LAPD trading tactics for tacit

In a world with near-constant caving pressure to conform to newer, more politically correct standards, even our heroes fall sometimes. Unfortunately, LAPD has decided that their SWAT unit would be better off being more diverse. Diversity is not a bad thing  in itself but most of the time it’s the price we pay to get there. How do we make the things more diverse? Lower the standards. No, we don’t ask women and others who would apply to reach a bar or a standard, we bring it down to them. Would winning an Olympic medal be as fulfilling if they made it really easy to get one? Next time you have a derranged killer on the loose in LA, don’t expect SWAT to be able to help you out; They’re going soft.

Would you rather have an elite fighting force made up of the best cops, or of officers who ‘look like L.A.’?
By Robert C.J. Parry
March 16, 2008
On a Sunday afternoon in the summer of 2005, Jose Peña fueled himself with cocaine and grabbed a 9-millimeter pistol. Waving the gun at the head of his 19-month-old daughter, Suzie, he told the LAPD officers who arrived at the scene that he was Tony Montana — the character played by Al Pacino in “Scarface” — and that he was going to kill his daughter and himself. He’d already shot at her sister and at the police, so the threat was believable.

The situation was straightforward: If an LAPD SWAT crisis negotiator couldn’t dispel Peña’s narcotic fantasies, the little girl’s life would rest with a SWAT rescue team’s ability to cross a 50-foot alley, access the building, find and enter the room he was in and save Suzie before Peña pulled the trigger.

Now imagine for a moment that you were in Suzie Peña’s position. Would you want the police SWAT team coming through the door to be the best of the best — the toughest, most highly trained, most elite tacticians in the Los Angeles Police Department — or would you want the team to “look like L.A.”? Would you want rescuers who had not lost a hostage in three decades, or would you want a team with heartwarming, multicultural diversity?

The answer is pretty obvious, no? You’d want the best. That’s what Suzie got, and even so, the results were tragic. According to the L.A. district attorney’s office, Jose Peña emerged from the building and a gunfight ensued. When Peña retreated to his office, four SWAT officers crossed the alley in a matter of seconds, entered the building, took fire through the walls — fire that struck one officer — and entered Peña’s office. There, they exchanged more shots with the gunman, who was standing behind a desk with Suzie. In the chaos, both Jose and Suzie Peña were killed.

Suzie is the only hostage ever lost by LAPD SWAT during its 35 years.

Shortly after her death, Police Chief William J. Bratton appointed a board of inquiry to examine the incident. Its mission, he said, was to investigate the officers’ tactics and other factors in the shooting. “For the safety of the public and officers, we need to understand intimately what transpired in that incident,” he said at the time.

In fact, the board did nothing of the sort. None of the SWAT officers from the Peña shooting were even interviewed by the panel, according to multiple sources. Indeed, the board’s eight members included fewer tactical experts (one) than attorneys (three). In its final report, the board acknowledged that it had been “ultimately precluded from gaining a full and complete understanding of what transpired in Peña until after this report was finalized.”

What’s more, Assistant Chief Sharon Papa privately promised the team shortly after the incident that the report would be aired openly, according to officers who were present. That didn’t happen either. The final report — completed 15 months ago — has not been released. Many senior department officials have never seen it, and Times reporters have repeatedly requested it but have been turned down. I received a copy earlier this month from a source.

The report shows that instead of fulfilling Bratton’s promises, the board used the Peña case (with Bratton’s encouragement) as a way to push for a series of politically correct changes within SWAT — changes that many cops believe will have absolutely no benefit and that they believe will endanger the lives of citizens and cops alike.

From the start — before the panel examined any evidence — Bratton made it clear that increasing SWAT’s diversity was particularly important to him. In November 2005, he privately addressed the board about his goals for their inquiry. The final report quotes him: “I’m looking to create change within SWAT. The qualifications to get in are stringent. But are they too stringent? There are no women and few African Americans…. Are there artificial barriers for getting into SWAT that the ‘good old boys’ network has maintained?”

Bratton’s assertion that SWAT has few African Americans is not accurate. Eight of the 63 SWAT members are black, sources say, — even after the death of Officer Randal Simmons on Feb. 7. That’s 12.6% in a department that is 12% African American.

Nevertheless, in keeping with Bratton’s wishes, the final report devotes substantial space to how to bring in female and black officers. “The absence of women … and the low number of African Americans in SWAT should be addressed and dealt with, and the membership of SWAT should be reflective of the community,” the report says, although it offers no qualitative or quantitative evidence that this change would save a single life or lead to a single suspect’s apprehension. The unit, the report says, has become “insular, self-referential and resistant to change.”

The report goes on to say that “there is no task in SWAT that a woman could not perform” and that the selection criteria has “underemphasized negotiating skills, patience, empathy and flexibility while overemphasizing physical prowess and tactical acumen.”

But SWAT officers who have actually entered houses to rescue hostages from killers (as they did Feb. 7 in Winnetka, resulting in the death of Simmonsand the wounding of Officer James Veenstra) say there is no such thing as overemphasizing tactical acumen or physical prowess for such assignments.

