Christening up a new battle

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land -- everyone has been taught this since elementary school. Why is it, then, that some believe upholding the Constitution stops at the Second Amendment? The recent expiration of the assault weapons ban has led many to call for stricter standards and more regulation of weapons of all kinds. What is missed by these people is that restrictions on ownership of firearms is illegal in most circumstances. Americans have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms.\nIt has been said that the assault weapons ban outlawed models such as the AK-47 and the AR-15. In fact, these weapons have been prohibited since the passage of The National Firearms Act ... in 1934! Specific definitions set forth established that certain weapons with certain specifications (such as barrel length and muzzle modifications) were illegal with violators being subject to federal prosecution. Subsequent laws and court decisions have also found that grenade launchers, flash suppressors and bayonet mounts are also illegal. These are dangerous weapons. That is why they were outlawed well before 1994. America didn't need the assault weapons ban to keep these guns off the street.\nAt the time, it was said that this law would keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and that there would be a corresponding drop in crime. This is also incorrect. This law served only the interests of politicians ignoring the evidence they had at the time. In at least 12 states, studies had shown that these types of weapons are not the preferred choice of the criminal mastermind. For example, in a memo written March 11, 1993, Major David Kirschner of the Connecticut Department of Public Safety stated that only 1.79 percent of all confiscated firearms were the so-called "assault weapons." On June 27, 1992, The Washington Times revealed that the California Department of Justice suppressed its own report showing that assault weapons comprised only 3.7 percent of weapons used in the commission of criminal acts. Even the liberal friendly The New York Times ran an article June 20, 1993, that stated the assault weapons ban in Trenton, N.J., was ineffective. The list goes on, but the pattern is obvious. The assault weapons ban was not based on factual evidence our legislators had, and it cost them. The defeat of the Democratic Party in 1994 cannot entirely be blamed on the assault weapons ban, but it cannot be completely discarded either.\nThe mistake the Democrats made (and continue to make) surrounding this issue is listening to anti-gun advocates like the Brady Center. In the days leading up to the expiration of the assault weapons ban, the Brady Center's Web site ran a number of headlines in an attempt to force the issue with Congressional legislators. For example, on Sept. 13 it ran an article about a Miami policewoman who had been injured by an AK-47. In this case a criminal had illegally gotten hold of a weapon he or she was not supposed to have. What a surprise! On Sept. 15, it ran an article about California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger banning armor piercing .50 caliber sniper rifles. \nOnce again this list goes on but the pattern is obvious. Criminals are getting these types of weapons anyway, and states are deciding what is best for them. Sweeping federal laws like the assault weapons ban are not needed.\nThis issue boils down to one of freedom and self-determination. People should not have to give up what the Constitution says is theirs. The Second Amendment is as much a part of the Bill of Rights as any other amendment. Are peace protestors forced to justify themselves when they burn the American flag and compare the president to Adolf Hitler? Of course not. It is their right under the First Amendment to do that. Why, then, are gun owners asked to justify why they want to own firearms?\n In all the debate over why people should or should not have guns one important thing is overlooked: people do not have to justify why they want to own guns. The Constitution provides the justification.