Good Gun Quotes - MODERN LEADERS' THOUGHTS ON GUN CONTROL - AND MORE!

[Deborah K]

Mohandas K. Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn." Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983.

Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)

Bill Clinton: (US President, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution, (not to violate it, criticize it, and belittle it)) "When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly...When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it." (April 19 1994, on MTV)

Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.

Benito Mussolini: “The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. ... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.” (address to the Italian Senate, 1931)

Charles Shumer: (US Congress, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution) "All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars." (Press conference, 1993, exact date being sought)

Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.

Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center: "A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls . . . and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act . . . [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns." "Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines," Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)

Diane Feinstein: "US Senator, If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" (Statement on TV program 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)

Deborah Prothrow-Stith: "My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned." (Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

Jill Fieldstein, CBS producer, Street Stories: Women and Guns: "As a card-carrying member of the liberal media, producing this piece was an eye opening experience. I have to admit that I saw guns as inherently evil, violence begets violence, and so on. I have learned, however, that in trained hands, just the presence of a gun can be a real "man stopper." I am sorry that women have had to resort to this, but wishing it wasn't so won't make it any safer out there. 29 April 1993.

And from one of your favorite gun-grabbing gods, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, stated: "If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah." (Health Magazine, March/April 1994)

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch: "In my studies as an attorney and as a United States Senator, I have constantly been amazed by the indifference or even hostility shown the Second Amendment by courts, legislatures, and commentators. James Madison would be startled to hear that his recognition of a right to keep and bear arms, which passed the House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate, has since been construed in but a single, and most ambiguous Supreme Court decision, whereas his proposals for freedom of religion, which he made reluctantly out of fear that they would be rejected or narrowed beyond use, and those for freedom of assembly, which passed only after a lengthy and bitter debate, are the subject of scores of detailed and favorable decisions. Thomas Jefferson, who kept a veritable armory of pistols, rifles and shotguns at Monticello, and advised his nephew to forsake other sports in favor of hunting, would be astounded to hear supposed civil libertarians claim firearm ownership should be restricted. Samuel Adams, a handgun owner who pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," would be shocked to hear that his native state today imposes a year's sentence, without probation or parole, for carrying a firearm without a police permit."

Senator Orrin Hatch: "If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying--that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976--establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime." Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).

Sen. Hubert Humphrey: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns Magazine, Page 4, Feb. 1960.

John F. Kennedy: "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

George Orwell: "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

Laurence H. Tribe of the Harvard Law School: "The federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification." (2000 edition of American Constitutional Law)

Attorney General John Ashcroft: "Just as the First and Fourth Amendment secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This view of the text comports with the all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers."

John F. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann [From the 1974 Gun Digest, article titled Gun Laws]

Sanford Levinson on The Second Amendment as an Individual Right: "The structure of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights proves that the right to bear arms is an individual right, rather than a collective one. The collective rights' idea that the Second Amendment can only be viewed in terms of state or federal power "ignores the implication that might be drawn from the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments: the citizenry itself can be viewed as an important third component of republican governance as far as it stands ready to defend republican liberty against the depredations of the other two structures, however futile that might appear as a practical matter." Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 YALE L.J. 637, 651 (1989).

Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisky: “There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.”

President Theodore Roosevelt: "The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world... The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!" – President Theodore Roosevelt's last message to Congress.

Louisiana Governor Mike Foster: "Most people don’t ever want to use a gun to protect themselves — that’s the last thing they want to do — but if you know how and you have a situation with some fruitcake running around, like they’ve got right now, it sure can save you a lot of grief."

Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."

James Earl Jones: "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop: "The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake." - former U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wy.)

David Prosser, Wisconsin Supreme Court justice: "If the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is to mean anything, it must, as a general matter, permit a person to possess, carry and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of his private residence or privately operated business."