Yes, they say, there are probably women on the force who could and should be admitted to SWAT, but they should be required to meet the same standards as other applicants and should be chosen for skill, not for diversity. The reality, SWAT members say, is that the standards for tactical success apply to everyone equally. Upper-body strength is vital to holding a 12-pound rifle stone-steady to hit a deranged killer while avoiding his hostage in a whirlwind of chaos.

In general, the final board report offers little or no persuasive evidence as to why SWAT should change. “SWAT performs in a disciplined and exemplary manner consistent with its fine reputation,” the report acknowledges. “It has been and remains a source of great pride within the LAPD.”

In fact, according to the report itself, out of 3,771 missions SWAT has performed from 1972 to 2005, suspects have been apprehended without any “untoward” incident in 83% of the cases. (The report does not define “untoward.”) It notes that SWAT members have killed a suspect only 31 times in 33 years — that’s less than 1% of all engagements, often with the city’s most deranged and violent criminals.

What’s more, SWAT has lost only one hostage — Suzie Peña — and the way to ensure it doesn’t happen again is to maintain and raise standards, not to lower them out of political correctness.

None of that matters, though, to the brass. “Bratton wants a woman on SWAT regardless of whether she’s 110 pounds soaking wet and completely incapable of pulling 200 pounds of Jimmy Veenstra and his gear out of a house in the middle of a gunfight,” said one officer who survived the Winnetka shootout in which Veenstra was extracted by his teammates while under fire.

Based on the findings of the report, the LAPD has just instituted a new selection process for SWAT, according to a SWAT veteran who helped in the redesign. Instead of picking cops on the basis of their ability to handle weapons and stress, the new standards specifically exclude video-based shooting simulator evaluations and “Hogan’s Alley,” a daunting series of pop-up targets representing armed crooks and hostages. A simulated raid with flash-bang devices that previously disqualified many candidates who accidentally shot the “hostage” is also gone.

The new test’s only physical challenges are a modest physical fitness qualification and a modified obstacle course. “My preteen daughter could pass that,” one officer said. Applicants’ scores will now largely come from an oral interview conducted by non-SWAT and non-LAPD supervisors. In essence, the test is largely subjective.

Another coming change that SWAT officers criticize is one that would allow officers from anywhere in the department to apply to SWAT, rather than limiting it (as it has historically been limited) to officers from the elite Metropolitan Division. SWAT had argued to the board that continued selection from Metro was “a nearly fail-safe way to select the best of the best,” and the final board report acknowledged that using only applicants from Metro “has produced remarkable cohesion, consistency, mutual trust and commonality of outlook.”

But the board of inquiry ultimately claimed that including people from other divisions “could bring a wider perspective and greater gender and racial diversity.” So the plan to broaden the pool of applicants is expected to go into effect next year.

There are a variety of innocuous recommendations in the board report, such as improvements in risk management, trend analysis and data analysis. The report calls for new accountability measures, including “Compstat-like accountability.” (Compstat is Bratton’s signature system for tracking crime trends.) The report also recommends providing all personnel with take-home cars, something the team has requested for years.

But it is the change in the selection process and the opening up of SWAT to applicants from outside Metro that have motivated SWAT officers’ wives to launch an unusual e-mail campaign directed at Bratton and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, stating in part: “We are concerned with the safety of our husbands … if they are expected to go into these highly dangerous situations with someone who got in under a compromised standard.”

The report says, “SWAT culture and insularity pose a certain danger to the LAPD and the Los Angeles community as a whole.” But the report is based on misconceptions.

SWAT is not a lily-white redoubt of old prejudices. Simmons and Veenstra (who is of Asian ancestry) illustrate this. Suzie Peña’s attempted rescuers had names like Perez, Sanchez and Gallegos. Bratton may not know this; at the annual SWAT dinner, I saw him come in and talk to a couple of senior managers and deputy chiefs for 30 minutes and then leave, having barely acknowledged the officers — black, white, Latino or otherwise. That evening, he forfeited his last chance to talk to Simmons, who died 10 days later.

SWAT is too important to this city to be weakened in the name of political correctness. Unless the Police Commission or other officials act, the LAPD will make social experimentation a higher priority than tactical excellence.

Robert C.J. Parry is a businessman working on a book about his experiences in the Army National Guard in Iraq.

Original article appeared here.

An Open Letter To The College Students Of America

By Nate McCord of Ogden, Utah

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Thomas Jefferson (1764) — Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment

College students throughout America’s history have taken it as a point of pride to be changers. I believe it is part of the collegiate experience as young people gather at universities and are exposed to new ideas and concepts, that they take their combined experiences and youthful exuberance and apply those attributes to current events to implement change, either in popular culture or politics or national attitude. It is pretty easy, even for me, to point out numerous examples of changes to the American experience that have been a direct result of upheaval and of university students acting together across many campuses throughout our history. One only has to consider the positive changes in America’s Civil Rights movement of the 1960s1, the demonstrations that helped bring an end to America’s participation in the Vietnam War2 and subsequently the end of the military draft and the incorporation of the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution that changed the voting age from 21 to 18 years of age3 to see the effect that students have on American policies. More recently, it is students carrying the banner of climate change seeking changes in their campus policies and general behavior4. Certainly the changes in women’s reproductive rights have first risen to prominence on campuses across our landscape. Now it is time, and I would like to recommend that young people on campuses everywhere consider a new issue that they might embrace and make their own to implement a change. The change I am recommending affects their well being directly, gives them control over a part of their life that most of them have depended upon others for and can have long lasting effect on the general American population for generations to come. It is time for college students everywhere, to band together and demand the right of self-protection be the standard policy on every campus!

