Right to posses & carry 'arms' can't be infringed upon by government
To the editor,
I am writing today so that everyone who has read my last two letters can fully understand the history of the 2nd Amendment. The original support came from the federal legislative branch, the legislature of each state and the executive branch in the ratification process. This support has also been provided by the U.S. Supreme Court and the supreme court of various states in the rulings that have been made.
In 1837, the state of Georgia passed a statute banning the sale of all pistols (except larger pistols known as "horseman's pistols") and other weapons. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the federal constitution. It said "...the right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not merely such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in on, in the slightest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying of a well regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free state."
Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court of the United States likewise indicated that the privileges of citizenship included the individual right to own and carry firearms. In the notorious Dred Scott case, the court held that black Americans were not citizens and could not be made such by any state. This decision, which by striking down the Missouri Compromise did so much to bring on the Civil War, listed what the Supreme Court considered the rights of American citizens by way of illustrating what rights would have to be given to black Americans if the court were to recognize them as full fledged citizens:
It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
In an 1878 ruling the Arkansas Supreme Court held "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."
In 1902 a ruling from the Idaho Supreme Court contains the wording of the 2nd Amendment and the wording of the Constitution of Idaho and says "Under these constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho, whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and villages."
In 1903 the Supreme Court of Vermont, in a ruling on a local ordinance that banned people from carrying pistols said "The people of the state have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. The result is that Ordinance No. 10, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol, is inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws of the state, and it is therefore to that extent, void."
The Colorado Supreme Court held in a 1972 ruling against the city of Lakewood held that "...this ordinance would prohibit gunsmiths, pawnbrokers and sporting goods stores from carrying on a substantial part of their business. Also, the ordinance appears to prohibit individuals from transporting guns to and from such places of business. Furthermore, it makes it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for the purpose of self-defense. Several of these activities are constitutionally protected."
There are hundreds more rulings from the courts reaffirming our right to bear arms but to me the most defining ruling comes from the Oregon Supreme Court in 1980 where they said, "We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment. Therefore, the term "arms" as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several hand-carried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militia-men or private citizens."
I believe this series of letters clearly shows that our right to posses and carry "arms" cannot be infringed upon by government at any level. If we want to prevent the tragedy of multiple victim murders then we need to concentrate on identifying and stopping the assailant to prevent these incidents and stop trying to merely change which weapon he or she will use.
Greg Knytych
New Hampton
I am writing today so that everyone who has read my last two letters can fully understand the history of the 2nd Amendment. The original support came from the federal legislative branch, the legislature of each state and the executive branch in the ratification process. This support has also been provided by the U.S. Supreme Court and the supreme court of various states in the rulings that have been made.
In 1837, the state of Georgia passed a statute banning the sale of all pistols (except larger pistols known as "horseman's pistols") and other weapons. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the federal constitution. It said "...the right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not merely such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in on, in the slightest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying of a well regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free state."
Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court of the United States likewise indicated that the privileges of citizenship included the individual right to own and carry firearms. In the notorious Dred Scott case, the court held that black Americans were not citizens and could not be made such by any state. This decision, which by striking down the Missouri Compromise did so much to bring on the Civil War, listed what the Supreme Court considered the rights of American citizens by way of illustrating what rights would have to be given to black Americans if the court were to recognize them as full fledged citizens:
It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
In an 1878 ruling the Arkansas Supreme Court held "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."
In 1902 a ruling from the Idaho Supreme Court contains the wording of the 2nd Amendment and the wording of the Constitution of Idaho and says "Under these constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho, whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and villages."
In 1903 the Supreme Court of Vermont, in a ruling on a local ordinance that banned people from carrying pistols said "The people of the state have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. The result is that Ordinance No. 10, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol, is inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws of the state, and it is therefore to that extent, void."
The Colorado Supreme Court held in a 1972 ruling against the city of Lakewood held that "...this ordinance would prohibit gunsmiths, pawnbrokers and sporting goods stores from carrying on a substantial part of their business. Also, the ordinance appears to prohibit individuals from transporting guns to and from such places of business. Furthermore, it makes it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for the purpose of self-defense. Several of these activities are constitutionally protected."
