<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>For the umpteenth-plus time . . .</div><div><br></div><div>CRIMINALIZE THE SALE AND/OR POSSESSION OF . . . DO AWAY WITH . . . MAKE ILLEGAL . . . COLLECT AND DESTROY ALL . . . SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLES AND HIGH-CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES (more than ten rounds).</div><div><br></div><div>Understand? Comprende? Verstehen sie?<br><br><div>Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .</div><div><br></div><div>"Moscow Cares"</div><div><a href="http://www.MoscowCares.com">http://www.MoscowCares.com</a></div><div> </div><div><div>Tom Hansen</div><div>Moscow, Idaho</div><div> </div></div></div><div><br>On Dec 22, 2012, at 5:58 PM, "Gary Crabtree" <<a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html;charset=Windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.7601.17998">
<div><font size="3" face="Calibri">Since I have to suppose that I am numbered
amongst the "ilk," before I walk away I would just love to hear the imagined
remedy for the "concerns." Please tell me in no uncertain terms just exactly
what measures you imagine would solve the problem of "<span>semi-automatic
weapons and/or high-capacity ammunition magazines."</span></font></div>
<div><font size="3" face="Calibri"><span></span></font> </div>
<div><font size="3" face="Calibri"><span>g</span></font></div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<div><br></div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<div style="font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a title="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com">Scott Dredge</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, December 22, 2012 5:24 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="mailto:thansen@moscow.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a> ; <a title="mailto:bear@moscow.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">viz</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] And just something to think
about......</div></div></div>
<div><br></div>
<div dir="ltr">Tom,<br><br>I'm guessing at some point, Wayne and others you clump
in with his ilk will simply just walk away and leave you hanging with your
'concerns with <span>semi-automatic weapons and/or high-capacity ammunition
magazines'. You can all agree (or not agree) to disagree with each other
which is tantamount to status quo. Area Man already summed it up in one
word: 'Impasse'.<br><br>-Scott<br></span><br>
<div>
<div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div>
<hr id="stopSpelling">
From: <a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a><br>Date: Sat,
22 Dec 2012 16:58:32 -0800<br>To: <a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</a><br>CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] And just something to think about......<br><br>
<div>Mr. Price - </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Fascinating article, but . . .</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>What has it got to do with semi-automatic weapons and/or high-capacity
ammunition magazines?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I have absolutely no argument against hunting rifles and/or shotguns.
Heck! I own a 12-gauge shotgun (great home security) and a
single-shot .410/.22 over-under, for which I am still trying to locate a
retainer spring for the hand guard, that my grandfather used to hunt with 100+
years ago.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>This article simply doesn't address my concerns
with <span>semi-automatic weapons and/or high-capacity ammunition
magazines.</span></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Good read, though.</div>
<div><br>
<div>Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>"Moscow Cares"</div>
<div><a href="http://www.MoscowCares.com" target="_blank">http://www.MoscowCares.com</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>Tom Hansen</div>
<div>Moscow, Idaho</div>
<div> </div></div></div>
<div><br>On Dec 22, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Wayne Price <<a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div>
<blockquote>
<div>This was sent to me by someone that I hold in high regards and often
disagree with, but listen to and respect their opinions.
<div><br></div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Geneva, Tahoma, sans-serif" class="ecxApple-style-span">
<p style="COLOR: rgb(0,51,51); FONT-SIZE: small" align="center"><a style="COLOR: rgb(0,102,153)" href="http://davekopel.org/" target="_blank"><iilogo.jpg></a></p>
<h1 style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Geneva, Tahoma, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,51,51); FONT-SIZE: xx-large; FONT-WEIGHT: bold">The
American Revolution against British Gun Control</h1>By David B. Kopel<a title="" href="http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" target="_blank"><span class="ecxMsoFootnoteReference">*</span></a><br><em>Administrative and
Regulatory Law News </em>(American Bar Association). Vol. 37, no. 4,
Summer 2012. More by Kopel on the <a href="http://www.davekopel.org/RKBA-Law-History.htm#Founding_Era" target="_blank">right to arms in the Founding Era</a>.<br>This Article reviews
the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the
1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of
firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the
confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political
tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights
into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.<br>Furious at the December 1773
Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular
provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the
possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed
many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to
force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to
heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in
Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was
necessarily illegitimate.<br>The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General
Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a
year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in
Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated.
Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or
older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.<br>Military rule would be difficult
to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There
were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area.
One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of
gunpowder.<br>Modern “smokeless” gunpowder is stable under most conditions.
The “black powder” of the 18th Century was far more volatile. Accordingly,
large quantities of black powder were often stored in a town’s “powder house,”
typically a reinforced brick building. The powder house would hold merchants’
reserves, large quantities stored by individuals, as well as powder for use by
the local militia. Although colonial laws generally required militiamen (and
sometimes all householders, too) to have their own firearm and a minimum
quantity of powder, not everyone could afford it. Consequently, the government
sometimes supplied “public arms” and powder to individual militiamen. Policies
varied on whether militiamen who had been given public arms would keep them at
home. Public arms would often be stored in a special armory, which might also
be the powder house.<br>Before dawn on September 1, 1774, 260 of Gage’s
Redcoats sailed up the Mystic River and seized hundreds of barrels of powder
from the Charlestown powder house.<br>The “Powder Alarm,” as it became known,
was a serious provocation. By the end of the day, 20,000 militiamen had
mobilized and started marching towards Boston. In Connecticut and Western
Massachusetts, rumors quickly spread that the Powder Alarm had actually
involved fighting in the streets of Boston. More accurate reports reached the
militia companies before that militia reached Boston, and so the war did not
begin in September. The message, though, was unmistakable: If the British used
violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that violent
seizure as an act of war, and would fight. And that is exactly what happened
several months later, on April 19, 1775.<br>Five days after the Powder Alarm,
on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled on the
Worcester Common. Backed by the formidable array, the Worcester Convention
took over the reins of government, and ordered the resignations of all militia
officers, who had received their commissions from the Royal Governor. The
officers promptly resigned and then received new commissions from the
Worcester Convention.<br>That same day, the people of Suffolk County (which
includes Boston) assembled and adopted the Suffolk Resolves. The 19-point
Resolves complained about the Powder Alarm, and then took control of the local
militia away from the Royal Governor (by replacing the Governor’s appointed
officers with officers elected by the militia) and resolved to engage in group
practice with arms at least weekly.<br>The First Continental Congress, which
had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves
and urged all the other colonies to send supplies to help the
Bostonians.<br>Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general,
warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the <em>Boston
Gazette</em>, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People”
was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.”<br>When the Massachusetts Assembly
convened, General Gage declared it illegal, so the representatives reassembled
as the “Provincial Congress.” On October 26, 1774, the Massachusetts
Provincial Congress adopted a resolution condemning military rule, and
criticizing Gage for “unlawfully seizing and retaining large quantities of
ammunition in the arsenal at Boston.” The Provincial Congress urged all
militia companies to organize and elect their own officers. At least a quarter
of the militia (the famous Minute Men) were directed to “equip and hold
themselves in readiness to march at the shortest notice.” The Provincial
Congress further declared that everyone who did not already have a gun should
get one, and start practicing with it diligently.<br>In flagrant defiance of
royal authority, the Provincial Congress appointed a Committee of Safety and
vested it with the power to call forth the militia. The militia of
Massachusetts was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent
government of Massachusetts.<br>Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State
for America, sent Gage a letter on October 17, 1774, urging him to disarm New
England. Gage replied that he would like to do so, but it was impossible
without the use of force. After Gage’s letter was made public by a reading in
the British House of Commons, it was publicized in America as proof of
Britain’s malign intentions.<br>Two days after Lord Dartmouth dispatched his
disarmament recommendation, King George III and his ministers blocked
importation of arms and ammunition to America. Read literally, the order
merely required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to
America. In practice, no permits were granted.<br>Meanwhile, Benjamin Franklin
was masterminding the surreptitious import of arms and ammunition from the
Netherlands, France, and Spain.<br>The patriotic Boston Committee of
Correspondence learned of the arms embargo and promptly dispatched Paul Revere
to New Hampshire, with the warning that two British ships were headed to Fort
William and Mary, near Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to seize firearms, cannons,
and gunpowder. On December 14, 1774, 400 New Hampshire patriots preemptively
captured all the material at the fort. A New Hampshire newspaper argued that
the capture was prudent and proper, reminding readers that the ancient
Carthaginians had consented to “deliver up all their Arms to the Romans” and
were decimated by the Romans soon after.<br>In Parliament, a moderate minority
favored conciliation with America. Among the moderates was the Duke of
Manchester, who warned that America now had three million people, and most of
them were trained to use arms. He was certain they could produce a stronger
army than Great Britain.<br>The Massachusetts Provincial Congress offered to
purchase as many arms and bayonets as could be delivered to the next session
of the Congress. Massachusetts also urged American gunsmiths “diligently to
apply themselves” to making guns for everyone who did not already have a gun.