Certainly well publicized recent events prove beyond doubt that your campus administrators are not protecting you and are not capable of protecting you as individuals. In spite of their best efforts, their ineffective rules and laws and their protests that they are doing “all they can” to protect you, the mass shootings at Virginia Tech5 last year and more recently at Northern Illinois University6 must prove to you that you are not safe on your campuses. Less well publicized are the violent attacks that occur on every campus to you, our future leaders of America. Rape is widely recognized as prevalent but drastically under-reported and assaults of all types occur wherever students cross campus in the dark of night. My research is incomplete but it is apparent that violence does take place and no amount of parking lot flasher-warning stations or blanket email notifications can stop a single act of violence when a criminal sets their mind to doing harm. Ask among yourselves and see if I’m right. I’m certain that if you look, you can find someone close to you; on your campus; that has been a victim of a violent assault. Does your school have a violence reporting hotline or a support group for violence victims? If it does, that group exists for a reason and I encourage you to discover the reasons for their existence.

Self-protection is a basic human right and it has been recognized as such for centuries!7 It is not a privilege to be handed out by administration nor can it be doled out to a privileged few through legislation. In every case that you can name, violence happens to individuals or groups when they have surrendered their right of self-protection to some other entity besides themselves. It matters not if it is a community’s trust in its police force, a campus’s trust in the administration and security group or a civilian population disarmed by decree of the government, when you surrender the right of self-protection to another agency, you voluntarily place your life at risk. It should be obvious to anyone that it is not possible for the police to be in every single place where violence can occur and that at best, police officers are provided to maintain the appearance of law and order, yet in most cases of violence they can only write reports, investigate the behaviors of the law breakers and perhaps notify next-of-kin. You may believe that it is the obligation of your local law enforcement agency to protect you and seeing security guards on your campus may make you feel secure, but in fact the courts have proven time and again that there is not obligation by law enforcement to provide for an individual’s security8. Note what Jeffrey R. Snyder wrote in his 1993 essay; A Nation of Cowards:

Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police’s, not only are you wrong — since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so — but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?

That is why self-protection is your responsibility! Notice that I highlighted the word, feel a few sentences back; it is important to start thinking about what is real compared to what you feel. You may feel safe because you signed up for your school’s automated text messaging warning system that is supposed to warn you of a campus danger, but if you don’t get the text message until 15 minutes after a crazed student commits mass murder, how safe are you really?

Have you heard the sentiment, “When seconds count, help is just minutes away”? Do you take any solace in knowing that the security chief at Northern Illinois University bragged that his officers responded to the death of 5 students and the injury of a couple dozen more in just 2 minutes after the report came in? Were the officers in any way able to respond to the criminal mayhem before the disturbed former student finished his gruesome task by killing himself? Of course they were not! Instead, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, they arrived in time to write reports, hold press conferences and notify next-of-kin. They obviously protected no one, yet their empty words of immediate response became the words we heard during the press conferences and we are supposed to believe that “everything possible” was done.

So, how can you, the college student, as an individual and as a group, change the circumstances of the violence you face on campus and in a bigger sense, citizens face everyday in their daily lives whether it be at the shopping mall or on the street? You can accept that your protection is your responsibility and then you can choose to be prepared to face potential violence and prepared to stop the violence when it presents itself. In most cases you can do this through constant possession and training with a handgun.

You need to get past the idea that guns cause crime and that guns are “scary”. Guns are inanimate objects with no ability to operate on their own. Criminals perpetrate crime and guns, in the hands of citizens, prevent crimes. While it is possible to find published reports of citizens preventing or reducing criminal behavior9, total numbers of crimes not committed because a citizen defended themselves aren’t really available- because a crime not committed is a crime not reported.

You need to arm yourself. As crucial to your young life as your laptop, cell phone or iPod might be, none of those will save you from a criminal intent to causing you harm. In 39 states10, with proper training and accomplishment of a detailed background check, you can obtain a firearms carry permit and in spite of my personal belief, obtaining a firearms permit should be your first step in firearms ownership. Go to the local gun store and get educated on the types of handguns that are available. Take a training class11, and learn how the different types of guns operate. Make a decision on the type and caliber of handgun that works best for you. Decide how you will keep this gun close to you and secure and buy the very best you can afford. Make regular training part of your weekly or monthly routine. And then make the mental adjustment that tells you that you are worth using lethal force against a criminal that would harm you.

That attitude adjustment and the decision to become an armed citizen will be a change for most of you. That’s the first change that I want you to implement throughout America. Read and understand the anti-gun rhetoric and apply those critical thinking skills you are learning in college to the slanted and inaccurate propaganda that you might have listened to before making this adjustment. Begin to understand how many thousands of citizens throughout America have become routine firearms carriers without open shootouts on the streets as the anti-gun crowd would have you believe. Take note of the pittance of license revocations by licensed firearms carriers12, 13 and see for yourself that the simple carrying of a firearm does not make a person a danger to society14.

