The Potowmack Institute
 HOME
http://www.potowmack.org/cong3.html

Sen. Ted Stevens' "armed citizenry"
Letter, September 10, 1995
National political leadership
Letter, February 11, 1997.
Congress and US v. Emerson
Letter, April 15, 1999.
What's wrong with Barney Frank?"

Index to this file:

Washington Post editorial, July 25, 1998, "truly unfortunate".
Letter to Post, July 27, 1998, "Doesn't anyone understand the rule of law anymore?"
Response from Sen. Mikulski, more truly unfortunate.
Response from Sen. Sarbanes, more truly unfortunate

http://www.potowmack/cong3.html

There is much tribute to "the heroes of democracy." The real problem is that there are no "heroes of democracy" in the US Congress. These letters raise very serious fundamental issues. The politicians will not take them up.

Letter:

The Honorable Paul Sarbanes (Senate, MD),
The Honorable Barbara Mikulski (Senate, MD),
The Honorable Trent Lott (Senate Majority Leader),
The Honorable Steny Hoyer (House, MD 5)

Responses:
[Mikulski responds to Letter, July 27, 1998]
[Sarbanes responds to Letter, July 27, 1998]

Dear __________________:

It is very unlikely that the Washington Post will print the enclosed letter. The Washington Post does not raise serious issues. The people will read it in the Firearms Policy Journal.

Addressing gun violence is not about waiting periods, background checks, banning guns, or self-defense. It is not about public health statistics or a progun/antigun polarization around false choices. Addressing gun violence is about your oath of office and citizenship in a viable legal political order. Your first and highest obligation is to maintain the sovereignty of the legal institutions of government. Because you could not respond to my letter (.../397cong.html) of February 11, 1997, and address what the gun lobby really wants, the blood is now on your doorstep. (The letter has had about 4000 readers. Readers of all files in the Firearms Policy Journal have exceeded 100,000.) What the gun lobby wants is the childish fantasy that gun ownership be kept outside of accountability to public authority so as to maintain a balance of power between an armed populace and any and all government. There is no secret here. Just read their literature. If you have doubts about what the gun lobby wants, ask them.

Accountability to public authority means registration of ownership. Registration creates the means to establish legal standards for gun ownership that can effectively disarm the lawless, the disloyal, the unstable, the irresponsible, the immature, etc. It is how we define our citizenship and defend ourselves under law and government. Rules and regulations are not a ban. A civilized society is about standards. There have to be standards for gun ownership defined in law. Law requires sovereign public authority. Rules and regulations become preceived as a ban because accountability to public authority is the one point of policy the gun lobby's armed populace fantasy cannot accommodate. The National Rifle Association works very hard on this: An unobserved provision of the Brady Law (which never should have been enacted as national policy) is that sales records for background checks be destroyed within 20 days. There are NRA sponsored bills in Congress now that will prevent preservation of InstantCheck records. (The InstantCheck system is another provision that has no business on the national agenda. The $100s of millions it will cost, like the blood on your doorstep, is another price of the armed populace fantasy.) To the gun lobby the maintaining of records is equivalent to registration and the gun lobby knows what it cannot tolerate and still have its armed populace fantasy. This utterly preposterous childish political fantasy has now, thanks to your dereliction, established credibility on the Supreme Court (See .../997cthom.html.).

A national policy of accountability of ownership and the reporting of private sales would shut down the illegal traffic in firearms and would be empowering legislation for local jurisdictions to enforce their local standards. The Federal Government need do little more. It is not the business of the Federal Government to microregulate gun ownership. The business of the Federal Government, your business, is to maintain the sovereignty of this government against the NRA's "armed citizen guerrillas" (.../ak47.html) who would outflank it. Gun owners can have all the guns they want as allowed by law—which law gun owners participate in making—and consistent with a viable legal political order but not for the childish purpose claimed. There is nothing new here. The Militia Act of 1792 (.../597mil.html), enacted by the same people who ratified the Second Amendment, required gun owners to be registered for militia duty. King George had required the same. The gun lobby's own pseudoscholars, when they are being intellectually honest, admit these facts of history. (See .../196gnd.html and Kates in .../196lrev.html.) President Johnson proposed a national policy of registration in 1968. Attorney General Homer Cummings in 1937 and Attorney General Robert Jackson in 1940 had proposed the same. Jackson later as Supreme Court Justice wrote in an opinion, the Constitution is not "a suicide pact." That is what you have given us. Look on your doorstep.

So far the gun lobby's armed populace fantasy has had nothing to fear from you, but this is about your oath of office and the political leadership to tell some people they cannot have their childish fantasy? The time is now. The solutions are simple. The facts speak for themselves. The intellectual work has been done for you. Enough is enough already. You have to stop killing the people of this country. Just stop it.

[Top]
[BOTTOM]
[Letter, Cong., MD, July 27, 1998]
[Time Magazine, Letter, July 10, 1998]
[Letter, Cong., MD, February 11, 1997]
[What's wrong with Barney Frank]
Editorial, Saturday, July 25, 1998, p. A20
The Washington Post has decided that we will have to survive solely by force of habit with no issues raised and no concepts of political existence understood.