There are hundreds more rulings from the courts reaffirming our right to bear arms but to me the most defining ruling comes from the Oregon Supreme Court in 1980 where they said, "We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment. Therefore, the term "arms" as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several hand-carried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militia-men or private citizens."
I believe this series of letters clearly shows that our right to posses and carry "arms" cannot be infringed upon by government at any level. If we want to prevent the tragedy of multiple victim murders then we need to concentrate on identifying and stopping the assailant to prevent these incidents and stop trying to merely change which weapon he or she will use.
Greg Knytych
New Hampton
Last Updated on Saturday, 26 January 2013 02:46
Hits: 71
GOP needs chair with new ideas & no ties to party's past failures
To the editor,
Today, five hundred some Republican Party delegates will take the first step towards retooling New Hampshire's GOP; their goal is the reversal of last November's drubbing by the Granite State's liberal Democrats, who joined with Independents and demoralized Republicans to reject the party's conservative message... gone stale.
These dedicated representatives of our party will be swimming against a rip ride of rejection of the status quo, when they select the next chairman of the state Republican Party.
Should the five hundred party faithful cast their lot with the same GOP "leadership" who presided over back-to-back election debacles? Should they second the opinions of the old guard, who favor Republicans who've been rejected — resoundingly — by New Hampshire's electorate? Is doing things in lock step with the past, the way to the future of the Grand Old Party?
Or, with the fate of conservatism having in the balance, should they do the unthinkable — and select a chairman with new ideas, an understanding that it now takes more than Republican votes to win, and who has nothing to do with past failures?
This Republican hopes they make the right choice, even though it may mean standing tall against resistance to change.
Bruce Van Derven
Bristol
Today, five hundred some Republican Party delegates will take the first step towards retooling New Hampshire's GOP; their goal is the reversal of last November's drubbing by the Granite State's liberal Democrats, who joined with Independents and demoralized Republicans to reject the party's conservative message... gone stale.
These dedicated representatives of our party will be swimming against a rip ride of rejection of the status quo, when they select the next chairman of the state Republican Party.
Should the five hundred party faithful cast their lot with the same GOP "leadership" who presided over back-to-back election debacles? Should they second the opinions of the old guard, who favor Republicans who've been rejected — resoundingly — by New Hampshire's electorate? Is doing things in lock step with the past, the way to the future of the Grand Old Party?
Or, with the fate of conservatism having in the balance, should they do the unthinkable — and select a chairman with new ideas, an understanding that it now takes more than Republican votes to win, and who has nothing to do with past failures?
This Republican hopes they make the right choice, even though it may mean standing tall against resistance to change.
Bruce Van Derven
Bristol
Last Updated on Saturday, 26 January 2013 02:40
Hits: 135
Are we to understand Newtown deaths are just collateral damage?
To the editor,
How dare Obama try to do ... anything? While not being a psychiatrist, I find it difficult to understand why the president's fairly modest efforts at gun control policy reform seem to have utterly deranged some of the contributors to this forum.
Mr. Nix makes the ridicules statement that the "current administration is not concerned with guns and violence." He further comments, "Using executive orders... constitute an illegal act of making or changing law without the consent of Congress". Those on the right like to claim that "executive orders" in themselves are lawless. What they fail to realize is that a president, Republican or Democrat, cannot do his job without issuing executive orders and other instructions to the executive branch of government. What executive orders cannot do is impose obligations or restrictions on the public, unless Congress, through legislation, has expressly or implicitly conferred authority on the president to do so. It is worth noting that none of President Obama's executive orders on gun violence do any such thing.
Although some news outlets reported that the President Obama signed 23 executive orders relating to gun violence in America, he actually signed only three. The first requires federal agencies step up their efforts to comply with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements Amendments Act of 2007 and requires agencies to keep the president and the Justice Department informed of their progress.
The second is directing federal agencies that "regularly recover firearms" to have these firearms "traced through ATF at the earliest time practicable." Federal agencies have the authority to trace firearms they take into custody. The president is saying, "Do it quickly."
The third memorandum/executive order directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services "to conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it." The president is telling them to put "gun violence" on the list of things they research.
In short, none of these memorandums/executive orders requires the public to do anything, or expands the powers of the federal government.