The next step is for you as a group to demand change in the rules that govern your universities. Demand that your college administrators accept that there are no such things as “Gun Free Zones” and to drop the ban on firearms on campus carried by licensed, trained firearms permit holders. Use your power as a group, stage sit-ins, organize, use the power of the press and vote with your pocket books until you are successful changing the anti-gun, irrational fear of the administrators of your colleges and universities. Join organizations like Students for Concealed Carry15, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)16 or Mother’s Arms17 to gain strength and support for your rights as a citizen.

Tell your college administrators that you will no longer tolerate their empty words and useless efforts or accept their worthless rules. Tell them that if they want to really protect students, that they build and staff with qualified instructors, proper firearms training ranges. Vote with your feet and your tuition dollars by transferring to universities that do recognize your right to self-protection. If you really want your school to change, make it clear that your continued attendance is predicated upon this simple and basic change by university management.

It is time to face facts and implement change in America’s attitudes about self-protection. Its time to place blame on the heads of criminals for their actions and recognize that adult citizens have a right to themselves and their loved ones to live, work, study and grow without fear of violence from criminals that are determined to break the law. Do not allow yourself to be one of the cowardly sheep that cower under their classroom desk and wait to die at the hands of a criminal as happened at Virginia Tech or Elizabeth City State University during a stupidly executed emergency drill18. It is time to remove the stigma of citizen-carried firearms in our communities, campuses and cities and recognize that sometimes a firearm is exactly the right tool to assure personal protection. It is time for you, the college students in America to demand this right be recognized, accepted and be made the normal, not the unusual behavior.

Change this attitude with yourselves first and then your colleges and universities. Find out how successful you can be, just as your alumni did when they marched in civil rights movements, sat at segregated lunch counters and gave women the protection of reproductive rights. Be as successful as the generation that changed the Constitution to allow 18 year olds the right to vote. Take your success and build upon it as you enter the business world and as you become the next generation of elected officials in our country. Ensure through your actions that the citizens of Washington D.C. and Chicago, Illinois have the same rights of self-protection as the citizens in the rest of this country by changing the undefendable, unworkable and illegal laws imposed upon them. Ask the politicians that are already seeking your votes for change that will put them into power, what their position is on personal safety and the human right of self-protection.

Finally, as a personal favor to me, work to change the concealed carry firearms laws to simply firearms carry laws. Let’s work to make open carry as normal and unremarkable as openly carrying an iPod or a book bag. Doing so simplifies the rules, makes open or concealed carry a personal choice, expands handgun carry possibilities and further removes the stigma of a gun in public. The choice should be made by the carrier and a gun that slips and shows when it is supposed to be concealed would cease to be a scary circumstance or reason to panic by the less informed population. You can make those changes happen, can’t you?

RECOMMENDED READING AND RELATED LINKS
First Million Mom March: Gun Control and the First Million Mom March.
Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs: On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs
Concealed Carry in Wikipedia: Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection: Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection
A Nation of Cowards: A Nation of Cowards
Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun: Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun

REFERENCES:
1 Civil Rights Movement Timeline
2 Opposition to the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3 Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4 ABC News: Students Use Civil Rights Tactics to Combat Global Warming
5 At least 33 dead in Virginia rampage - Massacre at Virginia Tech - MSNBC.com
6 6 shot dead, including gunman, at Northern Illinois University - CNN.com
7 http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/T…lf-Defense.pdf
8 Cops Can’t Protect You
9 armed citizen
10 US Map of CCW Laws
11 Find A Local NRA Safety Course
12 Crime Trends In Utah And Concealed Carry Study
13 Crime Trends In Utah And Concealed Carry Study
14 Don’t believe anti-gun statistics
15 www.http://concealedcampus.org/
16 www.http://www.ccrkba.org/
17 Mothers Arms - Protecting What’s Ours
18 N.C. college’s security drill with ‘armed intruder’ mistaken for real thing | NEWS | Asheville CITIZEN-TIMES.com

Is a pistol faster than 911?

The most obvious answer is: yes. The AP reported the story of a woman in West Covina, CA who was shot to death while talking to a 911 dispatcher. This is similar to a story I posted on before where a woman called dispatch while hiding in her bedroom closet except when her attacker confronted her she shot him to death.

I believe that 911 dispatchers do the best they can. As I have previously stated, I also believe that by and large police officers do their very best to help us out when we’re in trouble and help us all sleep a little better at night. That said, they’re not fast enough, and they can’t be. They aren’t supermen. Even with an almost impossible response time of 30 seconds (almost unheard of), how much damage or death can some creep inflict in that amount of time? Police can’t be everywhere at once and we wouldn’t want them to be. A 185 grain bullet traveling at 1200 feet per second is a lot faster backup than a patrol car doing 80mph.

Guns aren’t the answer for everything BUT I believe that citizens should use the systems in place for their benefit, e.g. 911 and I also believe that people have a responsibility to care for themselves. I can’t always say that a gun would have saved a life, but in this case it wouldn’t have hurt to have it either. I hope more people start arming themselves for their protection and for the ones they love. A gun is just a tool, but it’s a pretty dang good one.

How do you explain this to the boys in the cell block?

