Ed Patrick1

Oct 16, 2003 (rev. 11/12/03)

[ Op Eds ]

"The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least seventeen years of age..."

-- Title 10, Section 311, United States Code

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-- Thomas Jefferson, June 1776, in the debates on the Virginia constitution

Well, I guess Jefferson is not here, and I'm not there, but dang, it sure looks like he's not talking about duck hunting or target shooting.

There's a reason it's not called "The Bill of Needs." Jefferson wanted certain rights declared. Hamilton said we didn't need ANY of them written down (Federalist #84). Hamilton said that other rights would be declared somehow inferior as a result of explicitly stating a few. Hamilton also said that explicitly stating ANY would, in the future, beg the question, "Does this not imply a regulating authority in the government, otherwise, why else mention that the 'freedom of the press' must be preserved?" For some screwy idea, Hamilton believed that the only powers bequeathed to the government were those that were explicitly granted. That is exactly what he stated in Federalist #84 when he said there was no need to protect the freedom of the press, because nowhere in the Constitution had the government been granted any authority under which to regulate it.

Now comes wise Delegate Weldon who declares all sides neutral, but makes a treacherous leap of constitutional theory that both Jefferson and Hamilton argued against. Hamilton called it, the "doctrine of constructive powers." It was a tool masterfully used over seventy years ago by the Weimar Republic.

Now in an age in which text travels the globe by wire, satellite, and Blackberry, no one seems burdened by whether such technology exceeds the bounds of "free speech" as understood by the framers. That's okay, though, since the Bill of Rights is not an all-inclusive list (9th & 10th Amendments) of human rights, just a framework of those Jefferson deemed sacrosanct.

But aside from the question of the theoretical civilian merits of self-loading firearms, I have to wonder what hunting rounds Delegate Weldon believes are sufficient for terminating Bambi in a single shot, yet insufficient to penetrate a ballistic vest? (In my 25 years in physics and engineering, though I have not yet discovered this technology, I feel sure the General Assembly could legislate it into existence.)

While some have been sleeping, a tidal wave of discontent has swept the nation. In 1999, Colorado gave us the horror of Columbine, yet in 2003 passed not only "shall-issue" concealed carry, but also state- preemption (that Denver now fights in court). In the 2000 election, Sarah Brady crowed about a poorly drafted Missouri concealed-carry referendum that was defeated at the polls, yet this year, the Missouri legislature overturned their governor's veto of shall-issue CCW legislation. The number of "shall-issue" CCW states now numbers 36.

Now we have the sunset of the assault weapon ban approaching. Sarah Brady's only chance to save face is to get the former protégé of Diane Feinstein (Neil Quinter) to help get an assault weapon ban passed in an anti-gun state where the Beltway Bushwhackers murdered so many citizens. (If she can't peddle it here, she won't be able to sell ski caps to Eskimos in the Yukon.)

I can understand Delegate Weldon's interest in rational dialogue. If he knew anything about the subject, he would know who has and has not been practicing it. As a practicing scientist and engineer, I can tell you who has.

However, I do not understand this admiration of the Brady camp. This is the same Sarah Brady who issued a press release immediately after 9/11 that equated the American tradition of gun ownership to international terrorism. (This particular press release must have smelled so foul that it can no longer be found on the website of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Only Gun Violence.) It was Senator Marty Madden's photo with Jim and Sarah Brady that compelled me -- a lifetime gun owner -- to openly run as a pro-gun candidate against Sandy Schrader (Marty's successor) in the District 13 primary in 2002.

Believe it or not, Delegate Weldon, but I have lost all interest in playing "fair." This is a crowd that, after breaking into my home and raping my wife, would expect me to thank them for not raping my daughter.

This is a crowd whose version of "compromise" is asking for ten things to get five. Gun owners get screwed five ways, all in the name of safety, or crime-fighting, or responsibility, or "smartness." Don't we feel good because we "compromised.”

Personally, your comments are a great disappointment. Nationwide, the enemy is fleeing the field with their backs exposed. Now that their sphere of influence has shrunken to the size of Maryland, we've got the NRA and legislators giving aid and comfort to them. I don't know which is more surprising -- the silence among Democrats on the gun issue, or the recent silence among Republicans on it.

I'm sorry, but we're in the middle of a pitched battle. No one has called a truce. In fact, if we gun owners were on the losing end, the Bradys wouldn't even give us the time of day.

I don't know if these words are truly yours, or if you got them from some NRA robot. However, I will remind you that not only did we law-abiding gun rights activists have to fight Cas Taylor, but we also had to fight NRA operatives in Western Maryland to boot.

Before you go helping Sarah Brady stake down what's left of her forces against the incoming tidal wave of scientific reason and public outrage, I would like you to remember that we are still engaging this enemy. This is the issue that overturned control of Congress in 1994.

We are now the winning side. We are not retiring until unconditional surrender has been offered.