Patriot or Paranoid?

Patriot – A person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interest.

Paranoid - Exhibiting or characterized by baseless and extreme fear or distrust of others.


On Monday, April 19th, the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, two rallies will take place in and around Washington, D.C. Those attending the Second Amendment March will gather on the grounds of the Washington Monument. While those going to the Restore the Constitution rally will meet first at Ft. Hunt National Park in Virginia and then travel to the banks of the Potomac River, about a mile from the National Mall, so they can “step up to the edge” of D.C. with their openly carried handguns and military-grade rifles.

While these two events are being organized by different groups, they share a common viewpoint of the role of guns in our society. Both see themselves as part of a people’s militia, one that is arming itself to, if necessary, “rise up and overthrow an oppressive, totalitarian government.” They see themselves as protectors against tyranny in government. They believe that filling their homes with Glock handguns and AK-47s is necessary for the security of a free state. They are gathering in our nation’s capitol to “rattle their sabers”, to tell the government that they are out there, prepared to “overthrow them under certain conditions.” And to underscore the notion that this uprising will come not through the peaceful means of the ballot box but from the barrel of a gun.

Are these self-appointed militia members patriots or paranoid?

These groups claim that their “God-given Constitutional right to keep and bear arms” is under attack. They see the Second Amendment as an absolute right, one that cannot in any way be questioned. They are outraged that a heavily armed protest across the street from The White House is prohibited and view this as “the local and federal governments complete trample of the Second Amendment rights of her citizens.” They see any effort to pass laws intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals as a movement to ultimately take away all guns. Patriots or paranoid?

In 2008, the Supreme Court, for the first time in sixty years, ruled on the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that “like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The ruling made it absolutely clear that the right to have a gun in your home for protection exists side by side with the right to regulate the purchase, possession and carrying of guns.

But this ruling is not good enough for the organizers of the Second Amendment March and the Restore the Constitution rally. These self-appointed militia members have decided that they should be the ones to determine when and where it is appropriate to use a weapon when they are out in public. They have determined that they have the judiciousness and prudence to be able to establish when they may fire a gun and end another person’s life. They have decided that they have the right to say when the government is a tyranny simply because they lost to the majority. And they are gathering in D.C. to tell elected officials that they need to be accountable to them and that “their jobs and their very lives depend on it.”

We have laws regulating the sale, possession and carrying of guns for a reason. Every year in this country guns kill more than 30,000 people. An additional 70,000 people are shot and injured, leaving physical and emotional scars that can last a lifetime. More than 350,000 people are victims of armed robbery or aggravated assault with a firearm annually and countless others are threatened and intimidated with guns—all too frequently by so-called loved ones. There are endless examples of crimes, even murders, committed by people with concealed weapons permits. Every day people do stupid, reckless things with guns and innocent people end up being shot. We have gun laws for a reason. We don’t want any gun, anywhere, anytime, for whatever purpose.

April 19th is the anniversary of the start of the American Revolutionary War at the battles of Lexington and Concord. But it is also the anniversary of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. It is the day chosen by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols to carry out the most destructive act of domestic terrorism on American soil. McVeigh and Nichols killed 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6, and wounded more than 680 in order to drive home their anti-government message. It is not a coincident that this is also the date chosen by the Second Amendment March and the Restore the Constitution Rally. These demonstrations fan the flames of violence, intimidate state and federal government, and send the message that armed Americans should challenge and defy our sense of public order and the rule of law. Therefore, we must ask, are these groups patriots or just paranoid?

2008 Election Results: NRA is the big loser

The 2008 elections results are in and the National Rifle Association is the big loser. The NRA declared that it intended to spend $40 million on the 2008 elections. Much of this money was specifically targeted toward efforts to defeat Barack Obama. The NRA sent out mailings and ran radio and television ads, warning that Obama would be “the most anti-gun President in American history.” They spent heavily in swing states that, despite their alarms, went decisively for Obama including Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

As the New York Times pointed out in their December 1st editorial:

"The gun lobby has long intimidated politicians with its war chest and its trumpeted ability to deliver single-issue voters, especially in tight races. After this year’s election, those politicians should be far less afraid and far more willing to vote for sensible gun-control laws."

