Off-topic: Local Response to 2nd Amendment Ruling

This isn't about taxes, but I thought I would share a letter that I sent to my Mayor and Assemblyman, John McKeon, today. It's in reference to his press release about the Supreme Court second amendment ruling.

Mayor / Assemblyman McKeon,

I read your press release this morning and would like to respond, as a double constituent of yours.

Briefly, I disagree with your position, and I think your press release is misleading and inappropriate. I expect the first, and am able to handle disagreements cordially even when my ideas are not those that rule, but I very much dislike political statements that try to hoodwink the public.

Specifically:

* The first line says that you "blasted a...ruling creating a blanket right to gun ownership."

This statement is false, because the Court specifically ruled that the right was created by the founders in the bill of rights; when you claim that they "created" a right, you have deliberately misinterpreted the ruling. The Court has not "created" anything. It has interpreted the Second Amendment. For you to disagree with their interpretation is one thing, but you have dissembled about what it means to have a ruling.

The statement is also, in another way, misleading. As Justice Scalia discussed in his written opinion, the right to gun ownership is limited. For you to use the term "blanket" must either mean that it is a right that covers all appropriate circumstances (as any right does), in which case your claim is redundant, or it means that it is a right that can't be constrained, which is false. Since the first usage is defensible but redundant, it sounds like you're trying to say that the right "created" by the court is unconstrained, which is misleading the public.

* Although "we can build guns today the killing capacity of which the Founding Fathers could not have imagined in their wildest dreams", the Founding Fathers knew about handguns (though ours today are better) and knew how to disassemble their muskets; they never imagined that the government they were building would have allowed local governments to break down and lock up their weapons, and, revolutionaries that they were, if a government had told them to do so they no doubt would have rebelled with those very same weapons.

* Your statement that "The Court has essentially given gang members the express right to stockpile guns in their homes under the guise of self-preservation" is particularly egregious. Gang members have no problem getting guns, and you have no right to break into their homes to find them without probable cause, so if the Court had ruled differently this would still be a problem. Moreover, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ruling does nothing to prevent state and local governments from restricting the gun ownership of felons -- and someone who has not been convicted of a crime should not have his rights curtailed.

While I hope that you will reconsider your position on gun control, I think it unlikely and I respect your right to your beliefs. However, I firmly request that you stop using your position to spread misleading statements about the nation's highest Court's decision.

Regards,
Jake Freivald
West Orange

If your local politicians are responding to the ruling, now is the time to show your support or disapproval of their positions. They are all thinking about how to make this play out in the next election.

---