A 66-year-old Montgomery, Ala., man and his handgun prevented a would-be robber from making off with a bank bag belonging to a church. The victim had arrived at a bank on a Monday morning, ready to deposit funds from his congregation, when he was approached by a man who forced him to the ground and took the money. However, the church courier stood up, drew his gun and fired a shot that foiled the crime. His attacker initially fell to the ground and subsequently fled, but dropped the bank bag in the process. All the money inside was recovered. Police said later it was uncertain if the suspect had been struck by the shot, or if he had simply fallen. (Montgomery Advertiser, Montgomery, AL, 04/19/05)
The hooded armed robber likely thought the older, female clerk would be an easy mark as he entered a Tampa convenience store, brandishing his gun and demanding money. He wasn't counting on confronting someone like Janet Grammer. The 64- year-old mother of 10, a former security guard, pulled her own gun from under the cash register and fired, hitting the criminal in the chest. "I think he thought I was an old woman and would just give him the money," Grammer said after the incident. "I think I scared the hell out of him. I thought he was getting ready to shoot me in the head. My life was at stake." Grammer, who also has 32 grandchildren, three great-grandchildren and three great-great-grandchildren, later said she worried that she had killed the hospitalized assailant. "It was very upsetting. The good Lord had to be with me," she said. (The Tampa Tribune, Tampa, FL, 04/16/05)
A resident of Hempfield Township, Pa., tried, at first, to halt a 3 a.m. break-in at his house by firing two shots. The intruder allegedly used a fireplace poker and his fists to break out a pane of glass, but refused to heed the warning and then charged the homeowner. The next time the homeowner fired his handgun he struck the bandit in the legs and drove him out of the house. Police arrested the suspect and later said he would be charged with multiple offenses. None of the family members—husband, wife or two young daughters—were hurt in the home invasion, a Pennsylvania state trooper reported. (Tribune-Review, Greensburg, PA, 04/10/05)
A woman living in Charles County, Md., initially turned to the judicial system to seek protection from an abusive ex-boyfriend. "I have been afraid to come forth and speak out for fear of him doing bodily harm to me and threatening to burn down my home," she said in her petition requesting a protective order. "The last four years have been a living hell. I am contemplating purchasing a handgun for my protection." After twice violating the court order, the man, described as a violent drug addict, broke into the home and began beating her current boyfriend with a metal pipe. This time she was indeed armed with a handgun, which she used to shoot and kill her attacker. Police said she had not been charged with a crime and that they considered her a victim. (Maryland Independent, Charles County, MD, 04/08/05)
Even after ramming a police cruiser with his own vehicle, a reckless driver in Blair County, Penn., apparently thought he could run from the authorities. But in the end he couldn't hide from an armed citizen. The pursuit began shortly after midnight when police unsuccessfully tried to pull over a car that had run a stop sign. After an extended high-speed chase, the officer on the scene broke off pursuit, but police soon found the suspect's vehicle overturned and unoccupied. Shortly thereafter, the county's 9-1-1 center received a call about a man attempting to gain entry to a nearby home, but responding officers were not able to locate him. A few minutes later, a second call from the residence said that the man had been found hiding in the basement. Upon arrival police found a cornered suspect being held at gunpoint by a female resident. He was positively identified as the driver and taken into custody. (Altoona Mirror, Altoona, PA, 02/25/05)
A 64-year-old traveler from Arkansas stopped to ask directions at a Milwaukee gas station and soon found himself confronted by a gang of young men. A fight started, during which one attacker choked the motorist while a second beat the man with his own cane. Acting in self-defense, according to the police report, V.O. Coins then pulled a handgun from under the seat and shot and killed the 20-year-old thug who had been choking him. Officers responding to the scene found Goins' car keys on a juvenile accomplice. A Milwaukee assistant district attorney said Coins would not be charged. (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Milwaukee, WI, 04/07/05) |
In reaction to the empowerment of ordinary armed citizens, the Brady Campaign-well-known arch-enemies of the right to self-defense-called the new law "heinous." What is so "heinous" about giving a mother the right to use lawful deadly force against a carjacker?What is so "heinous" about preventing a politically motivated, anti- gun prosecutor from vindictively pursing an innocent homeowner for lawfully defending his or her family? What is so "heinous" about removing the "retreat" obligation of a law-abiding victim to run away before considering the option of using force to meet force? What is so "heinous" about protecting innocent victims of violent crime-good people who have used force to defend themselves-by prohibiting lawsuits filed on behalf of their criminal attackers? What is so "heinous" about giving a homeowner the presumption that the presence of a home-invader spells danger to life and limb? And what is so "heinous" about saying that none of these provisions apply to those who are committing felonious acts? The only thing "heinous" in any of this is the position of the Brady Campaign and its media enablers, who have come down on the side of violent criminals versus innocent victims who fight back. Never forget that the Brady idea of Utopia is Great Britain, where the disarmed populace is subject to prosecution for any form of self-defense, and where armed criminals control not only urban neighborhoods but the rural countryside. Hopelessly claiming, "The populace in Florida is very much ... on our side," the Brady Campaign has called the overwhelming votes in the Senate and House "one of the dumbest things a legislature can do." In fact, what the legislature did, and what Governor Jeb Bush did when he signed the "no retreat" legislation into law, was to listen to the people. And the people are far from "dumb." A Pensacola TV poll showed that 89 percent of Floridians across the board were for expanding their rights to defend themselves against criminal violence-not just in their homes, but in places where they have a right to be. From all of the media attention focused on the process, it was also clear that the Florida public fully understood the purpose and intent of the legislation they wanted signed into law. Even when anti-gun segments of the Florida media tried their best to ridicule the legislation, the