The Washington Post


An Independent Newspaper


[But in wholly subservient dependency to the Gun Lobby]

Shootings on the Hill

FROM THE early reports of the shootings on Capitol Hill yesterday afternoon, it appears that the security system came into immediate effect. An armed man burst through a doorway detector, the alarm went off, Capital police at once converged on the scene, and after an exchange of gunfire, the invader, wounded, was captured. That any injuries at all were sustained, and that two members of the Capitol police subsequently died, is truly unfortunate. The fact is there was a potential for even more gunfire and for even more injuries in an area crowded by tourists as well as by congressional personnel.

It is unnerving to think of gunfire in a building that is a national shrine—where the laws of the nation ruled by law are made. But most Americans long ago realized that official places can be an attractive venue for individuals with a felt grievance against the authority and symbolism these places convey. The forces upon the keepers of public places a requirement to prepare for the sort of incident the Hill experienced yesterday. That requirement in turn cuts across the dedication to openness of American society and government alike. But most people tend to accept this as a demanding but manageable burden of living in a modern society. [The Washington Post can speak for itself.]

In is a burden, of course, that falls with special weight upon the police and other law enforcement personnel. They are called upon to deal personally with a condition—widespread availability of guns—that most of the rest of us experience only as members of the larger society. Two of those officers, Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson, died yesterday after a terrible moment in the Capitol. Their service and their sacrifice deserve our respect.

[Serious measure to address gun violence will begin when the Washington Post prints in full context what James Madison was really describing in Federalist Paper No. 46 and makes an issue of why the gun lobby has to be so blatantly dishonest to make its case. Apparently engaging minds is not a manageable burden of public enlightenment. The Washington Post doesn't want to scare people. The fraud is now in federal court.]

[Top]
[BOTTOM]
[Shootings on the Hill, editorial, July 25, 1998]
[Letter, Cong., MD, July 27, 1998]
[Time Magazine, Letter, July 10, 1998]
[Letter, Cong., MD, February 11, 1997]
[What's wrong with Barney Frank]

Letter to the Editor
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20071

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

What is everyone so upset about? An individual citizen was oppressed by government and took up arms to protect himself. He was exercising his constitutional right and he had the full endorsement of members of Congress.

What Amicus asserts is a basic right of freemen to take up arms to defeat an oppressive government.

...the people have a right, must have a right, to take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government. Twentieth-century military machines are far from invincible when outflanked by armed citizen guerrillas. The Second Amendment is a political right written into our Constitution for the purpose of protecting individual citizens from their own government. An armed citizenry, people who have the ability to defend themselves, are [sic] not going to become an oppressed citizenry. By strengthening the rule of law, we support police officers. My hope is that the testimony we hear today will remind us of the importance of guaranteeing the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens, another requirement of the rule of law. Doesn't anyone understand the rule of law anymore?

Mikulski's statement on her disappointment over the Supreme Court Ruling in Printz can be found at her website: http://www.senate.gov/~mikulski/bradylaw.htm

Response to letter of July 27, 1998, from Barbara Mikulski:

Mikulski's and Sarbane's letter below are responses to an NRA mailing. Here is the mailing. This is not what they were sent from here:

Dear Senator:

As you constituent I urge you to do everything possible to help outlaw the National Gun Tax and National Gun Registration plans which the Clinton Administration want to impose on December 1st.

I believe that these gun tax and registration schemes are the most dangerous steps the federal govenrment can take oward destroying my Second Amendment rights and all our Constitutional freedoms. I will be watching Congress closely on these issues between now and the November election.

Dear Mr. Ernst:

Thanks for keeping in touch with me. It's nice to hear from you.

I appreciate knowing of your opposition to the FBI charging states for background checks. As you may know, a background check conducted through the National Instance Check System will be requir4ed by law for every handgun purchase beginning November 30, 1998. For states that refuse to conduct the check, the FBI was considering chargeing $13 to $16 in order to defay costs.

You may be pleased to know that Senator Bob Smith offered a successful amendment to Senate version of the appropriations bill which funds the FBI. This amendment would prevent the FBI from keeping records of individuals not prohibited from purchasing guns under the Brady Law. It would also prevent the Justice Department from collecting any fee associated with the National Instant Check Sustem. A conference commitee will soon be meeting to work out differences between the Senate bill and the version passed by the House of Representative. The House bill does not contain a provision on the backgound check fees.

As you know, Maryland conducts its won background check on bandgun purchases. The States of Maryland charges $10 for the background check. This will not change after November 30, 1998, when the National Instatn Check System goes online.

Again, thanks for contacting me. Please let me know if I can be of help to you in the future.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senate

Response to letter of July 27, 1998, from Sen. Paul Sarbanes:

Sarbane's letter and Mikulski's letter above are responses to an NRA mailing. Here is the mailing. This is not what they were sent from here:

Dear Senator:

As you constituent I urge you to do everything possible to help outlaw the National Gun Tax and National Gun Registration plans which the Clinton Administration want to impose on December 1st.