Robber-0 Beauty School-1

An attempted robbery gone wrong, horribly wrong. When a man entered a beauty school with a gun drawn and told the women to empty their purses he got a lot more than loot. The man was tripped and beaten with “anything that wasn’t nailed down.” The man apparently tried to leave several times but was dragged back into the salon several times. He was carried away in an ambulance to receive stitches and have his wounds cared for.

I’ve said this before and this is only another example: People are sick and tired of dealing with scum like this. Tired of being victims, people are fighting back more often than fleeing.  Would a concealed handgun have diffused the situation any faster? I can’t say. It’s always easier to “monday quarterback” situations than to be in the thick of things. The women made good use of their surroundings and came out unscathed. A gun isn’t the answer for every solution because “when all you carry is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.” Hopefully, a table leg and a bruised ego will help this guy learn his lesson.

What the Heller? Both sides anxious.

Gun Control Advocates, Opponents Prepare for Supreme Court Argument

Sunday , March 16, 2008

By Lee Ross

 

_qoptions = { tags:”ADSDAQ.LAWPOLITICS.USGOVERNMENTRESOURCES,501752″ }; _qacct=”p-01-0VIaSjnOLg”;setTimeout(”quantserve()”,3000);<a href=”http://www.quantcast.com/p-01-0VIaSjnOLg” target=”_blank”><img src=”http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-01-0VIaSjnOLg.gif?tags=ADSDAQ.LAWPOLITICS.USGOVERNMENTRESOURCES,501752″ style=”display: none;” border=”0″ height=”1″ width=”1″ alt=”Quantcast” /></a>

WASHINGTON —

The nine justices of the highest court in the land will meet Tuesday to hear arguments on who the Founders Fathers intended when they called for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms: a well regulated militia or all individuals.Tuesday’s arguments in front of the Supreme Court — the focal point for gun rights advocates and foes alike — will be the first significant Second Amendment case in front of the high court since 1939. Supporters and opponents are equally excited and concerned by the prospect of what the court’s ruling —expected by June — could mean for individuals seeking clearer laws on the right to bear arms.

Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital and one party to the case, argues its handgun ban “is a governmental duty of the highest order.” The contrary argument claims the city’s law is “draconian” in its infringement of Second Amendment rights, which states, “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.”

In its pre-argument briefs to the Supreme Court the parties to this case seem to have been writing to convince today’s nine foremost grammarians or historians. Much of the presentations to the Supreme Court focus on the grammatical meaning of the 27-word amendment.

The agitator at the center of this case is Dick Heller, a police officer for the federal government who in his job patrolling federal buildings carries a handgun. But D.C. law prohibits him and nearly every other resident from registering a handgun for personal use.

The agitator at the center of this case is Dick Heller, a police officer for the federal government who in his job patrolling federal buildings carries a handgun. But D.C. law prohibits him and nearly every other resident from registering a handgun for personal use.Heller contends the handgun is necessary to defend himself at his home. The city’s law, on the books for more than three decades and one of the most stringent in the country, was passed to prevent violent and accidental gun violence. It’s a law the city and its supporters say is necessary and successful.

Heller’s lawsuit against the city was initially dismissed but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a landmark 2-1 decision, overturned that ruling. It declared that the Second Amendment guarantees all individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

That ruling contravened decades of jurisprudence that held the Second Amendment right was exclusive to militias. The D.C. government appealed that ruling and in November the Supreme Court announced it would take the case.

The D.C. government presents three overarching arguments to the Court. First, the city contends the D.C. Circuit erred in its basic interpretation of the law.

“The text and history of the Second Amendment conclusively refute the notion that it entitles individuals to have guns for their own private purposes,” reads the appeal by the city to the high court. Specifically, it points to the language of the Second Amendment and argues both clauses taken individually or in concert can only be read to suggest its application to militias and not individuals.

As for its historical argument, the city concludes, “There is no suggestion that the need to protect private uses of weapons against federal intrusion ever animated the adoption of the Second Amendment.”

The city’s attorneys detail the debate that preceded the enactment of the law as part of the Bill of Rights. In so doing, the city draws upon the works of William Blackstone, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and similarly worded legislation passed in the late 18th century. It argues the Founders’ “efforts surely were purposeful, and should not be ignored two centuries later.”

The city’s second argument is that the Second Amendment does not apply to District-specific legislation. It is a curious argument, at least politically, for a government keen on seeking equal representation in Congress.

“The Framers created a federal enclave to ensure federal protection of federal interests. They could not have intended the Second Amendment to prevent Congress from establishing such gun-control measures as it deemed necessary to protect itself, the president and this court.”

Its final argument rests on an analysis of the D.C. statute which the city says should be done on a “proper reasonableness” standard. The city argues its law “represent(s) the District’s reasoned judgment about how best to meet its duty to protect the public. Because that predictive judgment about how best to reduce gun violence was reasonable and is entitled to substantial deference, it should be upheld.”

In response, attorneys for Heller roundly disagree with the District’s positions with its most fundamental argument being that the lower court was correct in its judgment that the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear arms.

They contend the D.C. gun ban is a “draconian infringement” of the Second Amendment. And they too present their grammatical and historical interpretation of the law writing there cannot be “doubts or ambiguities” about the meaning of the second clause or its relationship with the first.