Paul Hager: "One of the arguments that had been made against gun control was that an armed citizenry was the final bulwark against tyranny. My response had been that untrained, lightly-armed non-soldiers couldn't prevail against a modern army. I had concluded that the qualitative difference in firepower was such that all of the previous rules of guerilla war no longer applied. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan demonstrated that wasn't true. Repelling an armed invasion is not something that American citizens are likely to face, but the possibility of a despotic government coming to power is not wholly unthinkable. One of the sequellae of Vietnam was the rise of the Khmer Rouge and slaughter of perhaps a million Cambodian citizens. Those citizens, like the Jews in Germany or the Armenians in Turkey, were unarmed and thus utterly and completely defenseless against police and paramilitary. An armed minority was able to kill and terrorize unarmed victims with total impunity." – Paul Hagar, "Why I Carry"

Daniel Schmutter: "The tragic history of civilian disarmament cries a warning against any systematic attempts to render innocent citizens ill-equipped to defend themselves from tyrant terrorists, despots or oppressive majorities," Daniel Schmutter, lawyer for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

Jeff Cooper: "Hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them." Jeff Cooper, To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth

Larry Elder: "A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders."

Click Here for Some Bogus Gun Control Quotes

There's more....

[Deborah K]

WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS THOUGHT ABOUT "GUN CONTROL"

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.

Thomas Jefferson: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

Noah Webster: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops" (Noah Webster, 1787)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

William Pitt: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (Nov. 18, 1783)

Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

St. George Tucker: “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

Thomas Paine: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."

And more....

[Deborah K]

WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS MEANT BY THE "MILITIA"

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army" to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the second amendment. (my personal opinion)

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

Joseph Story: "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people." (Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.)

President James Madison: "...to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;... to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics--that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;..." President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.

Tenche Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

William Rawle: "In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest." William Rawle, "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829)

And more....

[Deborah K]

CONTEMPORARY THINKERS COMMENT ON "MILITIA"

Professor Akhil Reed Amar: "The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to the 'the people,' not the 'states.' As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two of course are not identical and when the Constitution means 'states,' it says so. Thus... 'the people' at the core of the Second Amendment are the same 'the people' at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment, namely Citizens...Nowadays, it is quite common to speak loosely of the National Guard as 'the state militia,' but...in 1789, when used without any qualifying adjective, 'the militia' referred to all Citizens capable of bearing arms. The militia is identical to 'the people' in the core sense described above."

Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm: "The Second Amendment was meant to accomplish two distinct goals...First, it was meant to guarantee the individual's right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation. These privately owned arms were meant to serve a larger purpose as well...and it is the coupling of these two objectives that has caused the most confusion. The customary American militia necessitated an armed public...the militia (being)...the body of the people. The argument that today's National Guardsmen, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation."

Alan Dershowitz: "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

And.....

[Deborah K]

FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION:

Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

Noah Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority...the Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." (Source still being sought)

Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to William Johnson)

Joseph Story: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." (Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.)

And .....

[Deborah K]

And there's this.....

RELIGION, WEAPONS AND SELF DEFENSE:

"Now there was no metal smith found in all the land of Israel, for the Philistines had said, "Lest the Hebrews make for themselves swords or spears"...But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, each man to sharpen his plow blade, his coulter, his ax and his maddock. So it came to pass on the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul or Jonathan; but with Saul and Jonathan there was found [other lethal weapons] 1 Samuel 13:19-22)

"Jesus said, 'But now whoever has a purse or a bag, must take it and whoever does not have a sword must sell his cloak and buy one.'" (Luke 22:36)

"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed." (Exodus 22:2) (Note, the test later indicates that this right to kill does not apply to a daytime break in. So in daylight, self defense must be shone.)

"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe." (Luke 11:21) (Note, the text later states that a stronger or better armed criminal could overpower a weaker or poorly armed victim, so get a 1911 .45 ACP!)

"A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox as an honest Man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will towards Men? Can he be a patriot who, by an openly vicious conduct, is undermining the very bonds of Society?....The Scriptures tell us "righteousness exalteth a Nation." Abigail Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military

"The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!" George Washington

"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." Daniel Webster, Jun. 17, 1825 - from a speech at the foundation of the Bunker Hill monument commemorating the soldiers of the American Revolution.