message got through to the people. Try this truly weird commentary by a founder of a group called the "Nonjustice Foundation"-"Who can say whether an assailant was killed in self-defense for an attack not yet completed ... ?" The answer to that question is found by the hundreds of thousands-names in police reports filed every day across the nation-where unarmed victims have been robbed, raped, beaten, maimed or killed in completed attacks. No matter how hard anti-gun segments of the Florida media tried to tar the issue, the message that got through to Floridians was the simple truth: that this new law clarified their right to defend themselves against violent criminals. Nobody said it better than former NRA President Marion Hammer, who heads Unified Sportsmen of Florida and spearheaded the grassroots effort to educate both the public and legislators: "This bill gives back rights that have been eroded and taken away by a judicial system that at times appears to give preferential treatment to criminals .... Law-abiding people should not be told that if they are attacked, they should turn around and run." Her message- and the truth of the Florida groundswell-has largely been ignored by the national media, which has generally only carried the fear-mongering message of the gun-ban crowd. The New York Times, which has recently opened a public relations campaign to appear "fair and balanced," was down to its usual low standards on the gun issue. In its coverage of Gov. Bush's signing of the "stand your ground" legislation, the Times quoted two Florida big city police chiefs who opposed the legislation and specifically neglected to mention that the effort had diverse and widespread support from virtually every major police organization in the state. The Times also left out the fact that Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist was an active supporter of the new law. It was the same for most other national media outlets. But whatever the anti-gun media do-from ignoring the issue, to ridiculing people who seek the return of their right to self defense, or to outright lying about the new law-it matters not one whit. The simple message is getting through to the American people-this is a good law, which will be replicated in other states across the country in need of this life-saving measure. |
When the Florida Senate voted 39 to zero and the Florida House followed suit by a 94 to 20 margin to enact a new "Castle Doctrine" law expanding the right of good citizens in the Sunshine State to use lawful deadly force to defend themselves and their families, many in the media took their usual cue from the likes of the Brady Campaign and ranted about "Wild West shootouts" and about a legislature "controlled" by the NRA. Some in the media referred to lawfully armed citizens as "idiots" and "goobers." It was all a smokescreen.
The meaning of the Second Amendment-our bedrock and foundation-is not decided by those we elect to Congress or the White House. The meaning of the Second Amendment will be decided by the ultimate interpreters and guardians of the Constitution, the nine justices who sit-unelected and for life-on the United States Supreme Court. Very soon, perhaps as early as this summer, there will be at least one and possibly more vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, Firearm owners will have an unprecedented opportunity-perhaps the only opportunity in our lifetimes-to shape the Court. The fate of the Second Amendment is in our hands. In the career of a federal judge, the only time he or she is accountable to the people is during the nomination process. Under the Founders' system of checks and balances, the president of the United States nominates all federal judges-including filling any vacancies on the Supreme Court-and the U.S. Senate exercises its power of "advice and consent" to either confirm or reject the nominees. Thus, those 100 senators must answer for how they vote on these nominees, and we must ensure that they vote for new justices who will uphold the Second Amendment, indeed our entire Constitution, and Bill of Rights. We need justices on the Supreme Court like Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In an October 2004 anti-Bush column, The New York Times warned, "If President Bush gets the chance to name three young justices who share the views of Scalia and Thomas, it could fundamentally change America for decades." How right they are! Both of these justices are on record as uncompromising defenders of the Second Amendment. President Bush may nominate as many as three new justices and, if they are like Scalia and Thomas, they will create a Supreme Court that would be the ultimate guardian of your Second Amendment rights. Part of what makes these justices great, in addition to their brilliant minds and legal experience, is their judicial philosophy. They are "originalists. "That means they believe that in interpreting the Constitution, they should apply the ordinary meaning of the words at the time they were written. It means following the Framers' intent. When it comes to the Second Amendment, Justice Scalia has said, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that. There is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant." That is exactly the kind of justice we want on the Court. And those who oppose us understand this. In that same column, The New York Times said, "It is quite possible that if Mr. Bush is reelected, he will get three appointments, enough to forge a new majority that would turn the extreme Scalia-Thomas worldview into the law of the land. "What they call extreme, we call mainstream. What they ponder with gloom, we should embrace with joy. A Supreme Court full of Scalias and Thomases would restore a faithful interpretation of the Second Amendment and all of our constitutional liberties to the law books and courtrooms of America. When the Supreme Court issues a ruling, that ruling is binding on everyone, overriding every act of Congress, presidential order, lower court ruling or state law that stands in its way. A broad ruling on the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court wherein the majority favors the same judicial philosophy as Justices Scalia and Thomas would change the debate over firearm rights forever. Such a ruling could achieve in one fell swoop what would otherwise take years-or even decades-to accomplish. That is why the likes of Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and others on the far left are so forcefully passionate about trying to stop President Bush's judicial nominees from being confirmed. They know, as we do, that appointments to the Supreme Court will be the pivotal battle that wins or loses the war over the Second Amendment in America. And it is a battle that we must win! |
This is a great time to be an NRA member. We enjoyed tremendous success this past election cycle. Now we have an historic opportunity to help shape the makeup of the United States Supreme Court.