Letter at length, May 14

Clarifying the right to bear arms

This missive should clarify the true purpose of the Second Amendment.

In 1980, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled there were three reasons for the Constitutional "right to keep and bear arms" proviso: 1) As a deterrent against governmental oppression; 2) to make the right of personal defense meaningful; and 3) a preference for home-grown militia over a standing army.

In Warren vs. the District of Columbia (1981), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that, "Official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection "¦ this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principal that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen "¦ a publicly maintained police forced constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order."

In Bowers V. DeVito (1982), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled, "[T]here is not constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

According to the United States Supreme Court, no criminal can be compelled to register his or her guns because it violates their Fifth Amendment rights.

With the above in mind, the following must logically follow (common sense!):

1) If I refuse to obey a law that demands I as an honest law-abiding citizen register my guns, I automatically become a criminal that cannot be compelled to register my guns;

2) Any legislator that attempts to limit my personal right to keep and bear the arms necessary for my personal defense and the defense of my community is automatically guilty of the crime of aiding and abetting criminals or madmen, or government oppression.

John K. Fox


Share This Story