Sadly, a man's reputation for generosity is what may have nearly gotten him killed. Police said the man's 29 year-old neighbor, whom he had helped in the past, knocked on his front door and asked to use the phone. But that was not all the neighbor wanted. After talking on the phone, the young man asked for cash, which the homeowner refused to give him. That's when the 6'1", 250-lb. neighbor attacked the homeowner with a knife, viciously stabbing him. In the ensuing struggle, the homeowner retrieved a handgun and shot his assailant once in the chest, killing him. The victim was taken to the hospital, where he was recovering from stab wounds. (South Bend Tribune, South Bend, IN, 02/07/06)
The motivation behind a brutal assault in Oregon has yet to be determined. According to police, a man answered a knock at his front door and quickly found himself under attack by a stranger wielding a collapsible metal baton. The intruder beat the victim on his head and back, yelling that he was going to kill the man as they fought throughout the first floor of the two-story dwelling. The victim managed to break free and run to his upstairs bedroom. It was there that he grabbed a 12-ga. shotgun and turned the tables. He shot the intruder at least twice, killing him. (The Register-Guard, Eugene, OR 02/11/06)
After an 87-year-old woman's home was burglarized, her daughter gave her a .38-cal. handgun so she'd be prepared if it happened again. That gesture may have saved the senior citizen's life. According to the police, the woman awoke to the sound of a man breaking into her home early one morning. Calling for help wasn't an option; he had cut her phone wires. After the man removed the security bars from the woman's porch and attempted to access the front door, she fired a round from her pistol. The would-be intruder lay dead on the woman's porch for nearly four hours before her daughter showed up for breakfast. "She couldn't call for help and was afraid to go outside," said a state policeman. Authorities are investigating whether the man, a career criminal, was also responsible for the first burglary. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, MO, 02/07/06)
Sandra Phillips was about to take her two dogs for a walk when, according to police, an armed assailant dressed in black and wearing a ninja-style mask grabbed her outside her garage. The woman struggled, broke away and ran screaming into the house with the attacker in pursuit. Her screams awoke her husband, Lou Phillips, who responded with his .357 Mag. revolver, firing three times. The intruder died at the scene. He had been carrying a gun, handcuffs, tarps, a blindfold and, curiously, a pocket full of hot dogs. The local police chief said the incident was "completely out of the blue" for the town. (The San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco, CA, 02/28/06)
According to police, Perry Stephens walked out of an auto parts store and grabbed his .45-cal. handgun after hearing a man yell for help. The citizen in distress was an off-duty police officer working as an escort for a funeral procession. The officer had pulled a man over for illegally entering the line of mourners, and the man became irate over the ticket he was issued, knocking the officer to the ground and throwing punches at his face. As the officer cried for help a second time, Stephens ordered the man to get off the policeman. When he did not comply, Stephens shot the man four times in the chest and again ordered him to get off the officer, who had also shot the man once. Incredibly, the man continued his assault, so Stephens shot again, striking him in the head and killing him. (The Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA, 02/21/06)
A man was talking to a friend outside his home one evening when four men approached and forced them inside the home at gunpoint. According to police, the suspects made the victim kneel on his living room floor, then forced him into his bedroom where they demanded money and property. The victim reached into his nightstand, but instead of grabbing cash, he produced a .38-cal. pistol. When the intruders attempted to wrest the gun away, he shot one of them twice in the torso, prompting the others to flee the scene. The injured burglar was later pronounced dead at the hospital. (The Reporter, Vacaville, CA, 02/09/06) |
The landmark "Castle Doctrine" law, protecting and broadening citizens right to armed self-defense against criminal violence, came about because of a groundswell of public support in the Sunshine State. In part, because of the grassroots person-to-person efforts of NRA members, average Floridians clearly understood that armed self-defense is a basic human right and demanded that it be restored. And the public equally demanded repeal of existing laws that forced them to flee from criminal violence, gave criminals the right to sue citizens who defended themselves and gave prosecuting attorneys broad power to pursue criminal charges against victims who used force to protect themselves. That overwhelming legislative victory in Florida was labeled as "one of the dumbest things a legislature can do" by the Brady Campaign, which launched a vengeful international advertising effort warning tourists to stay away from Florida. While that campaign insulted average Floridians who supported the "Castle Doctrine" law, it did much to spread the word that the Brady Campaign and allied gun-ban groups were opposed to the very notion of armed self-defense by law-abiding citizens against violent criminals. Where the shrill forecast by the Brady Campaign nearly 20 years ago that Right-to-Carry would lead to "bloodbaths" proved utterly false, its dire predictions about the right to armed defense-under the Castle Doctrine are equally hollow and phony. There is a truth about the enemies of Freedom: The likes of the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center fear the very notion of armed self-defense as much as criminals fear armed citizens. In that fear, they especially insult women. Try this from a Brady Campaign website tract on "Women and Guns;' designed to warn women away from owning a gun for self-defense: "Guns are rarely used by rapists-less than 2 percent of rapes are committed with guns, while almost 70 percent are committed with personal weapons (physical violence). Women would be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun ... ." And that graphically points out the fundamental difference between the NRA and those intent on destroying the Second Amendment. While the Brady Campaign proposes that people should submit to violence, we say to Americans that you have the right and the power to resist lawless force with constitutional force. That is why we are aggressively pursuing enactment of "Castle Doctrine" legislation from coast-to-coast with bills moving in 21 states. As of today, three states-South Dakota, Indiana and