A few weeks earlier, the Congress had resolved: “That it be strongly
recommended, to all the inhabitants of this colony, to be diligently attentive
to learning the use of arms . . . .”<br>Derived from political and legal
philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke, the ideology
underlying all forms of American resistance was explicitly premised on the
right of self-defense of all inalienable rights; from the self-defense
foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the
masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to
remove a disobedient servant.<br>The British government was not, in a purely
formal sense, attempting to abolish the Americans’ common law right of
self-defense. Yet in practice, that was precisely what the British were
attempting. First, by disarming the Americans, the British were attempting to
make the practical exercise of the right of personal self-defense much more
difficult. Second, and more fundamentally, the Americans made no distinction
between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government.
To the Americans, and to their British Whig ancestors, the right of
self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against
tyranny.<br>The troubles in New England inflamed the other colonies. Patrick
Henry’s great speech to the Virginia legislature on March 23, 1775, argued
that the British plainly meant to subjugate America by force. Because every
attempt by the Americans at peaceful reconciliation had been rebuffed, the
only remaining alternatives for the Americans were to accept slavery or to
take up arms. If the Americans did not act soon, the British would soon disarm
them, and all hope would be lost. “The millions of people, armed in the holy
cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are
invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us,” he
promised.<br>The Convention formed a committee—including Patrick Henry,
Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson—“to prepare a plan
for the embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be
sufficient” to defend the commonwealth. The Convention urged “that every Man
be provided with a good Rifle” and “that every Horseman be provided . . . with
Pistols and Holsters, a Carbine, or other Firelock.” When the Virginia
militiamen assembled a few weeks later, many wore canvas hunting shirts
adorned with the motto “Liberty or Death.”<br>In South Carolina, patriots
established a government, headed by the “General Committee.” The Committee
described the British arms embargo as a plot to disarm the Americans in order
to enslave them. Thus, the Committee recommended that “all persons” should
“immediately” provide themselves with a large quantity of
ammunition.<br>Without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form
independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal
governors. In Virginia, George Washington and George Mason organized the
Fairfax Independent Militia Company. The Fairfax militiamen pledged that “we
will, each of us, constantly keep by us” a firelock, six pounds of gunpowder,
and twenty pounds of lead. Other independent militia embodied in Virginia
along the same model. Independent militia also formed in Connecticut, Rhode
Island, New Hampshire, Maryland, and South Carolina, choosing their own
officers.<br>John Adams praised the newly constituted Massachusetts militia,
“commanded through the province, not by men who procured their commissions
from a governor as a reward for making themselves pimps to his tools.”<br>The
American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under
the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at
Lexington and Concord.<br>The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green
and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They
supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun.
Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women
of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18.<br>At
dawn, the British confronted about 200 militiamen at Lexington. “Disperse you
Rebels—Damn you, throw down your Arms and disperse!” ordered Major Pitcairn.
The Americans were quickly routed.<br>With a “huzzah” of victory, the Redcoats
marched on to Concord, where one of Gage’s spies had told him that the largest
Patriot reserve of gunpowder was stored. At Concord’s North Bridge, the town
militia met with some of the British force, and after a battle of two or three
minutes, drove off the British.<br>Notwithstanding the setback at the bridge,
the Redcoats had sufficient force to search the town for arms and ammunition.
But the main powder stores at Concord had been hauled to safety before the
Redcoats arrived.<br>When the British began to withdraw back to Boston, things
got much worse for them. Armed Americans were swarming in from nearby towns.
