Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Letter to Anne Northup re gun rights

June 16, 2003

Honorable Anne M. Northup

House of Representatives

1004 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mrs. Northup:

Thank you for your letter of June 6^th last in reply to a Gun Owners of America post card I sent you supporting H.R. 990, the “Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2003.”  I was dismayed with your lack of support for a Federal law which would extend the ability for citizens everywhere to exercise that most fundamental of human rights, that of self-defense.

I strongly support the federalism of the Founding Fathers and its premise that the rights granted by the Constitution to the national government are few and enumerated, while those reserved to the States and the people are as “numerous as the sands on the seashore.”  I am pleased with your professed support of the founders’ vision; however, I believe you fail to distinguish between legitimate local concerns and the protection afforded to the people’s fundamental rights by the Bill of Rights and the 14^th Amendment.  The states of New York or California, et al, are not allowed to violate most of the various clauses found in the Bill of Rights on the basis that we live in a diverse country; also, they should not be allowed to abridge the fundamental right of a law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense.

I know that the US Supreme Court has not yet applied its flawed Doctrine of Selective Incorporation (it is flawed because it is selective) to the 2d Amendment, so it does not officially restrict state governments from denying this most fundamental right.  However, I give you several reasons to make the distinction between a national and local issue and support a national right to concealed carry law.

First, and most pragmatic, the scholarly research conducted by academics for the past several decades proves that laws which allow citizens to go about their daily business armed reduce crime and save lives.  Gun control laws have the opposite effect.  Law abiding citizens obey them and are disarmed and left helpless against criminals who by their nature do not obey such laws.  Gun control laws cause crime to go up and actually cost more lives that they save.

Second, in this time of national peril of attack from terrorists, an armed citizenry can but only deter such attacks and effectively respond when such attacks do occur, mitigating their effects.  We citizens are the frontline of Homeland Defense and should be allowed to keep effective means of defense on or about us.

Finally, the Supreme Court is not the only protector of the rights of the people.  The Congress itself and you as my representative have constitutional, legal and moral duties to defend and uphold the fundamental rights of the people, especially when one branch of government has dropped the ball (i.e., the Supreme Court and its adoption of Selective Incorporation).

I appeal to you not to reject H.R. 990, SAFE Act of 2003, based upon a specious application of the doctrine of states’ rights.  I would prefer to hear that you are attempting to affect a balanced federalism in this instance, supporting a fundamental human right and working toward minimal national restrictions upon this fundamental, unalienable right.  Thank you for your consideration of this matter, I am

Sincerely yours,

John V. Bersot, Sr., J.D.

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN