, unrestrained by the Second Amendment, may deny American citizens what and family.” … For untold numbers of Americans, including —effectively meaningless. p. 9-10
To begin with, the federalism concerns expressed
below are based on the mistaken premise that the Second Amendment protects state militias against federal interference. Id. at 859. Heller expressly rejected the argument that the Second Amendment addressed any concern about federal control over state To be sure, amici States agree that “[i]t is one
of the happy incidents of the federal system” that each State may “serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. regulatory initiatives does not include “the power to Heller, “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of governments cannot constitutionally act as the Second Amendment. p. 22-23 Many firearms regulations
would plainly survive Second Amendment scrutiny, such as “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws Indeed, Heller made clear that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear any weapons that are “in common use” by Americans—that is, the “sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that they could therefore bring with them In short, Chicago fails to recognize that Americans’ right to
possess lawful weapons in common use has remained implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, even when those weapons could not be “useful against modern-day bombers and tanks” and therefore would be of limited As the submission of this brief further
demonstrates, Chicago’s position that the right to arms is of little importance, and may be abrogated at will by local government, is directly contrary to the view of the majority of the States. p. 29
In a recently reported five-year study by the FBI some interesting facts came to light regarding firearm-armed criminals who assault police officers. Just a brief synopsis: The study involved a pool of more than 800 incidents from which researchers selected 40, involving 43 offenders (13 of them admitted gang bangers/drug traffickers) and 50 police officers. What researchers found was that while handguns were used predominantly in the assaults, all but one were obtained illegally. In contrast to media myth, not one of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. Furthermore, the overriding factor in weapon choice is "what is available." Only one offender hand-picked a particular gun “because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being.” Several of the offenders reported that they started carry weapons as early as 9 to 12 years old. The average age was 17-years. Gang members especially started young. The offenders were of a different mind-set than the normal people they confronted, and researchers got to see just how cold-blooded the younger generation of offenders is. The 50 officers in the study had all experienced situations where they had the legal authority to use deadly force but chose not to shoo. The offenders studied, on the other hand, had been exposed to killing after killing and fully expected to be murdered. They don’t hesitate to shoot anybody and were not the least concerned about innocent bystanders. They typically displayed no moral or ethical restraints in using firearms. In fact, the criminal street-combat veterans survived by developing a shoot-first mentality. The study concluded that police officers can never be assured that a criminal is unarmed until they have thoroughly searched the person and his/her surroundings themselves. Nor, in the interest of personal safety, can officers let their guards down in any type of law enforcement situation. Note: none of the criminals studied was hindered by any law, federal, state or local, established to prevent or hinder gun ownership. In conclusion, police officers [and armed civilians] who hesitate while he/she decides to shoot or don’t shoot when faced with an armed criminal will likely find himself/herself a potentially deadly split second or more behind the criminal who has no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger.
http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2006/12/new-findings-from-fbi-about-cop-attackers-their-weapons/
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2014 Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance - All Rights Reserved
|
|||
Comments are closed 