Gunco Forums banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The False Hope of Gun-Free Zones
By Gerard Valentino
CNSNews.com Commentary
December 16, 2004

Few people remember the school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi that took place in October 1997. Fewer people remember how it ended.

This episode came to a close when Pearl High School Assistant Principal Joel Myrick sprinted a quarter mile to retrieve a personal handgun from his car and confronted the shooter who was unwilling to continue the attack against an armed victim.

Myrick parked so far away from the school to keep from violating federal gun free zone statutes. By the time the shooting spree ended, two students lay dead and seven others were wounded. Myrick's heroic defense of the children at his school was sparsely reported, going mostly unnoticed by the establishment media who were unwilling to report that he used a gun to end the mayhem and murder.

They were also unwilling to ask the hard question - how many children died while Myrick sprinted to his car?

Compare the carnage at Pearl High School with that of the Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, where a gunman murdered 22 people and wounded 18 others before turning the gun on himself. Among those at Luby's on October 16, 1991 was a woman who was proficient with handguns, but obeyed the law by leaving her legal handgun in her vehicle because.

At times she was within feet of the killer and instinctively reached for her gun which wasn't there. By the time it was over, her mother and father were among the dead.

Once again, the media never asked how many people were killed because the license holder was disarmed.

Past instances of mass shootings, and common sense, teach us that when a victim resists with a firearm the violence ends quickly. Arguments claiming armed intervention by citizens leads to higher death tolls do not stand up to scrutiny. Death tolls are demonstrably higher when victims are unable to fight back as compared to cases where an armed victim resists.

It's time to ask how many more people must needlessly die before gun control activists and legislators realize that disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them easy prey to criminals. The recent massacre at a Columbus, Ohio nightclub proves yet again that so-called gun free zones only benefit criminals.

The Ohio legislature and Ohio Governor Bob Taft left everyone in that nightclub without a chance to fight for their lives because under Ohio's concealed carry law, license holders are banned from carrying in any establishment that serves alcohol - even if the licensee does not drink.

At first it sounds like good public policy to ban firearms in establishments that serve liquor. Further scrutiny however reveals that any gun free zone, including schools, restaurants, bars and government buildings offer criminals the freedom to kill with impunity.

The Columbus nightclub shooter was stopped by a city police officer who happened to be in the area and responded quickly to calls for help. However, we also know that a concealed handgun license holder was in the crowd that night, but was un-armed in accordance with the law. At times, he was less than five feet from the gunman but could do nothing.

A similar scenario unfolds in nearly every massacre committed with a firearm across the United States. Most take place in what gun-rights activists call victims-zones; areas deemed too dangerous, either by government or a private business, to allow legal firearms.

What gun-control advocates fail to grasp is criminals, by definition, do not follow the law and therefore any attempt to keep them from carrying a gun into a given establishment will fail, often with tragic results.

The goal of legislators nationwide shouldn't be to keep armed law-abiding citizens from bearing arms in restaurants, bars, schools and so forth. It should be to keep criminals with guns from entering such locations.

Posting signs designating an area as "gun free" does not keep criminals from entering with a gun; they invite criminals who know nobody can stop them.

And that is exactly what they want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
I seem to recall reading in the New York Times a few days ago (in an article on the movement to restrict the expansion of governmental power through the commerce clause, a subject near and dear to you, Custer) that the Gun Free Zone requirements had been tossed out by the courts as unconstitutional.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
I seem to recall reading in the New York Times a few days ago (in an article on the movement to restrict the expansion of governmental power through the commerce clause, a subject near and dear to you, Custer) that the Gun Free Zone requirements had been tossed out by the courts as unconstitutional.
I would be surprised. If you have a link, I'd like to read it.

Remember, the state has the police power to implement just about any safety measure they desire. The Feds are the ones who need the commerce power expanded to act. They lack a police power.

(when I say police power, LEO/police is not what it means...much broader than that).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
As the most restrictive restricts, local ordinances will override that, right?
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
gordon gauge said:
As the most restrictive restricts, local ordinances will override that, right?
Not sure I understand the question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
I would be surprised. If you have a link, I'd like to read it...
Tried NYT on the 'net and couldn't find it since I have access only to free services. It was in the December 14 issue. Here's specifics as I remember them: There is a nation-wide movement to try to get the Supreme Court to give a more restrictive interpretation to the commerce clause than has been given in the past, they gave a name to the movement, and I've forgotten it. The pending case where it is coming to apply is creating an odd alliance between marijuana reform advocates and conservatives: There is a medicinal marijuana case pending in which the appeal is based on the Feds having no authority to intervene in marijuana that was not part of any commerce at all, and certainly not part of interstate commerce (it was home-grown pot used for medicinal purposes, not sold, grown and used locally). The foundation for the case on the Feds side is a landmark decision made during the New Deal where a farmer appealed Federal restrictions on production of dairy products - he got nailed for producing excessive dairy products, but the so-called excessive products were strictly for use by he and his family. The Supreme Court ruled against him on the very tenuous grounds that by he and his family using milk from Bessie, they had affected demand for milk products nationally - even if only by the demand that would have been created had they had to get their dairy products at the store instead of from Bessie. Forget the name of the case. If that rather weak precedent gets shot down, things are looking bad for the Feds in the pot case and for extension of the commerce clause that is founded upon that case.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
Tried NYT on the 'net and couldn't find it since I have access only to free services. It was in the December 14 issue. Here's specifics as I remember them: There is a nation-wide movement to try to get the Supreme Court to give a more restrictive interpretation to the commerce clause than has been given in the past, they gave a name to the movement, and I've forgotten it. The pending case where it is coming to apply is creating an odd alliance between marijuana reform advocates and conservatives: There is a medicinal marijuana case pending in which the appeal is based on the Feds having no authority to intervene in marijuana that was not part of any commerce at all, and certainly not part of interstate commerce (it was home-grown pot used for medicinal purposes, not sold, grown and used locally). The foundation for the case on the Feds side is a landmark decision made during the New Deal where a farmer appealed Federal restrictions on production of dairy products - he got nailed for producing excessive dairy products, but the so-called excessive products were strictly for use by he and his family. The Supreme Court ruled against him on the very tenuous grounds that by he and his family using milk from Bessie, they had affected demand for milk products nationally - even if only by the demand that would have been created had they had to get their dairy products at the store instead of from Bessie. Forget the name of the case. If that rather weak precedent gets shot down, things are looking bad for the Feds in the pot case and for extension of the commerce clause that is founded upon that case.
I posted on this a week or so ago. Maybe I can find it.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
** Wickard v. Filburn, (1942)

2. Facts: Filburn was a farmer who grew wheat both for sale and for his
own use. Under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, Filburn was
fined for producing too much wheat for his own consumption.

3. Procedural Posture: Filburn sought enjoinder of the fine, and sued
the Secretary of Agriculture, Wickard. The lower court granted the
injunction on other grounds, and Wickard appealed.

4. Issue: Whether Congress has the power to regulate the production of
wheat for consumption by the farmer, apart from the sale of such wheat
commercially.

5. Holding: Yes.

6. Pro Argument: The Congress does not have the power under the commerce
clause to regulate the production and consumption of wheat because these
activities are local in character and, at most, have an indirect effect
on interstate commerce.

7. Con Argument: The statute does not regulate production or consumption
of wheat, but only marketing; and even if it goes beyond marketing, it
is "necessary and proper" in this case.

8. Majority Reasoning: The court discarded the "direct-indirect"
approach of Gibbons v. Ogden for a more encompassing approach. Whether
an activity had a local is only one of the facts upon which a decision
should be based. The test should be based on whether the activity has a
"substantial economic effect" on interstate commerce. The consumption of
homegrown wheat causes extreme volatility in the national market because
it is so variable. Although the effect of one farmer may trivial, he is
part of a nationwide market, where the overall effect is not trivial.
Since this activity has a substantial economic effect on the interstate
wheat market, Congress has the power to regulate it.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top