So, which of these actions are the "outrageous" ones and "make laws in violation" of the Constitution? Please write and tell us exactly what part of Obama's executive orders you find so offensive.
I found it disturbing that Mr. Nix would refer to "acts of violence involving guns", I'm assuming referencing the killing of 26 students and faculty in Newtown, as "minor in relation to the size of our population and "the only reason we see them as such a huge event ... is that they are "grand stand" by the press for political agenda reasons." Are we to understand that these deaths are just collateral damage and to be accepted as part of our gun culture? I sincerely hope that these callous remarks don't reflect the views of "responsible" gun owners. Mr. Nix, will you be the one to tell the parents of these students that their deaths were only "MINOR"? Are guns so important and life so insignificant that you can label deaths, even one death, by "acts of violence involving guns" as being "MINOR" — I don't care what the population?
The hysteria we've witnessed in recent letters by those suggesting that the government is "removing ownership of guns from the public" has no basis in fact. If it were true, these contributors would be sharing the House and Senate Bill numbers of these proposed bills and the names of their sponsors.
L. J. Siden
Gilmanton
How dare Obama try to do ... anything? While not being a psychiatrist, I find it difficult to understand why the president's fairly modest efforts at gun control policy reform seem to have utterly deranged some of the contributors to this forum.
Mr. Nix makes the ridicules statement that the "current administration is not concerned with guns and violence." He further comments, "Using executive orders... constitute an illegal act of making or changing law without the consent of Congress". Those on the right like to claim that "executive orders" in themselves are lawless. What they fail to realize is that a president, Republican or Democrat, cannot do his job without issuing executive orders and other instructions to the executive branch of government. What executive orders cannot do is impose obligations or restrictions on the public, unless Congress, through legislation, has expressly or implicitly conferred authority on the president to do so. It is worth noting that none of President Obama's executive orders on gun violence do any such thing.
Although some news outlets reported that the President Obama signed 23 executive orders relating to gun violence in America, he actually signed only three. The first requires federal agencies step up their efforts to comply with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements Amendments Act of 2007 and requires agencies to keep the president and the Justice Department informed of their progress.
The second is directing federal agencies that "regularly recover firearms" to have these firearms "traced through ATF at the earliest time practicable." Federal agencies have the authority to trace firearms they take into custody. The president is saying, "Do it quickly."
The third memorandum/executive order directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services "to conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it." The president is telling them to put "gun violence" on the list of things they research.
In short, none of these memorandums/executive orders requires the public to do anything, or expands the powers of the federal government.
So, which of these actions are the "outrageous" ones and "make laws in violation" of the Constitution? Please write and tell us exactly what part of Obama's executive orders you find so offensive.
I found it disturbing that Mr. Nix would refer to "acts of violence involving guns", I'm assuming referencing the killing of 26 students and faculty in Newtown, as "minor in relation to the size of our population and "the only reason we see them as such a huge event ... is that they are "grand stand" by the press for political agenda reasons." Are we to understand that these deaths are just collateral damage and to be accepted as part of our gun culture? I sincerely hope that these callous remarks don't reflect the views of "responsible" gun owners. Mr. Nix, will you be the one to tell the parents of these students that their deaths were only "MINOR"? Are guns so important and life so insignificant that you can label deaths, even one death, by "acts of violence involving guns" as being "MINOR" — I don't care what the population?
The hysteria we've witnessed in recent letters by those suggesting that the government is "removing ownership of guns from the public" has no basis in fact. If it were true, these contributors would be sharing the House and Senate Bill numbers of these proposed bills and the names of their sponsors.
L. J. Siden
Gilmanton
Last Updated on Saturday, 26 January 2013 02:34
Hits: 48
RSA 24:15 clearly gives convention control over budget transfers
To the editor,
The developing battle between the Belknap County Commissioners and the Belknap County Convention is quite interesting. It started at a joint meeting on Monday when the convention voted that the commissioners are not to move money from one appropriated item to another without obtaining the written approval of the executive committee of the convention.
The commissioners insist that this action is improper under New Hampshire statutory law and that it will unduly restrict the commissioners' ability to manage the affairs of the county.
