|
WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING
By Genie Jennings
Unless you are a gun-activist, either pro-
or con*, you are probably only dimly aware that in March a landmark
decision was made by the appellate court for the Washington, D.C.
area. Unless you are a pro-gun activist, you are unlikely to be
aware of exactly what that decision involved.
There was a brief flurry of news about the
decision, including denunciations by the Mayor of the city and the
usual suspects in the con-gun movement, which led most of the non-involved
to conclude that there would soon be massive numbers of firearms
on the streets of the nation’s capitol with the accompanying increase
in violent crime that is always predicted by the uninformed.
The average gun-owner disbelieved the second
part of the prediction, but accepted the first. The average gun-owner
to whom I explained the reality of the court decision was dumbfounded.
All but one of the appellants was asking
to have the ability to be licensed by the city of Washington to
own a pistol; all appellants were asking to be allowed to have a
workable firearm in his home. One woman owned a shotgun, and wanted
to have it assembled and ready to be loaded should the need arise.
That is all this case addressed. It was
only about the right of an individual to keep and bear a firearm
in his domicile. It was not about carrying a firearm either concealed
or openly in the streets of the city. It was not questioning the
right of the city to regulate the ownership of firearms. It was
simply asking to have the right to keep and bear a firearm in one’s
home.
As I said, when this was explained, people
were incredulous.
“Why is that even a question?” asked one
man. Why, indeed.
It seems ridiculous that men and women would
need a court to uphold their ability to defend themselves and their
families from intruders in their homes. This premise of the intruder
into a domicile is the centuries old basis of self defense. Someone
who entered one’s home without permission during the night was considered
to be a murderer, because it would be expected that the homeowner
would be in residence during the night. If someone broke into a
home during the day, he might be there only to steal because it
would be possible that the house would be empty, but at night he
would be assumed to be there to do harm to the resident.
People have a right to life; therefore,
they have the right to defend that life and the lives of others.
That seems straightforward and simple.
Yet, it is not so. For, while we were sleeping,
Washington, D.C. enacted a law that prohibits a non-licensed person
to move a usable firearm from room to room in his home. Then the
city refused to license individuals.
Again, please note that this is not licensing
to carry the firearm outside one’s house or apartment. This is licensing
to carry the firearm within the boundaries of one’s residence.
All the appellants asked for was this license.
‘Please,’ they said, ‘let me have a firearm in working order in
my home. Give me the means to protect myself and my family.’
It seems little to ask.
It seems so little to ask, that we should
be outraged. Yet, few of us are concerned. Most of us give little
thought to the need for defending ourselves, although most of us
expect to be able to do so if necessary. It is the necessity that
seems remote.
The majority of gun-owners are sportsmen.
Our politicians reassure us during every election cycle that they
are committed to protecting our rights to hunt and participate in
other shooting sports.
Read your Constitution. There is not one
word in the Constitution about hunting or traditional or sporting
uses of firearms. We have no right to hunt guaranteed in any useful
document.
We do have politicians who have sworn to
uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions
of the various states. Still, these politicians enact laws that
deny rights that are spelled out in those Constitutions. What reasonable
person would expect them to uphold promises that they have not sworn
to keep?
A just government derives its power from
the consent of the governed. A just government, therefore, has nothing
to fear from its citizens. If a citizen can be trusted at all, he
can be trusted completely.
If you are a gun-owner, if you are a hunter
or a marksman or a collector, wake up. Self defense is a basic human right™. You cannot allow the right to keep and bear arms to be denied
to any American and expect that your rights will be intact.
*Pro-gun activists believe that law-abiding individuals have the
right to keep and bear arms. Con-gun activists believe that all
citizens who wish to keep and bear arms are criminals, and fight
to create laws that will ensure that only law-breakers will have
firearms.
For more information and to find out
what is happening in your state contact: Second Amendment Sisters
at: 877-271-6216 or on the web at: 2asisters.org.
Printable
Version
|
