We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and
active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken
an oath to “...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against
all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single
greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental
principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted
through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of
governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights
and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of
the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the
insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over
the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our
organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than
a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom
for the oppressed.
Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and
grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the
tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and
like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes
in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a
special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of
the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different
perspective.
First, we need to set the record straight on a few things.
The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity
magazines. The terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle"
are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson,
writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term
‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political
term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand
the category of assault rifles.”
The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle - it is an
assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not
stand for “Assault Rifle” - it is the designation from the first two letters of
the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that
it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible
to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single
shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute
depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per
minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new
fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault
rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!
The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity
magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts
in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing
magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6
-8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an
increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass
shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity
magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”.
As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S.
Supreme Court recent decisions.
Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in
1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were
compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was
sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault
Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the
perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the
ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them:
thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre's aftermath. Harris fired 96
rounds before killing himself.
Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is
too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the
problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is
politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and
then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest
of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to
find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun
regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?
What can we learn from experiences with this issue
elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a
“gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has
experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced
in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What
followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning
semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13,
1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16
school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in
Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to
ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty
periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition.
Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes
increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974
recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32%
over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the
Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the
developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault
Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9%
from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table
310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death:
2000-2009”).
Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control
laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?
In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle,
Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the
average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine
other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson
(National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is
that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that
excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely
what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”
“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our
ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder
and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The
importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have
duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free
country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic
usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to
keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace,
both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile
means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the
government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens
to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the
liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the
usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are
successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over
them.’
The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend
to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in
U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller
we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to
possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be
“ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common
defense”.
A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense
unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme
Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice
Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an
individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,
and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense
within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised
all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”
“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government
would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a
politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny
Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he
explained.
On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went
into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid
about the ban's real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was
accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small
percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it
turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to
require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United
States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority
opinion Justice Scalia wrote: "…. this Court never has sanctioned
explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and
regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute
that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal
regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an
essential attribute of the States' retained sovereignty that they remain
independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”
So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care
about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any
kind?
The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell
family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee
since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was
elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently
elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a
popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies”
stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes
wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military
style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the
ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law.
After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans
secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And
this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of
our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!
Throughout history, disarming the populace has always
preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed
their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of
our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British
government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers
ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were
not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never
forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.
If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd
Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not
likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than
making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we
are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect
and will only provide us with a false sense of security.
So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is
important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a
complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the
problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be
undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to
realize an effect. These are as follows:
1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right
in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts
to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem
necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that
State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that
work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is
no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the
input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne
Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to
consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to
the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make
this decision for themselves.
3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT)
laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient
Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental
disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of
the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also
believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be
simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right
to retain/purchase firearms.
4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to
schools along the lines of the successful "Eddie the Eagle" program,
which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained
professionals.
5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that
there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games
and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior
particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al.
2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to
real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous
violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should
not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something
they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war
to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be "sold" as
entertainment to our children.
6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of
1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is
our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment
for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with
little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental
organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a
Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for
that decision.
7. We believe that border states should take responsibility
for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of
firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long
time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this
contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is
misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be
far more competent at this mission.
8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe
that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and
actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the
illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a
responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our
children are watching and they will follow the example we set.
The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever
present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.
1100 Green Berets Signed this LetterWe have a list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets we can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking "Green Beret".
The letter stands for itself.
Read it and send it everywhere.