Both sides seem to agree that the answer lies in the wording of New Hampshire Revised Statute 24:14 I. The commissioners have now announced that they are obtaining an expert's clarification of the statutory language, presumably in the hope or expectation of an opinion that the convention has exceeded its statutory authority.
My own response to this dispute was to examine the statutory language that has given rise to the heated debate. It reads: "The county convention may require that the county commissioners obtain written authority from the executive committee before transferring any appropriation or part thereof under RSA 24:15." Subsection III of the same statute delineates the right of the commissioners to move money from one line item to another as follows: "Unless otherwise ordered by the county convention, under RSA 24:14, whenever it appears that the amount appropriated for a specific purpose will not be used in whole or in part for such purpose, the county commissioners may use such sum to augment other appropriations, if necessary, provided the total payments for all purposes do not exceed the total sum of appropriations in any year made by the county convention." RSA 24:15 III.
It would appear from the quoted statutory language that the New Hampshire legislature has provided the answer to the dispute, not once but twice. First, the law allows the convention to require the commissioners to obtain written authority from the executive committee (of the convention) before transferring any appropriation. In other words, the commissioners may not transfer any appropriation without written authority from the convention, through its executive committee, if the convention is so inclined. Next, the law allows the commissioners to move funds from one line item to another "unless otherwise ordered by the county convention." The operative phrase here is "unless otherwise ordered". Put differently, if the county convention orders otherwise, the commissioners may not move money around. The power of the commissioners to move the money thus depends entirely on the consent of the convention.
Throughout my career I was taught and later taught others a basic rule of statutory interpretation: READ THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE. If the critical language of the statute does not suggest competing interpretations, then there is nothing to interpret. In other words, the statute speaks for itself.
In reviewing the statutory language involved in the dispute between the commissioners and the convention, I have looked, and looked again, for possible competing interpretations, and I have found none. Both of the quoted provisions indicate that the convention may require the commissioners to obtain consent from the convention (through executive committee approval) to move funds from one line item to another.
It should be noted that the convention is not required to impose this restriction on the commissioners. Indeed, prior Belknap County Conventions apparently chose not to exercise this power, thus allowing past commissions to move money freely from one line item to another. To the current commissioners, removal of that prerogative is so disppointing that they feel it must be illegal. Let us all hope that they do not compound the problem by spending taxpayer money in a fruitless quest for a legal opinion contrary to the clear language of the statute.
Hunter Taylor
Alton
The developing battle between the Belknap County Commissioners and the Belknap County Convention is quite interesting. It started at a joint meeting on Monday when the convention voted that the commissioners are not to move money from one appropriated item to another without obtaining the written approval of the executive committee of the convention.
The commissioners insist that this action is improper under New Hampshire statutory law and that it will unduly restrict the commissioners' ability to manage the affairs of the county.
Both sides seem to agree that the answer lies in the wording of New Hampshire Revised Statute 24:14 I. The commissioners have now announced that they are obtaining an expert's clarification of the statutory language, presumably in the hope or expectation of an opinion that the convention has exceeded its statutory authority.
My own response to this dispute was to examine the statutory language that has given rise to the heated debate. It reads: "The county convention may require that the county commissioners obtain written authority from the executive committee before transferring any appropriation or part thereof under RSA 24:15." Subsection III of the same statute delineates the right of the commissioners to move money from one line item to another as follows: "Unless otherwise ordered by the county convention, under RSA 24:14, whenever it appears that the amount appropriated for a specific purpose will not be used in whole or in part for such purpose, the county commissioners may use such sum to augment other appropriations, if necessary, provided the total payments for all purposes do not exceed the total sum of appropriations in any year made by the county convention." RSA 24:15 III.
It would appear from the quoted statutory language that the New Hampshire legislature has provided the answer to the dispute, not once but twice. First, the law allows the convention to require the commissioners to obtain written authority from the executive committee (of the convention) before transferring any appropriation. In other words, the commissioners may not transfer any appropriation without written authority from the convention, through its executive committee, if the convention is so inclined. Next, the law allows the commissioners to move funds from one line item to another "unless otherwise ordered by the county convention." The operative phrase here is "unless otherwise ordered". Put differently, if the county convention orders otherwise, the commissioners may not move money around. The power of the commissioners to move the money thus depends entirely on the consent of the convention.
