<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=utf-8 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7601.17998"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
dir=auto id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>This is the problem when people who have a limited
knowledge of firearms pipe up with their under informed opinions. The so
called assault rifle used in the most recent tragedy was a semi-automatic
rifle not an automatic. It is also one of the finest varmint rifles on the
market. It is used extensively in the west for coyote control and in the south
to hunt feral hogs. It is used everywhere to control ground squirrels and
prairie dogs. It is also a very common used weapon for small bore target
competition and bench rest shooting.</FONT><FONT face=Calibri> It is an
excellent tool for purposes such as these and hardly a toy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Automatic firearms while legal are much more tightly
controlled and you would be very hard pressed to point to a shooting where one
was used. While I won't go so far as to say it has never happened, (I know of no
incidence) I am sure that it would come to an extremely tiny fraction of a
percent of total firearms crime.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Lastly, do you really want to start banning products
based on "need?" Do you want to hand over control of what you can and cant do or
own to what others think you should have? Does liberty mean nothing to you or is
it a case of since I personally don't own any given item no one else should
either?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>g</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></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:philosopher.joe@gmail.com
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 23, 2012 2:11 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=mattd2107@hotmail.com
href="mailto:mattd2107@hotmail.com">Matt Decker</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A
title="mailto:thansen@moscow.com>
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com>"><thansen@moscow.com></A> ; <A
title="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com>
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com>"><jampot@roadrunner.com></A> ; <A
title="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] And just something to think
about......</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>And why can't you admit that folks buy automatic weapons for toys and
nothing more. Regular guns will provide just as much personal protection. There
is no need, not one that I can see, for automatic weapons. You are certainly not
going to form militias to overtake the tyrannical US government if all you have
are automatic weapons. You'll need a lot more than that, right? Name one
practical use of an automatic weapon that you don't have with plan old rifles
and handguns?<BR><BR>On Dec 23, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Matt Decker <<A
href="mailto:mattd2107@hotmail.com">mattd2107@hotmail.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<STYLE><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></STYLE>
<DIV dir=ltr>Tom, <BR> <BR>Getting rid of all high capacity
magazines and "assualt weapons" will not solve the growing death rate
from gun fatalities. We need to look into alternative ideas. Taking
away one aspect of the problem is a band-aid. Looking up gun related
fatalities for 2012, assualt rifles and weapons with higher capcity
magazines accounted for around fifteen percent of the deaths. Most of those
were gang and drug related.<BR> <BR>Recently in sports, two players have
commited suicide with weapons that you would account for as "OK". We need to
discuss alternative measures. Such as mental health, stronger
regulations when purchasing weapons, stonger applications for CWP
permits. Stuff like that. Actual problem solvers. We have citzens who have a
license to carry and or sell fully automatic weapons. They have to apply and
gain those licenses through a strict application period. I have yet to
hear of a "rambo" with two m60 machine guns walking into a food co-op and
slaughtering 54 peacenics. <BR> <BR>Let's all work
together and solve this problem.<BR> <BR>Just my
thought.<BR> <BR>Matt<BR> <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 18:11:20 -0800<BR>To: <A
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.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>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><FONT face=Calibri></FONT><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 5:58 PM, "Gary Crabtree" <<A
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<STYLE><!--
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
--></STYLE>
<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=ecxSkyDrivePlaceholder></DIV>
<HR id=ecxstopSpelling>
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/"
target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net</A> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A>
=======================================================</DIV></DIV><BR>
<HR>
<BR>=======================================================<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/"
target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================
</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></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<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">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></BODY></HTML>