"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." St. Augustine A.D. 354-430

"Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one’s life, one’s goods or one’s physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor’s death... In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one’s life or one’s goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim." [There are three conditions under which legitimate self-defense must lie:] "That he who is the target of the force is an aggressor and an unjust aggressor... That the object of the defence is an important good, such as the life, physical integrity or worthy goods... [and] That defensive violence is proportionate to aggression." [Under these conditions,] "One is also allowed [not required] to kill other people’s unjust aggressor." Thomas Aquinas, Dizionario ecclesiastico ("Ecclesiastic dictionary", UTET, 1959)

http://www.sightm1911.com/Care/Gun_Quotes.htm

[Pericles]

What is interesting is what was left out of the JFK quote above:

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

John F. Kennedy, April 1960 (Guns, "Know Your Lawmakers", April 1960, Page 4)

And let me add:
“The unarmed man is not just defenseless – he is also contemptible.” – Machiavelli

[Pericles]

The most awesome dissenting opinion ever:

19 F.3d 177
73 A.F.T.R.2d 94-1799, 73 A.F.T.R.2d
94-2432, 62 USLW 2702
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Wendell ARDOIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 93-4272.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
April 6, 1994.


26 WIENER, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part, concurring in part, and dissenting in the result:

27 Over a half-century ago, in 1934, Congress held hearings to determine whether it had the authority to regulate the manufacture, transfer, and possession of machine guns.1 As these hearings predated the vast New Deal enlargement of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, then Attorney General Homer S. Cummings correctly explained to the gathered congressmen that Congress could not simply ban machine guns because it had "no inherent police power to [make law concerning] local crime."2 Only through Congress' power to tax, explained Cummings, could machine guns be regulated.3 Thus was born the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), which imposed a tax on the manufacture and transfer of machine guns pursuant to Congress' power to raise revenue. Indeed, when the constitutionality of the NFA was attacked, its validity was upheld by the Supreme Court "precisely because the National Firearms Act was a revenue measure only and did not purport to exercise any general criminal power not delegated to Congress by the Constitution."4

28 Despite its subsequent acquisition of virtually unbounded power under the post-New Deal Commerce Clause, Congress waited over five decades following its 1934 adoption of the NFA before banning citizens' possession of machine guns altogether. Section 922(o ) of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act5 (FOPA) prohibits a private citizen from possessing or transferring a machine gun that was not made and registered before May 19, 1986, unless such transfer or possession is authorized by federal or state governments or their departments or agencies.6

29 Since the enactment of FOPA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) "has refused to approve any application to make, transfer, and pay the $200 tax on any machine gun made after May 19, 1986."7 Yet the BATF continues to arrest and convict citizens like Ardoin under the NFA for not registering and paying taxes on their machine guns--even though it is legally impossible for them to do so.8 Because I do not believe that a statute which was enacted to tax a legal activity can legitimately be mutated into a statute that criminalizes that very same activity, and because I believe that convicting citizens for violating laws with which they cannot possibly comply is fundamentally unfair, I respectfully dissent.

30 I hasten to add, however, that I do concur in some important pronouncements of the majority opinion. Specifically, I agree that the words "make" and "maker," found in the NFA, are not unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case: converting a semi-automatic firearm to a fully-automatic weapon clearly constitutes "making" a machine gun. Neither do I quarrel with the trial court's ruling that the Sentencing Guidelines--rightly or wrongly--do not ordinarily permit a reduction in sentence for first-time offender status, community service, or a history of gainful, socially-productive employment.