“The words cannot be rendered meaningless by resort to their preamble. Any preamble-based interpretive rationale demanding an advanced degree in linguistics for its explication is especially suspect in this context,” the attorneys argue.

Heller’s lawyers also present its Founders-era evidence by quoting from George Mason, Blackstone and Madison. They also quote lawyer John Adams during his successful defense of British soldiers in the aftermath of the Boston Massacre.

In that trial Adams conceded that “here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time for their defense, not for offense.”

They also dismiss as spurious the city’s argument that the Second Amendment does not have the effect of law in the District of Columbia. They acknowledge that Congress (and now the D.C. government under Home Rule) has the ability to make gun laws but must do so in accordance with the Constitution. Heller’s lawyers draw a parallel with Congress’s power to run the city’s schools which they note cannot then be segregated or otherwise be operated contrary to Constitutional holdings.

Finally, they dismiss the city’s argument that the handgun ban is legal under a “proper reasonableness” standard. Instead they offer a “strict scrutiny” guideline for imposing restrictions on gun ownership.

“As our nation continues to face the scourges of crime and terrorism, no provision of the Bill of Rights would be immune from demands that perceived governmental necessity overwhelm the very standard by which enumerated rights are secured. Exorbitant claims of authority to deny basic constitutional rights are not unknown. Demoting the Second Amendment to some lower tier of enumerate rights is unwarranted. The Second Amendment has the distinction of securing the most fundamental rights of all — enabling the preservation of one’s life and guaranteeing our liberty. These are not second-class concerns.”

It is common for the Supreme Court to ask for the official position of the United States government. In this case, Solicitor General Paul Clement has been given 15 minutes to argue before the court. Lawyers for the District of Columbia and Heller will each have 30 minutes.

His brief, however, surprised many when it argued against a definitive ruling on the merits of the case. Instead the brief counsels the justices that the “better course” would be to remand the case back to the lower courts for further review. In so doing, Clement urges the court to acknowledge the “plain text” of the Second Amendment and recognize that the law does guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. He says such an interpretation “reinforces the most natural reading of the amendment’s text.”

Clement asks the court to remand the case out of fear that an outright affirmation of the lower court’s ruling could “cast doubt” on all existing federal firearms legislation.

“The Second Amendment, properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation of firearms.” Within that framework Clement offers to the court what he describes as an intermediate or heightened level of judicial review. He says the court’s handling of legally similar cases by remanding them for further proceedings represent a due diligence that should be followed in this case.

Of the more than 65 friend-of-the-court briefs filed on this case, one drew immediate attention for its dismissal of the solicitor general’s remand argument and because the lead name attached to it is that of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Cheney, in his position as president of the Senate, joined a brief with 55 senators and 250 House members to support Heller asking the court to fully affirm the lower court ruling. It created the most unusual circumstance of the vice president — not to mention majorities of both chambers of Congress — in opposition to the official position of the U.S. government.

“This court should give due deference to the repeated findings over different historical epochs by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, that the amendment guarantees the personal right to possess firearms. … No purpose would be served by remanding this case for further fact finding or other proceedings.”

The members of Congress who joined the brief are mostly Republicans, including presumptive Republican presidential nominee and Arizona Sen. John McCain. A healthy number of gun-rights Democrats also joined in the brief.

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, did not make their positions known to the court. Another brief by 17 other House members—all Democrats—and the non-voting delegate to the House from Washington, D.C. asked the court to uphold the city’s handgun ban.

The original article appeared here.

Take a minute to say ‘thank you’.

This was passed along to me and I think it’s worth your time. SO many people sacrifice so much (sometimes their lives) so that you and I can be free and sleep in our warm beds at night. Next time you see them, take a minute and let them know you care. Find out more here.

Glenn Beck says personal responsibility dead. I agree.

 

Glenn Beck: Too bad, Michigan and Florida

• Story Highlights
• Glenn Beck says Florida and Michigan broke the rules in Democratic primaries
• Beck says personal responsibility has all but vanished in America
• Americans disenfranchised because our leaders aren’t doing their jobs, Beck says

By Glenn Beck
CNN

Editor’s note: “Glenn Beck” is on Headline News nightly at 7 and 9 ET.

NEW YORK (CNN) — What do these stories all have in common?

• A woman who says she lost more $1 million gambling in Atlantic City sues some casinos for $20 million, claiming they should’ve stopped her compulsive gambling.
• People who bought houses they couldn’t afford with loans they didn’t understand want their lenders to change the terms.
• Congress authorizes a war and then tries everything it can think of to get out of it.
• Our country gets addicted to oil and then blames OPEC when it doesn’t like the price.

These stories prove how personal responsibility has all but vanished in America, and our government is leading the way.

Remember the kid from that interminable 1980s commercial whose father caught him using drugs? The father incredulously asked, “Who taught you how to do this stuff?” and the kid responded, “You, alright? I learned it by watching you.”

Well, we are that kid and our government is that drug-using father who doesn’t think that anyone notices his bad habits.

Our government is leading us by example, and I don’t mean that in a good way. For years, it has spent us into oblivion, mortgaging our future for programs we can’t afford, and Americans have happily followed suit, running up credit card bills and home equity loans for things they never should’ve bought.