I believe that these gun tax and registration schemes are the most dangerous steps the federal govenrment can take oward destroying my Second Amendment rights and all our Constitutional freedoms. I will be watching Congress closely on these issues between now and the November election.

Dear Mr. Ernst:

Thank you for getting in touch with me about issues of concern to you.

I appreciate learning of you concerns about the National Instant Check Criminal Backgroud Check Syst. As you may know, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 provides for the establishement of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which will be operated bgy the Department of Justice, to immediately identify individuals who are prohibited from purchasing a firearm under the Federal, State and local laws. NICS is being established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in cooperation with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) and the State and local offiials, and is scheduled to go on line by Novmeber 30, 1998.

Depending on the law of each State, a Federal Firearms Licensee will contact either the FBI or a designated state point of contact to initiate background checks on individuals purchasing firearms. If the licensee contacts the NICS Operations Center, a fee will be charged to the licensee for processing the NICS background check. This fee, which is estimated to be $13 to $16 per transaction, may be recouped from the gun purchaser.

In light of your comments, I want to be sure you are aware that during consideration of S.2260, the FY99 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill, the Senate approved an amendment to prohibit the use of funds by the Departmetn of Justice to implement the proposed NICS fee. On July 23, 1998, S.2260 passed the Senate by a vote of 99 to 0. The House-passed version of the FY99 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill was passed on August 6, 1998. These two bills are now the subject of a House-Senate Conference Committee which will reconcile differences between the House and Senate-passed bills. You may be certain that I will keep your views in mind when the conference report comes before the full Senate.

You may also be interested to know that S.2128, the No Gun Tax Act of 1998, was introduced in the Senate to ban the imposition of a fee for the performing [of] firearm background checks. Tghis measure is currently pennding further action by the Senate Judiciary Committee. A companion bill, H.R. 3949, was introduced in the House on May 22, 1998 and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

It is my view that any efforts toeep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands should take into account that the legitimate interests of hunters, recreational target shooter, and those who use arms for authroized security purposes. In thsi regardk, I have supported legislation that requires a waiting period and a criminal background check before the purchase of a handgun. In addition, I have supoorted legislation to limit the number of assault-style weapons which are commonly used by criminals, particularly in the illegal drug trade. In my view, these are reasonable legislative steps that strike an appropriate balance between enforcement of our drug and other criminal laws and the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I appreciate having the benefit of your thoughts on this matter. Please do no hesitate to contact me about any other issues of concern to you.

With best regards,

The Firearms Policy Journal was discontinued, October, 1998, and reinvented as the Potowmack Institute

No help here.

The Firearms Policy Journal
Phoenix Publications, PO Box 5511, Hyattsville, MD 20782
(http://www.us.net/phoenix/index.html)
phoenix@us.net
It's not about guns...
It's about citizenship.

Re: The Gun in America 1998, July 6

TIME Magazine Letters
Time & Life Building
Rockefeller Center
New York, NY 10020

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

What the gun lobby wants is to maintain a balance of power between an armed populace and any and all government. It has to keep gun ownership outside of accountability to public authority. It cannot win its right to be armed outside of the law in court. It has to have it by defeating legislation. To defeat legislation it has to employ fraud and demagoguery and promote individual self-defense.

One fraud unchallenged by you is the meaning of to "bear arms." In the Second Amendment context, to "bear arms" is a military function. Russell F. Weigley in the History of the United States Army (1967), page 87, writes: "[the Constitution] retained the [historical] dual military system...: a citizen soldiery enrolled in the state militias, plus a professional army of a type represented by the British [and Continental] Army." The Militia Act of 1792, enacted by the same people who ratified the Second Amendment, required the states to register gun owners for militia duty. It was not about a personal right to be armed outside of the law. Registration of ownership is the one thing the gun lobby cannot accommodate.

Registration, in our present context, is the means to establish and enforce legal categories of gun ownership that can effectively disarm the lawless and the disloyal. That is how citizens provide for their self-defense under law and government. There can be individual self-defense on the slippery slope to anarchy but not in the state of anarchy.

You have provided no useful enlightenment.

Sen. Ted Stevens' "armed citizenry"
Letter, September 10, 1995
National political leadership
Letter, February 11, 1997.
Congress and US v. Emerson
Letter, April 15, 1999.
What's wrong with Barney Frank?"

Index to this file:

Washington Post editorial, July 25, 1998, "truly unfortunate".
Letter to Post, July 27, 1998, "Doesn't anyone understand the rule of law anymore?"
Response from Sen. Mikulski, more truly unfortunate.
Response from Sen. Sarbanes, more truly unfortunate

[PotowmackForum], interactive posting
[TOP]
[HOMEPAGE].
[US v. Emerson PAGE]
[NRA v. Reno (July, 2000)]
[Printz and Mack PAGE]
[US v. Lopez PAGE]
[ARCHIVE]. Potowmack Institute Files
[RESOURCES]. Newspaper, magazine, journal articles, books, links
© Potowmack Institute