31 I cannot concur, though, in the majority's affirmance of Ardoin's conviction under provisions of the NFA when those provisions (1) have been totally eclipsed by section 922(o ) of the FOPA, and (2) cannot be complied with due to the refusal of the government to permit compliance. I regret that the majority today elects to join what I believe to be the legally inferior side of a pre-existing circuit split on this issue. I fear that in so choosing for this circuit, the majority rejects two persuasive precedents (including one that sets forth the relevant history and purpose of the NFA in exhaustive detail)9 in favor of embracing a third precedent which essentially holds that because Congress could re-enact the tax-based NFA as a Commerce Clause-based ban against mere possession of machine guns, we should behave as though Congress did so.10

32 In actuality, Ardoin advances three separate, alternative attacks on the viability of sections 5821, 5845, 5861(d), (e), (f), and (l ), and 5871 of the NFA: 1) these sections were impliedly repealed by the enactment of section 922(o ) of the FOPA, 2) the application of these sections to Ardoin's case violates due process (i.e., is fundamentally unfair) because the law (and BATF policy) makes compliance impossible, and 3) these sections--enacted pursuant to Congress' power to tax--have been rendered nugatory by the government's refusal to administer or enforce them to raise any revenue whatsoever.

33 1. Implied Repeal of Sections of the National Firearms Act

34 The majority correctly notes that an earlier statute may be implicitly repealed through the enactment of a later statute when--and only when--the two statutes are irreconcilable.11 From my vantage point, however, the efforts of the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Jones12 and of the majority today clearly fail to reconcile sections 5821, and 5861(d), (e), and (f) of the NFA with section 922(o ) of the FOPA.

35 Until the enactment of section 922(o ) of the FOPA, a citizen could legally make, transfer, or possess a machine gun, as long as he complied with the relevant registration and tax provisions of the NFA. Simply put, since 1934 the NFA has said to such a citizen, "You may manufacture, transfer, or possess a machine gun if--but only if--you register and pay taxes on it." Then along came section 922(o ) of the FOPA--some fifty-two years later--and declared to that same citizen, "You may not manufacture, possess, or transfer machine guns--period." What sense does the NFA make now? The BATF operates as though Congress has passed two separate laws each criminalizing the mere possession of machine guns, leaving the BATF with the discretion to prosecute citizens' possession under either statute (or both). But that is not--and cannot be--the case.

36 There is no evidence that Congress ever adverted to the effect that the enactment of section 922(o ) would have on related provisions of the NFA. But undeniably the enactment of section 922(o ) did affect the NFA--enormously. Because the NFA forbids the BATF to register and accept taxes for illegal firearms,13 the enactment of section 922(o )--which basically made the mere possession of machine guns by private citizens illegal--rendered the extensive registration and tax provisions of the NFA essentially meaningless. Indeed, the NFA's regulation of machine gun-ownership by private citizens was made instantly obsolete by the advent of the FOPA. There is no longer any place for those provisions in the present legislative scheme for regulation of most prospective machine gun-owners. Their vestigial existence on the statute books analogizes perfectly to the human appendix: no useful function whatsoever, but unlimited potential for insidious mischief.

37 Moreover, section 922(o ) reflects Congress' judgment concerning the correct statutory formulation and the appropriate level of punishment for mere possession of a machine gun. Thus, if we uphold the continued application of the NFA to citizens who transfer, make, and possess machine guns--even though the NFA no longer serves any revenue-raising purpose--we are altering that congressional judgment. Why then does the BATF continue to prosecute citizens under NFA solely for the possession of machine guns, rather than resorting to section 922(o ), which Congress expressly designed for that purpose? Perhaps because the statutory maximum fines for violating the NFA are greater than those provided under the FOPA.14 More likely, BATF agents and prosecutors find it easier to get convictions under the NFA, both because it appears to have an easier mens rea requirement,15 and because the laundry list of possible statutory violations is so very long.16 But Congress clearly did not intend for its passage of the FOPA to transform the preexisting NFA into a more severe ban against the simple possession of machine guns, for such a mutation of the NFA makes section 922(o ) of the FOPA superfluous: what the BATF is supposed to do under the FOPA can be done more easily (and with the majority's blessing) under the "new," transmuted NFA, which has been administratively (and now jurisprudentially) shorn of the registration and taxation provisions that once were its whole raison d'etre.