Unfortunately, we’re also learning something else from our government: how to avoid taking responsibility for our actions.

From Eliot Spitzer’s alleged hooker craze to the revelation that Arnold Schwarzenegger commutes to work in a large private jet even as he preaches the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions, there’s never been a shortage of “do what I say, not what I do” hypocrites in politics.

But that same attitude has seemingly spread from individual politicians to an entire party.

Democrats aren’t happy that delegates from Florida and Michigan won’t be seated at the national convention because those states broke clear party rules. Well you know what? Too bad. We don’t say that enough anymore. Too bad. You agreed to the rules; you broke them. Now you’ve got to deal with the consequences.

“But Glenn. … Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will have enough delegates to win the nomination. We don’t want this to be decided in some backroom by superdelegates.”

Too bad.

“But Glenn. … You don’t understand. If we don’t seat delegates from those states now, then we might lose their votes in the general election.”

Too bad.

“But Glenn. …. The voters in these states are going to be disenfranchised if we don’t let their voices be heard.”

Too bad.

If you want to talk about disenfranchised voters, then let’s talk about why just 17 percent of Americans have a positive view of Congress. Let’s talk about why we still have wide open borders despite most Americans wanting them sealed. Let’s talk about why we keep selling out our sovereignty and our security by borrowing billions of dollars from-less-than friendly countries, such as China.

Americans aren’t disenfranchised because our leaders won’t count votes in a couple of states. They’re disenfranchised because our leaders aren’t doing their jobs. They’re disenfranchised because after working hard to support their families and to raise kids who understand the difference between right and wrong, their leaders do exactly the opposite.

In the cases of Florida and Michigan, I’ve patiently listened to all the moving arguments about why there should be a “do-over,” but quite honestly, they’re not arguments at all. They’re excuses. If this race wasn’t so close, or if these states offered a combined 36 delegates instead of 366, do you really think anyone would care? Of course not.

But no matter what you think should happen, you have to admit that Clinton’s idea that we should simply count her “wins” in Florida and Michigan is completely ridiculous.

In fact, if you played a rimshot and a laugh track behind her every time she recited that line, people might actually agree to a two-drink minimum to see her speak. How could you possibly count the results from an election when your main opponent wasn’t even on the ballot (at least in Michigan)? You can’t — unless you think the rules are simply there for your own amusement.

Last year, when the punishment against Florida was first approved, Donna Brazile, a member of the Democratic National Committee rules panel, said she hoped that the harsh consequences would “send a message to everybody in Florida that we are going to follow the rules.” And Brazile knows a little something about that … she ran Vice President Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000.

Voters in Florida and Michigan should ask themselves one important question before they blindly follow their party: Why did no one seem to care about “alienating” them last year when the rules were intentionally broken? It’s only now, when their vote really matters, that everyone is suddenly so concerned about “enfranchising” them.

Florida and Michigan have a golden opportunity to stand up and say enough is enough, to send a message that it’s time to not only take responsibility for their actions but for those of our leaders as well.

After all, what would it say about personal responsibility in this country if we allow the two states that broke all the rules to end up having the biggest say of all?

This is so true it should scare the crap out of you

FOR THOSE OF YOU ON THE “CONSERVATIVE” SIDE OF THE FENCE, READ THIS AND LEARN TO UNDERSTAND YOUR FEELINGS BETTER THAN EVER. FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT ON THE “CONSERVATIVE” SIDE OF THE FENCE, PLEASE READ AND LEARN A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT.

 

(For additional information about this speech: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp)

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America’s finest minds and leader s. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Davis Hanson talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United State s. He said, “If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.’”

“Here is how they do it,” Lamm s aid: “First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country.” History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.” Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”.

Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences, make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

“Third, we could make the United States a ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, ‘The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’”

Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.

“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.

“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology’ I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other—that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common Language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell: ‘E. Pluribus Unum’—from many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

“Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century—that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-cultures, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed.

 

Finally he said, “Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book ‘Mexifornia.’ His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United State s today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’

 

American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states—to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy are deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don’t get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path—especially The American Dream.

The Sheep Parable

Author unknown.

Not so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of
sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the
master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack of
wolves would prey upon the flock.

One day a group of sheep, bolder than the rest, met to discuss their
dilemma. ‘Our dog is good, and vigilant, but he is one and the wolves are
many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges and
releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand.
What can we do? We are sheep, but we do not wish to be food, too!’

One sheep spoke up, saying ‘It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so
terrible to us. It is his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it,
but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If we had such teeth, we
could fight back, and stop this savagery.’ The other sheep clamored in
agreement, and they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped
in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and claw and made them
into weapons.

That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their
weapons and struck at them, crying, “Be Gone!” We are not food!’ and drove
off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become so bold and so
dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth?

It was unthinkable!

The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached
the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock
huddled together and cried out, ‘Baaaaaaaadddd! Baaaaaddd things!

You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!’

The brave sheep stopped, amazed. ‘But we are your brethren!’ they cried. ‘We
are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws
protect us and have saved us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves,
they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!’

‘Baaaaaaad!’ cried the flock, ‘the things are bad and will pervert you, and
we fear them. You cannot bring them into the flock!’ So the armed sheep
resolved to conceal their weapons, for although they had no desire to panic
the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to
those nights of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.

