Senator Andrew Rice,
I am writing to you as both a member of our nation's military forces (though I do not, and cannot, claim to represent the military or its interests), and a resident of the great state of Oklahoma. I am also somewhat old-fashioned in my beliefs, including the belief that this country should adhere to the spirit of the Constitution as laid down by the Founding Fathers, instead of quibbling about the letter of it. It has saddened and horrified me to watch our freedoms, those protected and reserved by the Constitution and its Amendments, slowly wither away under the weight of an increasingly invasive Federal government, which sees fit to misinterpret the Constitution to suit its own agenda.
The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Tenth Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." These protection that these two Amendments were designed to grant is continually mocked and ignored by misguided, overreaching Federal legislation.
The rights of the citizens of the United States of America are not being respected or guarded by those in the Federal government, as is their charge. The Constitution and its Amendments are continually violated and grow ever more restricted. The right to free speech is slowly being curbed in the name of fighting terrorism, as is the right to due process within our legal system. But I am writing you today to speak on one of the most ravaged freedoms of all: The right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The word "militia," as the Founding Fathers intended, is defined as, "All able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45, and all others who avail themselves to the defense of the Republic." The word "infringe," is defined as, "To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate." In effect, this Amendment was designed to protect the right of all citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms for any lawful purpose, and to ensure that this right is not only protected from complete subjugation, but also against limitation.
The Federal government works constantly toward ever-increasing restriction on our right to bear arms, including the requirement of background checks for each and every firearm purchase. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) is famous for its strong arm tactics, operating well outside of its official sphere of power. Government bodies such as BATFE do not have the authority to enact legislation, but in effect do, creating ever more restrictive policies. A well known and respected gun dealer in Oklahoma City was recently put out of business after having his livelihood and freedom threatened by the BATFE. This conduct isn't simply deplorable, it is illegal and unconstitutional, but still sanctioned by the Federal government.
While I recognize that there have been great strides in recent years in returning these freedoms to the American people, I believe that there has not been enough progress. An example is the Oklahoma Self Defense Act. There are some who would say that the Self Defense Act grants the right to carry a weapon in a concealed fashion. How could I be unhappy with this? Well, because the Self Defense Act isn't granting anything. It's simply giving it back, but even then only conditionally. The right to carry a weapon for self-defense has been a right that all American citizens have to begin with. The legislation that has restricted that right is wholly and unequivocally unconstitutional. I have the right to carry a weapon, concealed or not, so that I might defend myself, my family, or those around me, and I have the right to do so without government regulation or interference. (I should take this time to point out that I am, in fact, a law-abiding citizen, and that I do possess a Self Defense Act license.) There are those that would argue that the Founding Fathers certainly never encountered automatic weaponry, and would likely think differently today. I take issue with this in asking the question, "If we begin to limit our Second Amendment rights, where do we stop? How much limitation becomes too much?"
Every argument in favor of regulating the ownership and usage of firearms is flawed. "More guns on the street will mean more violence." I need only point out that the areas in the United States with the highest crime rates are those areas where firearms are regulated, and even outlawed. The mere possibility of their would-be victim possessing a firearm is enough for most criminals to consider the error of their ways. Look at New York and Chicago, Senator, and tell me if their ban of handguns is truly effective in deterring crime. Their criminals are armed, while their citizens are not. If a criminal is already intent on committing a violent crime, a charge of unlawful possession is hardly going to deter them. I myself have been involved in a defensive shooting, and I can say without reservation that my actions prevented both myself and a woman that I did not even know from becoming victims of a violent criminal. If you look at the available statistics, in every place that gun carry, concealed or unconcealed, is legal, crime rates are lower than in areas where gun carry is regulated or prohibited.
The prohibition on carrying a weapon within a certain distance of a school facility is also useless, in my eyes. Columbine is an excellent example. If that law had not existed, it is likely that a teacher or ten would have been armed, and would have been able to prevent the tragic loss of life that occured. Gun bans on college campuses? Look at the Virginia Tech incident. What if even one of those students or teachers had been armed? Loss of life probably would have been prevented. The same logic that applies to criminals also applies here. If the student is determined to commit a violent crime, they aren't going to worry about the penalty for possessing a weapon on or at a school.
Montana has recently passed legislation that starts to unravel the oppressive net cast out by the Federal government, titled the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. It declares that all firearms manufactured within the state of Montana, and sold in that state, are not subject to interstate commerce laws, and are therefore exempt from the Federal governments interference. This is an excellent start, but I feel that more must be done.
We, the people, have the absolute right to safety, whether at home or in public. These rights must be deregulated, and returned to the people in their entirety. Our rights as citizens of the United States will not be truly respected until we have those rights without regulation or interference, within the realm of common sense. The Founding Fathers certainly never intended for convicted felons to possess dangerous weapons, just as they never intended for them to vote or hold public office, and this I agree with. But there is a plethora of unconstitutional legislation that must be done away with. The Federal government will not listen to reason, nor will they respect the people. The impetus must originate from within the states, and from the people, or our rights will never be returned to their intended glory.
I urge you, Senator Rice, and others to bring about change, and to consider enacting legislation similar to that passed by Montana, and being considered by other states, including the state of Texas. Perhaps, when the web of restriction and interference from the Federal government is severed, we, the people, can work towards restoring for ourselves the freedoms that our forefathers shed their blood and laid down their lives to secure for their sons, and for all of us. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I would be remiss in my duty to my country if I did not stand against what I view as the corrupt robbery of freedom from the people of this nation.