38 The obsolescence of the NFA provisions at issue here is also exposed by the fact that--although expressly enacted to raise revenues from private citizens--those provisions no longer raise any revenue from the possession, transfer, and making of machine guns by private citizens. The suggestion that a tax measure can somehow have continued vitality when it no longer taxes certainly tests one's imagination. Although implied repeals are disfavored, I firmly believe that the sections of the NFA at issue here are so utterly irreconcilable with section 922(o ) of the FOPA as a means of regulating private ownership of machine guns that they were impliedly repealed by FOPA's passage: with respect to the regulation of machine guns, the latter has superseded and supplanted the former.

39 2. Convicting Ardoin of Violating Applicable Sections of the NFA Violates Due Process

40 Since the enactment of section 922(o ), the BATF has--with few exceptions--refused to register or to accept the $200 tax on any machine gun made after May 19, 1986.17 In discussing Ardoin's demand for a new trial based on his ultimate discovery of a BATF circular which announced that the BATF would no longer register or accept taxes on machine guns,18 the majority implies that Ardoin had the burden of proving that the BATF no longer registers or accepts taxes for machine guns. I respectfully disagree.

41 The BATF's refusal to register or accept taxes for machine guns is not evinced solely in the BATF circular that Ardoin was unable to locate until after his trial; such refusal is expressly mandated by law. Sections 5812 and 5822 of the NFA state categorically that applications to register the transfer or making of firearms shall be denied if the transfer, making, or possession of the firearm would be illegal.19 As the transfer, possession, and making of machine guns by private citizens became illegal with the adoption of section 922(o ) of the FOPA, sections 5812 and 5822 of the NFA clearly require the BATF to reject applications to register the transfer or manufacture of machine guns.20 Additionally, 27 C.F.R. Sec. 179.105 expressly restricts registration of machine guns to those authorized for use by federal, state, or local government entities.21 Finally, other courts have found that the BATF refuses to register or accept taxes for machine guns. I can see no reason why we should not take judicial notice of this recognition.22

42 I thus find it indisputable that since May 19, 1986, the BATF has not, does not, and may not register or accept taxes for machine guns. Ardoin, presumed innocent, did not have to prove this assertion as part of his defense, for we know it to be the law. It seems inescapable to me that a private citizen literally cannot comply with the terms of sections 5821, 5845, 5861(d), (e), (f), and (l ), and 5871 of the NFA no matter how sincerely he wants to comply and how hard he tries to comply, because the enactment of section 922(o ) made compliance a legal impossibility.

43 Ardoin was convicted of violating the NFA. Specifically, he was convicted--inter alia--of making a machine gun without having filed an application to make and register the gun, of making a machine gun without having paid the making tax, and of transferring a machine gun without having filed an application to transfer the weapon. But he could not have paid the machine gun tax, because the BATF would not accept such payment. And filing applications, even on the correct form (form 1 instead of form 10 which Ardoin did try to use), would have been futile, because the BATF is required to reject those applications. Ardoin is thus being convicted of violating laws with which he could not have complied, even had he performed the proverbial hollow act and--like Luther--tacked his makeshift registration form and $200.00 to the BATF's front door.

44 The majority offers two responses to Ardoin's dilemma: (1) Congress has the authority to choose to tax an activity even though such activity is illegal; and (2) Ardoin could have complied with the application and tax provisions of the NFA simply "by not possessing or manufacturing any post-1986 machineguns."23 Try as I may, I cannot find either argument convincing.

45 The majority's assertion that Congress has the power to tax illegal activities is correct, but in my opinion that assertion is also irrelevant. The question here is not what Congress could have done, but what it did. I agree that, as oxymoronic as it may sound, Congress could devise a law that would both make illegal and at the same time tax the manufacture, transfer, and possession of machine guns: but Congress simply did not do that. Instead, Congress adopted the FOPA, which clearly has the effect of forbidding the government from registering and collecting taxes on illegal firearms--the exact opposite of affirmatively taxing an illegal activity.24 To me, any discussion of what Congress could have done or might yet do merely begs the question.