In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had
no stomach for fighting sheep who possessed tooth and claw even as they did.
Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep
out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from
which more than one wolf did not return.

Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep’s
weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece, and the flock cried out in
terror again, ‘Baaaaaad! You still possess these evil things! We must ban you
from our presence!’

And so they did. The great chief sheep and his council, encouraged by the
words of their advisors, placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture
forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested
before the council, saying, ‘It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed
you! When can you say we have caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who
prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!’

But the flock drowned them out with cries of ‘Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear
your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!’

Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days
on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their
brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but meeting
with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing
their words, would roll back their eyes and flee, crying ‘Baaaaddd! Bad
things!’

That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep’s totems and signs, and
said, ‘Truly, these sheep are fools! They have told us they have no teeth!
Brothers, let us feed!’ And they set upon the flock, and horrible was the
carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often
seemed to be in two places at once, but even he could not halt the
slaughter.

It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves
fled, only to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time
they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would be so
again. This they did, and do still.

In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, ‘See? If the
wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a
sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!’ But the flock cried out, more
feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, ‘Baaaaaaaad!
These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us!
Baaaaaaad!’

So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the
flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren
if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that as long
as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.

They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!

Free Right-to-Carry: Truth Wins More Allies

By Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director

Early every morning at NRA headquarters, we get the latest news stories on all issues that relate to our mission.

Quite often, the clippings read like a police blotter—incidents from all over the nation where law-abiding citizens have used firearms to defend themselves, their homes and businesses and their loved ones from criminal attack. Some of these tales make their way to you in the “Armed Citizen” column, although space simply won’t allow for all of them.

Reading these clippings every day reminds us that the work we do together makes a powerful difference in the lives of millions. I have lost count of the stories that end with a quote from the citizen to the effect that “I wish I hadn’t been forced to use this gun—but I’m sure glad I had it.”

It hasn’t even been 20 years since the concept of Right-to-Carry had its genesis in Florida, under the leadership of former NRA President Marion Hammer. Today, there are 40 states with Right-to-Carry on the books. Another eight provide some form of permit system, and only two—Wisconsin and Illinois—prohibit carrying altogether.

We still have our work cut out for us in the eight states that need reform, and the two that have no legal carry at all. State legislative sessions are now getting underway, and we will be on the front lines pushing for more and better Right-to-Carry laws everywhere we can.

As I have said before, a life of fear is what our opponents have chosen. They harbor fear of change, fear of the unknown and the strangest of all—fear of their fellow citizens and neighbors. Those who choose to exercise the basic right of self-defense have chosen a life of confidence.

The pattern in these debates has become familiar. When Right-to-Carry is proposed in any given state, our opponents marshal fear and hysteria, shrieking about “blood in the streets.” The media parrot their lines, and usually find some police chief in some big city who will sternly warn about the “dangers” of lawful self-defense.

But the mayhem never materializes. As we know, the people who pass the criminal record check for permits are, by definition, law-abiding. They go quietly about their day-to-day business, and the law-abiding fellow citizens they encounter are none the wiser.

But the members of the public who exercise their right to carry are enough to wildly skew the chances for predatory criminals. And even the media are starting to get it. In my home state of Tennessee, the Memphis Commercial Appeal recently ran an article that examined the increase in justifiable homicides, from 11 in 2006 to 32 in 2007. Memphis self-defense instructor Tom Givens had a simple explanation for the reporter: “The thugs have started running into people who can protect themselves.”

In Michigan, Right-to-Carry is now six years old, and law enforcement is coming around. A spokesman for the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police told the Detroit Free Press, “I think the general consensus out there from law enforcement is that things were not as bad as we expected … I think we can breathe a sigh of relief that what we anticipated didn’t happen.”

Grudging acceptance is the first step in the process. Other law enforcement experts have gone much further, faced with near-daily evidence of the value of “instant responders” who are on the scene when a criminal attack begins.

A commentary on PoliceOne.com, an information clearinghouse for active-duty law enforcement, makes quick work of analyzing the scenario that professionals call “active shooter.” Columnist Dick Fairburn, a longtime trainer with the Illinois State Police, takes note of the recent tragedies in Colorado, Utah and Nebraska, and writes, “Several years ago a comprehensive study of active shooter incidents found that most were over too quickly for a Rapid Deployment Contact team to assemble and make entry into the kill zone. In almost every incident where an active killer was stopped before they fully ran their plan, someone on-scene took immediate action. Generally, these ‘Instant Responders’ were security guards or ordinary citizens.”

Facts can dispel fear among legislators and some law enforcement officials, but not among the opponents of our fundamental right of self-defense. As I have said before, a life of fear is what our opponents have chosen. They harbor fear of change, fear of the unknown and the strangest of all—fear of their fellow citizens and neighbors. Those who choose to exercise the basic right of self-defense have chosen a life of confidence. We hold confidence in self-reliance, confidence that we can protect ourselves and our loved ones and confidence in our fellow citizens to do the same.

The first part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s quote is the famous one, but the rest is equally applicable: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” As we advance the right of self-defense through Right-to-Carry, the only people who need to retreat into fear are violent criminals.

The original article appeared here.