The editorial went on to point out:

"In Congressional races, the N.R.A. endorsed candidates in 20 of the 25 races where Democrats picked up seats from Republicans. We will not miss Florida’s Tom Feeney and Ric Keller, Idaho’s Bill Sali, Michigan’s Joe Knollenberg, Ohio’s Steve Chabot, Colorado’s Marilyn Musgrave and Pennsylvania’s Phil English — willing champions of an extreme agenda.
On the Senate side, the N.R.A. spent considerable sums to help Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Bob Schaffer, the Republican Senate candidate in Colorado. Both were defeated."

The NRA also had a very poor showing in New England in both congressional and state house races.

In Massachusetts and Rhode Island every single winning candidate for the U.S. House and Senate received an “F” rating from the NRA. An “F” rating is given to candidates that, according to the NRA, are “true enemies of gun owners’ rights.”

In New Hampshire, “A” rated and NRA endorsed incumbent Republican Senator John Sununu lost to Democratic challenger Jeanne Shaheen. Shaheen is also considered a “true enemy” of the NRA having received an “F” rating. Connecticut appears to be overrun with “true enemies” with 58% of the winning state Senators receiving an “F” rating from the NRA.

In Maine the two seats that the Democrats picked up in the state Senate were both seats where the NRA endorsed the losing Republican incumbent candidate. Five of the seats the Democrats picked up in the state House were also seats where the NRA endorsed the losing incumbent Republican.

The NRA did better in Vermont, endorsing the winning candidates for both Governor and Congress. But even in Vermont, a state where no concealed weapons permit is needed to carry a gun, thirty percent of the winning state house candidates didn’t even bother to return the NRA’s election questionnaire. According to the NRA, failure to answer their questions is “often an indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owner’s rights.” How important can the endorsement of the NRA be when so many candidates didn’t take the trouble to return the questionnaire?

The NRA likes to scare legislators with the myth that they can turn out a significant block of single-issue, pro-gun voters. In the 2008 elections the NRA failed to deliver. And if you look back to the 2006 mid-term elections you will find that the NRA spent 80% of its money on losing candidates. Again, the NRA failed to deliver.

Americans want stronger gun laws. Survey after survey shows this. The majority of Americans believe it is possible to protect an individual’s right to own a gun while at the same time regulating the purchase, possession and carrying of guns. As President-elect Obama has said, “don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.”

The NRA doesn’t want you to look at how poorly their endorsed candidates did in this election. Instead, they want to continue pushing fear and pushing guns. But it is time for our elected officials to understand that Americans want to move beyond the fear tactics of the NRA. It is time for legislators to take a stand, join us, and support meaningful, common sense gun laws.

Live Free or Die (Except if you live in Washington, D.C.) H.R. 6691 - A Bad Idea

I’ve always admired the New Hampshire motto Live Free or Die. It calls forth ideals of independence and self-government. Which begs the question, why are both of New Hampshire’s congressional representatives trying to strong arm and overrule the Washington, D.C. City Council? Don’t the residents of D.C. have democratic rights?

Both Congressman Paul Hodes and Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter are cosponsors of H.R. 6691, a bill that would repeal D.C. gun laws, overturning provisions enacted by the District of Columbia City Council and endorsed by the residents of Washington, D.C. This bill is a shameless attempt by the gun lobby to interfere with local city rule and to push the NRA’s irresponsible and dangerous agenda. The D.C. Council does not need the NRA to draft their new gun regulations.

In June the Supreme Court overturned D.C.’s restrictive gun laws in the landmark decision D.C. v. Heller. While the Court ruled that the D.C. laws went too far in restricting access to handguns and that an individual right to bear arms is protected under the Second Amendment the court also ruled that this right is not absolute and that gun regulation is constitutional.