46 The majority's "just say no" response, like that of the Fourth Circuit before it--in effect telling Ardoin that he could have avoided violation of the NFA simply "by not possessing or manufacturing any ... machineguns"--is even more troublesome to me. I keep asking myself "why is it that each time I revisit the majority's response I am reminded of Marie Antoinette's advice to 'let them eat cake'?" Such casual, dismissive responses are just not satisfactory when it comes to engaging in an activity, such as keeping and bearing arms, that arguably implicates the Bill of Rights.25

47 I do not dispute Congress' authority to make a law prohibiting citizens from owning or possessing machine guns.26 And that is precisely what Congress did when it enacted section 922(o ) of the FOPA. I do, however, question the fairness of continuing to prosecute citizens like Ardoin for failing to register and pay taxes on their machine guns now that the government does not allow them to do so. Analogously, I acknowledge that since adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment Congress has had the authority to establish--as it has--a federal income tax. But I believe that it would violate due process for the government to continue to arrest citizens for failing to file tax returns and pay their federal income taxes if Congress were to pass a law prohibiting the government from accepting tax returns and tax payments. In other words, it is not the government's ban on machine gun possession that here violates due process; rather, it is the government's prosecution of citizens like Ardoin for failure to register and pay taxes on their machine guns--when the government refuses to accept registration applications and tax-payments on such firearms--that strikes me as violating due process.

48 I am compelled to reemphasize at this juncture that the gravamen of the NFA violations at issue here is not mere possession of an unregistered machine gun; it is the failure to register and pay taxes on that machine gun.27 That is why section 922(o ) was enacted. If the NFA could double as a naked prohibition against simple possession of an unregistered machine gun, section 922(o ) would have been wholly unnecessary. Yet today we allow the BATF to ignore the NFA's registration and taxation provisions, thereby transmuting the NFA into a second, and perhaps a more easily enforced, criminal ban on the mere possession of machine guns.

49 I also regret that I have been singularly unsuccessful in convincing my fellow panelists that the Supreme Court has rejected the very reasoning upon which they rely.28 In Haynes v. United States, the government had arrested the defendant under an earlier version of the NFA for possessing an unregistered handgun.29 The government adopted the position approbated by the majority today; namely, that the defendant's crime was the mere possession of an unregistered firearm. The Supreme Court rejected the government's postulate, recognizing that the criminally proscribed act consisted of two elements: possession of a firearm, and failure to register that firearm.30 The NFA's registration requirement, stated the Court, "suggest[s] strongly that the perimeter of the offense ... is to be marked by the terms of the registration requirement imposed."31 In other words, failing to register a firearm is an essential constitutive element of the substantive crime proscribed by the NFA--it is part of the actus reus defined by the NFA.

50 According to the Supreme Court, then, citizens do not violate the NFA solely by possessing unregistered machine guns: they must actually fail to register those weapons. And it is apparent--at least to me--that the failure to register and pay the tax on a firearm cannot be a prosecutable criminal act when the government refuses to accept the appropriate registration documents and tax payments even though the applicable registration and tax payment provisions remain "on the books." I find neither authority nor mandate for us to rewrite the NFA to criminalize mere possession of machine guns. Yet without such an act of judicial legislation, I can see no way for us to sanction enforcement of the NFA as it applies to ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Convicting Ardoin of violating statutory provisions with which he cannot comply strikes me as offending fundamental fairness and thus due process. "One simply cannot be criminally liable for failing to do an act which [one] is ... incapable of performing."32 For this reason, too, I believe that Ardoin's conviction should be set aside.