They would soon outnumber the British 2:1. Although some of the Americans
cohered in militia units, a great many fought on their own, taking sniper
positions wherever opportunity presented itself. Only British reinforcements
dispatched from Boston saved the British expedition from annihilation—and the
fact that the Americans started running out of ammunition and gun
powder.<br>One British officer reported: “These fellows were generally good
marksmen, and many of them used long guns made for Duck-Shooting.” On a
per-shot basis, the Americans inflicted higher casualties than had the British
regulars.<br>That night, the American militiamen began laying siege to Boston,
where General Gage’s standing army was located. At dawn, Boston had been the
base from which the King’s army could project force into New England. Now, it
was trapped in the city, surrounded by people in arms.<br>Two days later in
Virginia, royal authorities confiscated 20 barrels of gunpowder from the
public magazine in Williamsburg and destroyed the public firearms there by
removing their firing mechanisms. In response to complaints, manifested most
visibly by the mustering of a large independent militia led by Patrick Henry,
Governor Dunmore delivered a legal note promising to pay restitution.<br>At
Lexington and Concord, forcible disarmament had not worked out for the
British. So back in Boston, Gage set out to disarm the Bostonians a different
way.<br>On April 23, 1775, Gage offered the Bostonians the opportunity to
leave town if they surrendered their arms. The Boston Selectmen voted to
accept the offer, and within days, 2,674 guns were deposited, one gun for
every two adult male Bostonians.<br>Gage thought that many Bostonians still
had guns, and he refused to allow the Bostonians to leave. Indeed, a large
proportion of the surrendered guns were “training arms”—large muskets with
bayonets, that would be difficult to hide. After several months, food
shortages in Boston convinced Gage to allow easier emigration from the
city.<br>Gage’s disarmament program incited other Americans to take up arms.
Benjamin Franklin, returning to Philadelphia after an unsuccessful diplomatic
trip to London, “was highly pleased to find the Americans arming and preparing
for the worst events.”<br>The government in London dispatched more troops and
three more generals to America: William Howe, Henry Clinton, and John
Burgoyne. The generals arrived on May 25, 1775, with orders from Lord
Dartmouth to seize all arms in public armories, or which had been “secretly
collected together for the purpose of aiding Rebellions.”<br>The war underway,
the Americans captured Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York. At the June 17
Battle of Bunker Hill, the militia held its ground against the British
regulars and inflicted heavy casualties, until they ran out of gunpowder and
were finally driven back. (Had Gage not confiscated the gunpowder from the
Charleston Powder House the previous September, the Battle of Bunker Hill
probably would have resulted in an outright defeat of the British.)<br>On June
19, Gage renewed his demand that the Bostonians surrender their arms, and he
declared that anyone found in possession of arms would be deemed guilty of
treason.<br>Meanwhile, the Continental Congress had voted to send ten
companies of riflemen from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia to aid the
Massachusetts militia.<br>On July 6, 1775, the Continental Congress adopted
the Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, written by Thomas
Jefferson and the great Pennsylvania lawyer John Dickinson. Among the
grievances were General Gage’s efforts to disarm the people of Lexington,
Concord, and Boston.<br>Two days later, the Continental Congress sent an open
letter to the people of Great Britain warning that “men trained to arms from
their Infancy, and animated by the Love of Liberty, will afford neither a
cheap or easy conquest.”<br>The Swiss immigrant John Zubly, who was serving as
a Georgia delegate to the Continental Congress, wrote a pamphlet
entitled <em>Great Britain’s Right to Tax . . . By a Swiss</em>, which
was published in London and Philadelphia. He warned that “in a strong sense of
liberty, and the use of fire-arms almost from the cradle, the Americans have
vastly the advantage over men of their rank almost every where else.” Indeed,
children were “shouldering the resemblance of a gun before they are well able
to walk.” “The Americans will fight like men, who have everything at stake,”
and their motto was “DEATH OR FREEDOM.” The town of Gorham, Massachusetts (now
part of the State of Maine), sent the British government a warning that even
“many of our Women have been used to handle the Cartridge and load the
Musquet.”<br>It was feared that the Massachusetts gun confiscation was the
prototype for the rest of America. For example, a newspaper article published
in three colonies reported that when the new British generals arrived, they
would order everyone in America “to deliver up their arms by a certain
stipulated day.”<br>The events of April 19 convinced many more Americans to
arm themselves and to embody independent militia. A report from New York City
observed that “the inhabitants there are arming themselves . . . forming
companies, and taking every method to defend our rights. The like spirit
prevails in the province of New Jersey, where a large and well disciplined
militia are now fit for action.”<br>In Virginia, Lord Dunmore observed: “Every
County is now Arming a Company of men whom they call an independent Company
for the avowed purpose of protecting their Committee, and to be employed
against Government if occasion require.” North Carolina’s Royal Governor
Josiah Martin issued a proclamation outlawing independent militia, but it had
little effect.<br>A Virginia gentleman wrote a letter to a Scottish friend
explaining in America:<br>We are all in arms, exercising and training old and