In response to this ruling and to bring the city into compliance with Heller, the D.C. Council passed an emergency resolution allowing the registration of handguns. They are currently working hard on crafting permanent gun legislation that will best provide for the public’s safety.

But the gun lobby is not satisfied with the D.C. Council’s efforts and is taking this opportunity to encourage Congress to meddle in local legislation. They are pushing hard for H.R. 6691, a bill that would not only repeal D.C.’s current gun regulations but also prevent the D.C. City Council from enacting any gun-related legislation in the future. It is an obscene attempt to prevent the residents of Washington, D.C. from governing themselves. How ironic that the only two congressional cosponsors from New England come from the state with the motto Live Free or Die.

H.R. 6691 has many dangerous provisions that go far beyond the requirements of the Heller ruling. H.R. 6691 would:

- Repeal D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic weapons, including assault weapons like the Tec-9 assault pistol and AK-47s.

- Allow D.C. residents to cross state lines to buy handguns in neighboring states. Current federal law bars gun dealers from selling handguns directly to out of state buyers because of the high risk this creates for interstate gun trafficking.

- Repeal D.C.’s registration requirements for firearms.

- Repeal D.C.’s safe storage laws.

- Prohibit D.C. from passing future gun regulations.

At a recent hearing on H.R. 6691 law enforcement officials testified that the bill would even permit people to carry loaded semi-automatic rifles such as AK-47s lawfully on the streets of D.C.

“Imagine how difficult it will be for law enforcement to safeguard the public, not to mention the president at the inaugural parade,” said Chief Cathy Lanier, chief of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department.

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty has asked Congress to demonstrate their "commitment to the democratic process" by allowing the city government to work on its own to comply with the Heller decision.

So why are Representatives Hodes and Shea-Porter so anxious to not only interfere with D.C. lawmakers but to enact legislation that will make it harder to protect residents and visitors of Washington, D.C.? Are they afraid that in this election year the NRA will work against them if they don’t cosponsor this legislation? Do they not understand the Heller ruling when it states “like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” How sad to see both New Hampshire representatives supporting this irresponsible and dangerous NRA agenda.

Open Democratic Platform Meeting

The message from the Obama campaign was exciting: Every four years, the Democratic Party assembles a platform that outlines the party's position on a number of issues. Traditionally, the drafting of the platform is not open to ordinary people. This year, that's going to change. For two weeks in July, people all across America will hold Platform Meetings in their own communities to discuss the issues and share their input. The outcome of these meetings will be reviewed by the Drafting Committee as it creates the final Platform.

Members of New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, Ceasefire New Jersey, Gun Free Kids, and Freedom States Alliance met to draft a Democratic Platform statement on gun violence prevention. We are extremely proud of our Platform statement and share it with you here.

………………………………..

The Democratic Party believes that all Americans have the right to be free from gun violence in our homes, schools, places of work and on the streets of our communities. Easy access to firearms by terrorists, felons, domestic violence offenders, violent teens, the mentally ill and many others who we all agree should not possess guns continues to put tens of thousands of Americans at risk every year for death or injury due to gun violence.

This significant ongoing threat to the safety of our communities across the country is due in part because more than 500,000 guns are sold or transferred each year without the simple and beneficial performance of background checks on the purchasers.

More than 30,000 Americans are killed each and every year with firearms. This is a staggering sum. In addition, guns wound and injure more than 70,000 citizens every year. Unregulated guns sold to unauthorized people are used daily to rob, intimidate, wound and kill law abiding Americans. It is the illegal trade in firearms that fuels the criminal market.

Without doubt, the devastation caused by gun violence and the illegal gun trade is a critical public health, safety, social and economic issue costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars every year. The Democratic Party can and must do more to prevent this tide of violence against law abiding Americans. Safe and secure barriers must be placed between firearms and terrorists, criminals and unlawful people who seek to possess guns.