51 3. Stripped of its Revenue-Raising Function, The NFA is Nugatory

52 As already noted, the NFA was passed in 1934 pursuant to Congress' power to collect taxes.33 To remain legitimate, however, a measure enacted under the tax power must raise some revenue.34 As the BATF no longer registers or accepts tax payments for privately-owned machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986, the NFA provisions at issue cannot possibly raise any revenues from private citizens (unless criminal fines are considered revenues). Such provisions have therefore ceased to be valid manifestations of Congress' power to tax.35

53 Neither can the constitutionality of the NFA as applied to citizens who possess, make, or transfer machine guns be rescued by incanting--as did the Fourth Circuit in Jones36--that the Act "could" be upheld under Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. I am convinced that the Act could only be upheld under the Commerce Clause if the Act were expressly adopted (or now readopted) by Congress under that clause. The undeniable fact remains, though, that Congress did not enact the NFA under the Commerce Clause and has not seen fit to re-enact it under that clause in all the decades that have ensued since the NFA's original enactment under Congress' power to tax. Indeed, in 1934, Congress' enactment of the NFA under its commerce power would almost certainly have been declared unconstitutional. Arguably, because the power and scope of any act of Congress depends on the enumerated power under which it is passed, a hypothetical NFA enacted under Congress' commerce power would be an entirely different act: an act that Congress never voted on--an act that might never have passed.

54 In this same vein, the majority's willingness to uphold the NFA under the Commerce Clause misses separation of powers concerns. Under classical constitutional theory, the legislature must state--as part of its legislation--the particular power that authorizes it to enact the law in question. Judges should not be in the business of re-writing legislation by upholding laws on the basis of enumerated powers that are different from the ones invoked by Congress.

55 I am of course aware that today the enumerated-power test of a federal statute's validity is whether "the Congress might reasonably find that the act relates to one of the federal powers."37 But--in my opinion--that maxim only applies to acts that are silent as to their sources of authority. In this case, there is no such silence; we know that Congress expressly passed the NFA pursuant to its power to tax and has allowed it to remain thus grounded for nearly sixty years. I have seen no evidence that Congress now intends to augment the power and scope of that act by imbuing it with the authority of the modern Commerce Clause. Moreover, it seems clear to me that if we approve this transformation, we become a party, at least by complicity, to what amounts to executive legislation: it is the Department of the Treasury's BATF--an arm of the Executive branch--that advances this interpretation; Congress remains mute.38 With the NFA stripped of its revenue-raising function, I would void Ardoin's conviction on this ground as well.

56 For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully but earnestly DISSENT.

[Deborah K]

What is interesting is what was left out of the JFK quote above:

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

John F. Kennedy, April 1960 (Guns, "Know Your Lawmakers", April 1960, Page 4)

And let me add:
“The unarmed man is not just defenseless – he is also contemptible.” – Machiavelli

Did you look it up because you noticed it was a broken quote? I think maybe the author of this web page left it out because Kennedy was wrong in his assumption that: " it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation..." Clearly that is not the case, and maybe the author was more interested in Kennedy's other points about the 2nd amendment. Just a thought...

[Pericles]

Did you look it up because you noticed it was a broken quote? I think maybe the author of this web page left it out because Kennedy was wrong in his assumption that: " it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation..." Clearly that is not the case, and maybe the author was more interested in Kennedy's other points about the 2nd amendment. Just a thought...

No, I have previously seen the longer quote,so I thought it interesting that someone decided to omit part of it. Especially the part that shows the concept of an armed population for the purpose of guarding liberty was not an unusual meaning of the 2A in 1960.

[greenghost1964]

Well it was a awesome opinion, for a judge to do his research on the history of the NFA, authority/etc........to the point of the NRA giving Stephen Holbrook of Va $5000 to write his brief for the US Supreme Court, etc. Ashame the Supreme Court decided not to hear it. The NRA actually thought my case could had over turned both the Assualt Weapon ban (of 1994) and FOPA 86.....Wendell Ardoin

[Deborah K]

Well it was a awesome opinion, for a judge to do his research on the history of the NFA, authority/etc........to the point of the NRA giving Stephen Holbrook of Va $5000 to write his brief for the US Supreme Court, etc. Ashame the Supreme Court decided not to hear it. The NRA actually thought my case could had over turned both the Assualt Weapon ban (of 1994) and FOPA 86.....Wendell Ardoin

Are you THE Wendell Ardoin??

[greenghost1964]

Yes........that was MY case......