Throughout my career I was taught and later taught others a basic rule of statutory interpretation: READ THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE. If the critical language of the statute does not suggest competing interpretations, then there is nothing to interpret. In other words, the statute speaks for itself.
In reviewing the statutory language involved in the dispute between the commissioners and the convention, I have looked, and looked again, for possible competing interpretations, and I have found none. Both of the quoted provisions indicate that the convention may require the commissioners to obtain consent from the convention (through executive committee approval) to move funds from one line item to another.
It should be noted that the convention is not required to impose this restriction on the commissioners. Indeed, prior Belknap County Conventions apparently chose not to exercise this power, thus allowing past commissions to move money freely from one line item to another. To the current commissioners, removal of that prerogative is so disppointing that they feel it must be illegal. Let us all hope that they do not compound the problem by spending taxpayer money in a fruitless quest for a legal opinion contrary to the clear language of the statute.
Hunter Taylor
Alton
Last Updated on Saturday, 26 January 2013 02:30
Hits: 178
Anni Forts 'UP' Fund board invites you to our monthly meetings
To the editor,
The Annie Forts "UP" Fund is thankful for the support received this past year through its annual appeal letter; to John Moulton for allowing our participation and fundraising efforts at the Moulton Farm Spring Opening Festival; and to Jim Nolan of RBC Wealth Management for donating his financial advice and guidance to the "UP" Fund for over 10 years, enabling safe investment growth.
The "UP" Fund was able to award nearly $13,000 in 2012. The awards went to Special Education Scholarships, for Community Wellness Center Fitness Program Memberships, for a family and child to participate in the Leadership Program at University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability, for a child's participation in the Therapeutic Riding Program, for summer camp for a young person with Down Syndrome, to the Lakes Region Community Services - Down Syndrome Team and to purchase an iPad for a student with Down Syndrome.
The "UP" Fund directors participated in the Altrusa Festival of Trees at Waukewan Golf Club, decorating and donating a tree for a needy family. The theme for the tree was "Starry, Starry Night".
Annie once said to her dad, "I would like to have as many friends as there are stars in the sky". New Board member Michael Lancor approached Vutek to make a banner with this saying for the event. The "UP" Fund thanks Altrusa and Vutek and welcomes Michael Lancor to the Board.
The Board welcomes whose who would like to join them at meetings held the third Thursday of the month at 8:00 A.M. at Preferred Vacation Rentals in Center Harbor. The "UP" Fund thanks Mark Borrin for providing the conference room for our "UP" Fund meetings.
Thank you all for supporting Annie and the "UP" Fund.
Robin Rist
Meredith
The Annie Forts "UP" Fund is thankful for the support received this past year through its annual appeal letter; to John Moulton for allowing our participation and fundraising efforts at the Moulton Farm Spring Opening Festival; and to Jim Nolan of RBC Wealth Management for donating his financial advice and guidance to the "UP" Fund for over 10 years, enabling safe investment growth.
The "UP" Fund was able to award nearly $13,000 in 2012. The awards went to Special Education Scholarships, for Community Wellness Center Fitness Program Memberships, for a family and child to participate in the Leadership Program at University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability, for a child's participation in the Therapeutic Riding Program, for summer camp for a young person with Down Syndrome, to the Lakes Region Community Services - Down Syndrome Team and to purchase an iPad for a student with Down Syndrome.
The "UP" Fund directors participated in the Altrusa Festival of Trees at Waukewan Golf Club, decorating and donating a tree for a needy family. The theme for the tree was "Starry, Starry Night".
Annie once said to her dad, "I would like to have as many friends as there are stars in the sky". New Board member Michael Lancor approached Vutek to make a banner with this saying for the event. The "UP" Fund thanks Altrusa and Vutek and welcomes Michael Lancor to the Board.
The Board welcomes whose who would like to join them at meetings held the third Thursday of the month at 8:00 A.M. at Preferred Vacation Rentals in Center Harbor. The "UP" Fund thanks Mark Borrin for providing the conference room for our "UP" Fund meetings.
Thank you all for supporting Annie and the "UP" Fund.
Robin Rist
Meredith
Last Updated on Friday, 25 January 2013 01:06
Hits: 73
More Articles...