The recent Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, supports this view and confirms that sensible regulation as to who may possess firearms, what kinds of guns may be possessed and other life-saving restrictions are acceptable under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The decision clearly states that, while the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense -- the right is not unlimited.

Maintaining our current patchwork of local, state and federal laws and regulations leaves too many loopholes for terrorists and criminals to exploit. These loopholes grant too many opportunities for guns to get into the wrong hands. We must work to ensure that only law abiding Americans possess weapons, and that terrorists and criminals cannot utilize the current lax and unregulated secondary sales market for weapons to get their hands on guns.

Nothing herein is intended to restrict the law abiding American who has passed a Brady background check from possessing a weapon if he/she wishes. Therefore, we resolve to:

- Strengthen the national Brady background check system to incorporate all necessary records including criminal, domestic violence, and mental health records from all 50 states and all territories.

- Institute a universal background check system to ensure that all gun sales in all 50 states and territories are subject to a Brady background check.

- Fully fund the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms so that it can conduct regular and frequent inspections of Federal Firearms Licensed Dealers to prevent unlawful sales.

- Require that all persons who sell guns of any kind through employment at a gun manufacturer or through a Federal Firearm Licensed Dealer pass a Brady background check.

- Strengthen programs designed to trace crime gun purchases to shut down unscrupulous dealers.

- Remove the Tiahrt restrictions on the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

- Institute a national ballistics program to initiate microstamping technology on all weapons manufactured or sold in the United States, so that crime guns and casings can be traced quickly to the original sale.

- Support manufacturers who voluntarily develop and sell childproof handguns.

- Strengthen and make permanent the federal Assault Weapons Ban and the ban on large capacity ammunition magazines and clips.

Supreme Court Rules 2nd Amendment Right an Individual Right but Not an Unlimited Right

In a landmark decision today the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms. District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban but also made it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to firearms.

“Today the Supreme Court took away the single biggest excuse for not passing tough gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous individuals,” said Cathie Whittenburg, Director of New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence (NECPGV). “The ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.”

The gun lobby has long argued that common sense restrictions on guns are, in fact, nothing more than initial steps down a “slippery slope” that leads to a general gun ban. By holding that the Second Amendment prohibits the D.C. handgun ban, the Supreme Court has assured gun owners that there is no such “slippery slope”.

In affirming the ability to restrict the sale and possession of firearms the Court ruled:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The Court also noted that “The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools” for combating the problem of handgun violence, including the current firearm licensing requirement and “some measures regulating handguns.”

“While we are disappointed with today’s ruling and disagree with the individual right interpretation NECPGV will continue to push for reasonable, common sense gun violence prevention laws,” said Whittenburg.

NECPGV advocates for laws that require background checks on all gun purchases; limiting handgun purchases to one per month; require gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement officials; crack down on illegal guns and gun trafficking; and regulate military-style assault weapons and .50 caliber sniper rifles.

District of Columbia V. Heller case to be heard this week

This week, for the first time in 70 years, the Supreme Court will hear a case involving the 2nd Amendment. They will be asked to decide if the right to keep and bear Arms is an individual right or a right that is reserved for the well regulated Militia. The case, the District of Columbia v. Heller, centers around D.C. guns laws, but the ruling has potentially far reaching consequences.

New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence is part an amicus brief filed in support of the petitioner, Washington, D.C., urging the court to overturn the lower court decision and to uphold D.C. gun laws.

For a complete list of the Amicus briefs filed go to: http://www.vpc.org/Amici%20comparison%20list.pdf

To read specific briefs in favor of the petitioner go to: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/amicus-briefs-for-dc-available-in-guns-case/

To read specific briefs in favor of the respondent go to: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/amicus-briefs-for-heller-available-in-guns-case/

C-span will air the audio of the oral arguments as soon as they are released. For more information go to: http://www.c-span.org/

Who wants looser gun laws?

This March, for the first time in 70 years, the Supreme Court will be asked to decide if the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

Please read our Maine Voice opinion article in the Feb. 25th Portland Press Herald for more.