young to the use of the gun. No person goes abroad without his sword, or gun,
or pistols. . . . Every plain is full of armed men, who all wear a hunting
shirt, on the left breast of which are sewed, in very legible letters,
“<em>Liberty or Death</em>.”<br>The British escalated the war. Royal Admiral
Samuel Graves ordered that all seaports north of Boston be burned.<br>When the
British navy showed up at what was then known as Falmouth, Massachusetts
(today’s Portland, Maine), the town attempted to negotiate. The townspeople
gave up eight muskets, which was hardly sufficient, and so Falmouth was
destroyed by naval bombardment.<br>The next year, the 13 Colonies would adopt
the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration listed the tyrannical acts of
King George III, including his methods for carrying out gun control: “He has
plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the
Lives of our people.”<br>As the war went on, the British always remembered
that without gun control, they could never control America. In 1777, with
British victory seeming likely, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a
plan entitled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” To ensure that there
would be no future rebellions, “[t]he Militia Laws should be repealed and none
suffered to be re-enacted, & the Arms of all the People should be taken
away, . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or
Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead,
Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . . .”<br>To the
Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era, the theory of some late-20th
Century courts that the Second Amendment is a “collective right” and not an
“individual right” might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned
guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town
armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate
their individual arms, nor their collective arms; and when the British tried
to do both, the Revolution began. The Americans used their individual arms and
their collective arms to fight against the confiscation of any arms. Americans
fought to provide themselves a government that would never perpetrate the
abuses that had provoked the Revolution.<br>What are modern versions of such
abuses? The reaction against the 1774 import ban for firearms and gunpowder
(via a discretionary licensing law) indicates that import restrictions are
unconstitutional if their purpose is to make it more difficult for Americans
to possess guns. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the import of
any firearm that is not deemed “sporting” by federal regulators. That import
ban seems difficult to justify based on the historical record of
1774-76.<br>Laws disarming people who have proven themselves to be a
particular threat to public safety are not implicated by the 1774-76
experience. In contrast, laws that aim to disarm the public at large are
precisely what turned a political argument into the American
Revolution.<br>The most important lesson for today from the Revolution is
about militaristic or violent search and seizure in the name of disarmament.
As Hurricane Katrina bore down on Louisiana, police officers in St. Charles
Parish confiscated firearms from people who were attempting to flee. After the
hurricane passed, officers went house to house in New Orleans, breaking into
homes and confiscating firearms at gunpoint. The firearms seizures were
flagrantly illegal under existing state law. A federal district judge soon
issued an order against the confiscation, ordering the return of the seized
guns.<br>When there is genuine evidence of potential danger—such as evidence
that guns are in the possession of a violent gang—then the Fourth Amendment
properly allows no-knock raids, flash-bang grenades, and similar violent
tactics to carry out a search. Conversely, if there is no real evidence of
danger—for example, if it is believed that a person who has no record of
violence owns guns but has not registered them properly—then militaristically
violent enforcement of a search warrant should never be allowed. Gun
ownership <em>simpliciter </em>ought never to be a pretext for
government violence. The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did
not agree.<br>
<div>
<hr>
<div id="ecxftn1">
<p class="ecxMsoFootnoteText"><span class="ecxMsoFootnoteReference"><a title="" href="http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" target="_blank">*</a> Research Director, Independence Institute,
and Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver University, Sturm
College of Law. This is article is adapted from <em>How
the</em><em>British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American
Revolution</em>, 6 Charleston L. Rev. 283 (2012), <em>available at</em><a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1967702" target="_blank"> http://ssrn.com/abstract=1967702</a></span>.</p></div></div></span></div></div></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div><span>=======================================================</span><br><span>List
services made available by First Step Internet,</span><br><span>serving the
communities of the Palouse since
1994.</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a></span><br><span> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></span><br><span>=======================================================</span></div></blockquote><br>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of
the Palouse since 1994. <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</div></div>
<p>
</p><hr>
<p></p>=======================================================<br> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities
of the Palouse since
1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================
</div></blockquote></body></html>