Sincerely,
Justin Coffman
I am writing to you as both a member of our nation's military forces (though I do not, and cannot, claim to represent the military or its interests), and a resident of the great state of Oklahoma. I am also somewhat old-fashioned in my beliefs, including the belief that this country should adhere to the spirit of the Constitution as laid down by the Founding Fathers, instead of quibbling about the letter of it. It has saddened and horrified me to watch our freedoms, those protected and reserved by the Constitution and its Amendments, slowly wither away under the weight of an increasingly invasive Federal government, which sees fit to misinterpret the Constitution to suit its own agenda.
The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Tenth Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." These protection that these two Amendments were designed to grant is continually mocked and ignored by misguided, overreaching Federal legislation.
The rights of the citizens of the United States of America are not being respected or guarded by those in the Federal government, as is their charge. The Constitution and its Amendments are continually violated and grow ever more restricted. The right to free speech is slowly being curbed in the name of fighting terrorism, as is the right to due process within our legal system. But I am writing you today to speak on one of the most ravaged freedoms of all: The right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The word "militia," as the Founding Fathers intended, is defined as, "All able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45, and all others who avail themselves to the defense of the Republic." The word "infringe," is defined as, "To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate." In effect, this Amendment was designed to protect the right of all citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms for any lawful purpose, and to ensure that this right is not only protected from complete subjugation, but also against limitation.
The Federal government works constantly toward ever-increasing restriction on our right to bear arms, including the requirement of background checks for each and every firearm purchase. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) is famous for its strong arm tactics, operating well outside of its official sphere of power. Government bodies such as BATFE do not have the authority to enact legislation, but in effect do, creating ever more restrictive policies. A well known and respected gun dealer in Oklahoma City was recently put out of business after having his livelihood and freedom threatened by the BATFE. This conduct isn't simply deplorable, it is illegal and unconstitutional, but still sanctioned by the Federal government.
While I recognize that there have been great strides in recent years in returning these freedoms to the American people, I believe that there has not been enough progress. An example is the Oklahoma Self Defense Act. There are some who would say that the Self Defense Act grants the right to carry a weapon in a concealed fashion. How could I be unhappy with this? Well, because the Self Defense Act isn't granting anything. It's simply giving it back, but even then only conditionally. The right to carry a weapon for self-defense has been a right that all American citizens have to begin with. The legislation that has restricted that right is wholly and unequivocally unconstitutional. I have the right to carry a weapon, concealed or not, so that I might defend myself, my family, or those around me, and I have the right to do so without government regulation or interference. (I should take this time to point out that I am, in fact, a law-abiding citizen, and that I do possess a Self Defense Act license.) There are those that would argue that the Founding Fathers certainly never encountered automatic weaponry, and would likely think differently today. I take issue with this in asking the question, "If we begin to limit our Second Amendment rights, where do we stop? How much limitation becomes too much?"
Every argument in favor of regulating the ownership and usage of firearms is flawed. "More guns on the street will mean more violence." I need only point out that the areas in the United States with the highest crime rates are those areas where firearms are regulated, and even outlawed. The mere possibility of their would-be victim possessing a firearm is enough for most criminals to consider the error of their ways. Look at New York and Chicago, Senator, and tell me if their ban of handguns is truly effective in deterring crime. Their criminals are armed, while their citizens are not. If a criminal is already intent on committing a violent crime, a charge of unlawful possession is hardly going to deter them. I myself have been involved in a defensive shooting, and I can say without reservation that my actions prevented both myself and a woman that I did not even know from becoming victims of a violent criminal. If you look at the available statistics, in every place that gun carry, concealed or unconcealed, is legal, crime rates are lower than in areas where gun carry is regulated or prohibited.
The prohibition on carrying a weapon within a certain distance of a school facility is also useless, in my eyes. Columbine is an excellent example. If that law had not existed, it is likely that a teacher or ten would have been armed, and would have been able to prevent the tragic loss of life that occured. Gun bans on college campuses? Look at the Virginia Tech incident. What if even one of those students or teachers had been armed? Loss of life probably would have been prevented. The same logic that applies to criminals also applies here. If the student is determined to commit a violent crime, they aren't going to worry about the penalty for possessing a weapon on or at a school.
Montana has recently passed legislation that starts to unravel the oppressive net cast out by the Federal government, titled the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. It declares that all firearms manufactured within the state of Montana, and sold in that state, are not subject to interstate commerce laws, and are therefore exempt from the Federal governments interference. This is an excellent start, but I feel that more must be done.
We, the people, have the absolute right to safety, whether at home or in public. These rights must be deregulated, and returned to the people in their entirety. Our rights as citizens of the United States will not be truly respected until we have those rights without regulation or interference, within the realm of common sense. The Founding Fathers certainly never intended for convicted felons to possess dangerous weapons, just as they never intended for them to vote or hold public office, and this I agree with. But there is a plethora of unconstitutional legislation that must be done away with. The Federal government will not listen to reason, nor will they respect the people. The impetus must originate from within the states, and from the people, or our rights will never be returned to their intended glory.
I urge you, Senator Rice, and others to bring about change, and to consider enacting legislation similar to that passed by Montana, and being considered by other states, including the state of Texas. Perhaps, when the web of restriction and interference from the Federal government is severed, we, the people, can work towards restoring for ourselves the freedoms that our forefathers shed their blood and laid down their lives to secure for their sons, and for all of us. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I would be remiss in my duty to my country if I did not stand against what I view as the corrupt robbery of freedom from the people of this nation.
Sincerely,
Justin Coffman