Mississippi-have joined Florida in passing this self-defense law. Among the most essential guarantees of the Second Amendment is the right of armed self-defense. We believe that the individual armed citizen should have the means to stand up to any threat of lawless violence-be that threat against individuals or against an entire community as we saw in New Orleans when order was replaced with lawlessness and criminals ruled the streets. For ordinary citizens, a firearm was their only protection. Yet when these good citizens needed the Second Amendment the most, the New Orleans police chief issued orders to strip firearms from every law-abiding citizen. That is why we are pressing for enactment of "Katrina" laws through state legislatures to make it a crime for government agents to disarm peaceable citizens during declared emergencies. To what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina-where firearms were confiscated from citizens attempting to protect their lives, property and their neighbors against armed criminal gangs-we say, "Never again." And we are introducing legislation to safeguard the rights of employees who choose to lawfully keep firearms locked and inaccessible in their automobiles at their worksites-to prevent abusive corporate giants from defying the u.s. Constitution and placing themselves above the law of the land by trumping the Second Amendment rights of American workers. Decent citizens should not be forced into choosing between keeping their jobs and protecting their lives when traveling to and from work. In promoting these legislative reforms, our message is straightforward: Good people have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Bad people must be disarmed and imprisoned. And that should be the rule in every corner of the nation. These campaigns in states all across the nation require your ongoing financial support if we are to succeed in restoring lost freedoms. And that support must be buttressed by our collective power to influence those we elect to public office at all levels in the upcoming November elections. |
As we approach the 20th anniversary of passage of Florida's benchmark shall-issue Right-to-Carry law the historic model that spawned similar laws in 38 states-NRA has pledged to take that state's new groundbreaking "Castle Doctrine" legislation nationwide.
The World Forum was formed 10 years ago in response to passage by the United Nations of a resolution on small arms and increased U.N. activity by anti-gun member governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) toward passage of a treaty banning civilian gun ownership worldwide. Even though most of NRA's focus is within the 50 states, it is important for us to be aware of and address the threats to civilian gun ownership that come from abroad. The state of firearm ownership and privileges in other countries can teach us much about both the value and fragility of our freedoms. Notice that I said "privileges" in the last sentence and not "rights.” The United States of America is one of the few countries in the world where the natural right of self-defense is recognized in the nation's formative documents. Virtually everywhere else in the world, people have to beg permission from their governments to have the means of self-protection. Even where permitted, that privilege comes burdened with complicated licensing and regulatory schemes and the risk of imprisonment in questionable cases. Why do U.S. firearm owners need to know what is going on at the U.N., you ask? After all, with President George Bush in the White House and Ambassador John Bolton at the U.N. to protect our firearm rights, we don't have anything to worry about, right? Wrong! The 2008 presidential elections are just around the corner, and we all know how the favorite Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, feels about the Second Amendment. We must face facts. There may not always be a gun-friendly administration in the White House or a gun-friendly Senate to block ratification of an anti-gun treaty. But even if such a treaty were never ratified by the Senate, the mere existence of an anti-gun treaty passed by the United Nations would permit politicians and courts to point to international law as a reason for interpreting the Second Amendment right out of existence. Let's face it, the U.s. Supreme Court has put "the weight of international opinion" ahead of the Constitution in a couple of cases, much to the dismay of judicial conservatives such as Justice Antonin Scalia, who points out that this ignores not just our Constitution but our American tradition. Although I disagree with the French on most issues, they have a saying that is chillingly accurate in this context: "L'ennemi ne s'endort pas." The enemy never sleeps. Our best estimates are that our opposition-personified by Rebecca Peters of the International Action Network on Small Arms-has networks in 30 nations and a multi-million-dollar budget funded in part by anti-gun billionaire George Soros and the governments of the U.K., Belgium, Sweden and Norway. We are fighting an international enemy with unlimited resources. Portraying itself as a human-rights group, IANSA enjoys unfettered access to the U.N., its delegates and sympathetic organizations. The next battleground will be in June at the United Nations Small Arms Conference. Out of all the NGOs present at the last conference, the pro-gun side was outnumbered 70-1. Despite these odds, your NRA will be there to carry what our beloved former President Charlton Heston called the torch of freedom, and to ensure that the right of law-abiding, peaceable American citizens to keep and bear their private arms does not become a casualty of this U.N. assault against our way of life. As we face this battle, there are a few glimmers of hope on the international horizon. The defeat of the Brazilian gun-ban referendum was a surprise to all. The proponents of the ban expected an overwhelming victory. International gun-ban groups like IANSA intended to use Brazil as a model for similar campaigns in other countries. But Brazilian hunters, shooters and gun owners rallied and spoke with one voice and they said "No!" The ban was defeated by a margin of more than two thirds. Last year, in Italy, a law was passed recognizing the right of self-defense. And in Canada, with the recent defeat of the anti-gun political party and installation of the new conservative government, Canadians may now be able to work toward eliminating the wasteful, ridiculous firearm registry. As the June U.N. Small Arms Conference approaches, we must keep watchful eyes on our enemies-and we must never sleep. |
As I write this column, I am attending the annual meeting of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA) in Nuremberg, Germany. This is an organization made up of international pro-gun groups from various countries-including your NRA.