Police say two or three men who broke into a home looking for drugs messed up big time. "The victims had never seen them before. They probably picked the wrong house.” explained Los Angeles County Sheriff's Sgt. Charles Jurcak. "[The suspects] entered the location, confronted the husband and demanded to know where the pot was.”When the couple said they didn't know anything about marijuana, the frustrated intruders began to beat them. While they focused on the husband, the wife went to the bedroom to retrieve a firearm. On her way back, she was confronted in the hallway by one of the intruders and shot him several times. The suspects fled, but the injured intruder was found lying nearby and arrested. (Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Ontario, CA, 06/15/07)
Leroy Hudson was asleep upstairs while his wife, Janice, slept downstairs. Both awoke with alarm to loud, suspicious noises coming from their enclosed back porch. Leroy got a firearm while Janice called 9-1-1 to report an intruder. Leroy, 71, opened the door and encountered a man in . his mid-20s. He demanded to know what the intruder was doing in hopes of getting him to leave. But the man refused to speak, instead moving toward Hudson, who fired a single shot, incapacitating him. (The Oregonian, Portland, OR, 06/30/07)
A pastor and a 17-year-old boy were guarding their church's fireworks stand late at night when a group of suspicious juveniles approached. According to police, the suspects tried to enter the stand and concocted a phony story when confronted. They returned thirty minutes later. This time, two or three suspects attempted to distract the pastor while the others went around and again tried to sneak inside the stand. "When the 17-year-old confronted them, they began assaulting him,” said Muskogee, OK, Deputy Police Chief Johnny Teehee. "The boy was screaming for help .... " The pastor answered his cries, shooting one of the assailants, who will be arrested after his release from the hospital. Four other juveniles were also arrested. The 17-year-old was treated at the hospital and released. (Tulsa World, Tulsa, OK, 06/26/07)
Three armed men allegedly barged through the unlocked front door of a home occupied by five men and one woman, most of them students. Police say the residents fled in multiple directions as the suspects raided the home. One of the victims grabbed a semi-automatic AK-47 and hid in a closet. He heard two shots fired somewhere in the home and the next thing he knew one of the intruders was trying to force his way into the closet with a handgun. The victim fired three rounds, killing the gunman. "He did everything possible to avoid a physical confrontation. The last thing he wanted to do was kill somebody," said Orlando Deputy Sheriff Carlos Padilla, who didn't know why the house was targeted. "Deep down in his heart, he felt his friends were getting killed.” (Orlando Sentinel, Orlando, FL, 06/22/07)
According to police, a teenager asked a 16-year-old acquaintance if he could stay the night, claiming he was experiencing problems at home. The acquaintance agreed, presumably under the impression the teen was a friend, but this was no friendly visit. Once invited inside by the 16-year-old and his mother, the teen left the front door unlocked. During the night, two youths used the unlocked door to rush inside with a shotgun and pistol. While they demanded money, the mother snuck into a back bedroom to phone police and a neighbor for help. The neighbor, armed with a firearm, showed up first and held the would-be robbers at gunpoint until police arrived. As police handcuffed the boys, they discovered that the teen who had been invited to stay the night also had a gun. (News Channel 5 WTVF, Nashville, TN, 06/18/07) |
For all of us who have worked so hard to reshape the federal judiciary, proof positive of our success came this summer with a stunning turnaround by the U.S. Supreme Court in support of First Amendment rights. With two new Justices joining the 5-4 majority, the high court struck down as unconstitutional a Federal Election Commission (FEC) pre-election ban on public policy broadcast advertising. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL), penned by new Chief Justice John Roberts, was a clear victory for freedom. NRA filed an amicus, or "friend of the court," brief in support of WRTL’s case. The decision will have a major impact on NRA's ability to reach the American people with our public policy messages about firearm rights. In summing up the court's June 2007 ruling, Roberts wrote " ... we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship." This new decision partially reverses the prior court's abominable December 2003 McConnell v. FEC decision. In that case, NRA and a diverse group of grassroots organizations and unions were instrumental in challenging the pre-election broadcast speech bans contained in the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). That valiant constitutional challenge was led by U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). But with the makeup of the court then, that effort was to no avail. That loss spurred our determination to see court vacancies filled by jurists who believe in the fundamental meaning of the U.S. Constitution. In that, we succeeded. Chief Justice Roberts filled the seat vacated at the death of William Rehnquist and Justice Samuel Alito replaced retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the key jurist swinging the former majority against the First Amendment in McConnell v. FEC. The banned Wisconsin Right to Life issue ads at the heart of this new decision merely asked voters to contact their senators and demand an end to filibusters of President Bush's nominees for federal courts. That filibuster effort-led by gun- ban U.S. Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)-was intended to kill up or down votes on all Federal Judiciary candidates cut from the same cloth as the new justices who made the difference in this case. Ironically, the initial FEC ruling against WRTL involved a claim that the target of what it deemed "illegal" ads was U.s. Sen. Russell Feingold-co-author of BCRA-who was running unopposed in a primary election. In reviewing the WRTL decision, we would have preferred that the court had thrown out as unconstitutional the entire onerous "electioneering communication" section of BCRA. But. this ruling goes a long way toward protecting First Amendment rights of grassroots incorporated entities like NRA. In essence, it forbids federal regulators from banning broadcast issue advertising that does not directly exhort voters to either support or oppose candidates for federal office. Before this decision, federal election law made it a felony to use corporate funds (like your NRA dues) to air a broadcast message that the speech-police at FEC could construe as even remotely referring to a candidate for federal office. That broadcast speech ban applied 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before the general election. When Congress enacted this oppressive law, the National Rifle Association, as a grassroots corporation, was singled out for censorship, Our highly acclaimed infomercials were labeled "sham ads" and were targeted for broadcast speech bans. Without this new ruling, NRA's running an educational broadcast alluding to any· candidate for federal office anywhere in the nation during the pre-election blackouts could amount to a federal crime. A broadcast expressing NRA's staunch opposition to a gun ban could be seen by FEC enforcers as indirectly urging Americans to vote against a candidate favoring a firearm ban-say, Hillary Clinton. One remarkable aspect of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. is that three of the five justices voting for the ruling felt the high court should have gone further and ruled the entire "blackout" broadcast ban unconstitutional. Writing for Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the effect of BCRA " ... has been to undermine the traditional and important role of grassroots advocacy in American politics ... ." Perhaps suggesting the nature of a future challenge, Scalia said of the U.S. Supreme Court: " ... It is perhaps our most important constitutional task to assure freedom of political speech. And when a statute creates a regime as unworkable and unconstitutional ... it is our responsibility to decline enforcement." Even if it didn't go far enough, this new decision demonstrates the dramatic change in the court and illustrates how urgently important the 2008 elections are. There will be Supreme Court vacancies in the near future. We must work to assure that a true enemy of the Second Amendment does not take the White House in those coming watershed elections. At stake is nothing less than who will control future nominations to our entire federal court system from top to bottom. |
Not long ago, an American gun owner suggested to me that because NRA so strongly supports gun safety and voluntary training, we should go one step further and endorse legislation requiring NRA training for anyone who wants to purchase a hunting rifle. I was shocked. To think that he would even consider such a proposal-let alone suggest that NRA actively assist in erecting roadblocks and checkpoints between law-abiding citizens and their God-given rights-well, it was disturbing, to say the least. Obviously, social pressures are behind such points of view. Gun safety is certainly a worthwhile aim and no one does more than NRA to teach Americans to be safe with firearms. We've helped reduce gun-accident rates by a stunning 94 percent over the past century. But should safety training be mandatory before you exercise your rights? Of course not. What if the government applied the same roadblocks to the rest of the Bill of Rights? Should bureaucrats require training before you can write a letter to the editor, become a talk-show host, join the clergy or attend a house of worship? Should government "education" be required before you're "qualified" to hold a rally or walk a picket line? No, once fundamental freedoms become dependent upon government's "approval,” your most fundamental rights become subject to the whim and will of whoever writes and grades the test, whoever decides the "passing" grade, and whatever biases, trick questions, and arbitrary grading schemes they wish to impose. That's why the Constitution says that you are not required to earn the right before exercising your freedoms-as an American, freedom is your birthright. In my travels around the country, I've heard gun owners say they believe in the Second Amendment absolutely-but then suggest that "we should be more tolerant and learn to compromise" to gain "acceptance" from our anti-gun opponents. How can that be? They seem to believe that if only we would give an inch, then our gun-hating, freedom-hating enemies would become more tolerant and accepting of us and leave our freedoms alone. It's nice to be accepted, but it doesn't work that way. What some call compromise-like requiring mandatory training before anyone can exercise his Second Amendment rights-is really capitulation, surrender without a fight. We sometimes place too high a value on compromise. As citizens in a representative democracy, some folks think that the best, most stable form of governance is one where all interests have a voice and a vote and thus the best for the most is achieved through the give-and-take of political horse trading. But not when it comes to freedom Freedom is unique. It is uniquely fragile. It's also uniquely threatened when, for example, it's voted into oblivion by a temporarily distracted, dishonest or malevolent majority; that's called "tyranny of the majority.” As the old saying goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.” Did Patrick Henry, John Adams, George Mason and James Madison compromise with King George? No! In word and in deed, they said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" And, years later, Charlton Heston proclaimed, "From my cold, dead hands!" To those who say the NRA should compromise more in an effort to become more mainstream, I can only reply, "We are mainstream.” Look at the millions of Americans who consider themselves NRA members, whether or not they paid their dues. Look at how your NRA is ranked at the top of the list among Washington interest groups every year, easily besting bigger and better-funded organizations. No issue is more mainstream than exercising and protecting the freedoms that make America unique in the history of the world. Be proud of who you are, what you do and what you believe. Display your NRA membership decals proudly. Tell your friends, family, co-workers and neighbors why you care so deeply about the Second Amendment and the NRA that defends it. Invite them to the range to shoot, and let them find out for themselves how much fun it is. Then invite them to join the NRA. Do this, and you will help build the proud, passionate "army of freedom" that registers pro-gun voters, defeats anti-gun politicians, elects pro-freedom leaders and reaffirms time and again that NRA is at the heart of mainstream, Main Street America. |