[greenghost1964]

really ashame too.........cos within 1 year of this dissent, there was a case out of Mississippi (also 5th circuit) where another judge ruled w/ the defense.....if I would had been luckly enough to had him on my 3 judge panel I would had been aquitted. During trial they played up all the weapons (AR-15's) that was purchased thur the dept..........which at the time there was NO law prohibting this, only Colt Firearm policy of selling only to PD's because of the Stockton, Ca school killings. Newspaper stories of oversea's gun running/etc.........where at the time I was a Federal Police Officer for the US DOE, Top Secret clearnance/etc.............this was strictly a local politic situation that mushroom out of control. Every weapon went to or from a Law Enforcement Agency........every form was approved by BATF........and the guns that was infact manufactored was registared on ATF Form 10's...........which made them even more so restricted. Oh well.......

[Pericles]

really ashame too.........cos within 1 year of this dissent, there was a case out of Mississippi (also 5th circuit) where another judge ruled w/ the defense.....if I would had been luckly enough to had him on my 3 judge panel I would had been aquitted. During trial they played up all the weapons (AR-15's) that was purchased thur the dept..........which at the time there was NO law prohibting this, only Colt Firearm policy of selling only to PD's because of the Stockton, Ca school killings. Newspaper stories of oversea's gun running/etc.........where at the time I was a Federal Police Officer for the US DOE, Top Secret clearnance/etc.............this was strictly a local politic situation that mushroom out of control. Every weapon went to or from a Law Enforcement Agency........every form was approved by BATF........and the guns that was infact manufactored was registared on ATF Form 10's...........which made them even more so restricted. Oh well.......

Your case is one of the events that turned me into the radical that I am. It became obvious there there is no rule of law.

[Deborah K]

really ashame too.........cos within 1 year of this dissent, there was a case out of Mississippi (also 5th circuit) where another judge ruled w/ the defense.....if I would had been luckly enough to had him on my 3 judge panel I would had been aquitted. During trial they played up all the weapons (AR-15's) that was purchased thur the dept..........which at the time there was NO law prohibting this, only Colt Firearm policy of selling only to PD's because of the Stockton, Ca school killings. Newspaper stories of oversea's gun running/etc.........where at the time I was a Federal Police Officer for the US DOE, Top Secret clearnance/etc.............this was strictly a local politic situation that mushroom out of control. Every weapon went to or from a Law Enforcement Agency........every form was approved by BATF........and the guns that was infact manufactored was registared on ATF Form 10's...........which made them even more so restricted. Oh well.......

That is truly a big freakin bummer!!! But welcome to the forums! I'm honored you made your first post in one of my threads. You a Ron Paul supporter?

[azxd]

One of my 2A HERO'S


Yea, it's the 5 minute mark that nails it for me ... The lady has a stronger spine than most, and I love that she told the truth.

[greenghost1964]

I'm so far to the right..........might scared some of ya'll....lol....yes Ron has my vote!

[oyarde]

Not modern , but one of my favorites " let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks " Thomas Jefferson. I have made many walks in the woods , fields , fencerows with a rifle or shotgun , over the years , I consider it my quiet , contemplative time .

[azxd]

Sory OP,
But this gun grabbing SOB just jumped out at me.

Bill Clinton: (US President, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution, (not to violate it, criticize it, and belittle it)) "When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly...When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it." (April 19 1994, on MTV)

F him, and those like him.

[Deborah K]

Sory OP,
But this gun grabbing SOB just jumped out at me.

F him, and those like him.

Why are you sorry? The quotes aren't all pro-gun - that was part of the point.

And I agree with your sentiment, btw.

[Deborah K]

I'm so far to the right..........might scared some of ya'll....lol....yes Ron has my vote!

Well, that's the beauty of Dr. Paul, he attracts people from all spectrums - UNLIKE any other candidate - and that's because his message is so pure......Freedom for all.

[azxd]

Why are you sorry? The quotes aren't all pro-gun - that was part of the point.

And I agree with your sentiment, btw.

Just used to reading Pro-points, and that name jumped out as a known negative, regardless of what he might say.

[Deborah K]

Bump for old time's sake.