Politics-My response to an article in the Atlanta paper.

[Tycer]

The article:

By Shirley Franklin
For the Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/23/08
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule on whether Washington, D.C.'s decades-old handgun ban is constitutional.

It's been nearly 70 years since the high court has heard a firearms case that tests the scope of the Second Amendment. The outcome of this one, D.C. v. Heller, will have extraordinary implications —- not just for the District, but for the ability of cities to respond effectively to gun violence.

If more evidence is needed that the stakes could not be higher, a steady drumbeat of headlines is supplying it. In the first few days of March alone, just before the justices heard oral argument in the case, three kids were killed and five more wounded in Chicago. And in West Palm Beach, Fla., a gunman killed an off-duty firefighter and wounded five others before turning his gun on himself.

Elected officials and law enforcement in those areas have a lot riding on the court's decision. The case stems from a lower-court ruling that D.C.'s ban violated the Constitution. Breaking with decades of Supreme Court precedent and hundreds of lower-court decisions, a federal appeals court held for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms not related to service in a "well-regulated militia."

If the justices agree with the lower court's ruling, cities and states throughout the country may face challenge after challenge to the constitutionality of firearm regulations enacted to protect the public and prosecute criminals. And city attorneys may find themselves spending as much time fighting lawsuits as they do fighting crime.

Those resource-draining challenges would come at an inconvenient time. Gun violence is a national crisis, but one that disproportionately affects those of us who live in urban areas. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, more than 340,000 homicides were committed in large American cities between 1976 and 2005. About 64 percent of those homicides involved firearms.

Very often, it's our first responders who pay the harshest price. In the decades between 1976 and 2006, more than 2,251 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty —- more them 90 percent of them by firearms.

The problems are obvious —- and they do have solutions, some of which are already being implemented around the nation. A decision from on high that limited our authority to craft local solutions would be yet another tragedy. Different gun laws make sense in different areas. Community leaders are plainly in the best position to determine the policies needed to curb the crime, fear and disorder that gun violence creates in each city —- not a special interest lobby and gun industry more concerned about dollars than lives.

It's the nation's mayors who get the call from police when a shooting occurs. It's the local leaders who comfort the families of gunshot victims, who walk with police and residents on the neighborhood beat, who meet with block watch groups and who grapple with the demanding budget ramifications of violent crime. For those very reasons, policies affecting guns and community safety historically have been —- and should be —- made at the local level.

And when communities have the authority to enact regulations that respond to local needs, they're often aggressive and successful. New York City has experienced a dramatic decline in crimes involving firearms after tailoring creative local regulation to curb gun violence. The city of Oakland, Calif., prohibits firearms dealers from selling ultra-compact (and easily concealable) handguns. Washington, D.C.'s handgun restrictions have led to one of the lowest suicide rates in the nation. And Chicago, like the District, bans the possession of handguns.

For the sake and the safety of all Americans, let's hope the Supreme Court will allow local leaders and law enforcement the tools they need to do their jobs.

> Shirley Franklin is mayor of Atlanta. Contributing to this column were: Tom Barrett, mayor of Milwaukee; Manuel A. Diaz, mayor of Miami; Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco; Greg Nickels, mayor of Seattle; and Douglas H. Palmer, mayor of Trenton, N.J.

My response:

To whom it may concern.

Regarding Mayor Shirley Franklin's opinion in the AJC 06/23/08

I wish to ask Mayor Franklin how a rational person could come to the conclusions she has stated in her opinion.

How is it rational to conclude that the District of Columbia's government could respond less effectively to criminals' gun violence by simply restoring the right of the law-abiding populace to defend themselves? It is not rational.

An effectively complete ban on firearms has been in effect in D.C. for over 30 years. They have a rate of violent crime unsurpassed by any city, several times higher than the rest of the United States of America.

How is it rational to conclude that rights of our "militia" are different than the rights of the individuals comprising said militia? It is not rational.

The "militia" of our Constitution is provided for in Section 10 of the United States Code (often abbreviated USC). The Code is the list of all the laws that are written by the federal government. Section 10 USC 311 reads: "All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration to become a citizen of the United States." Additionally, another provision allows for a "reserve militia" (as opposed to the "ready militia" described above), that includes women, children and the elderly.

How is it rational to conclude that laws made to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals will be challenged when the Supreme Court rules that law-abiding citizens may continue to have the right to own guns? It is not rational.

If according to the Department of Justice' sponsored 1994 survey titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, guns are used defensively by law-abiding citizens 1.5 million times a year, how is it rational to conclude that limiting the right of those good citizens to defend themselves is somehow going to reduce big-city crime? It is not rational.

That DOJ number of 1.5 million equals roughly 1500 defensive uses of firearms for every homicide by a criminal using a gun.

How is it rational to conclude that the Supreme Court reaffirming the right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun will in any way or manner prevent local leaders or law enforcement from having or using the tools necessary to prevent crime. It is not rational.

With only these few points of your opinion noted above, I must therefore conclude Mayor Franklin, that your argument to remove a right of the citizens of The United States of America, a right written by the founding fathers in the Bill of Rights, is not rational, and therefore not valid to rational people.

[Tycer]

I need to rinse my mouth with peroxide to remove the blood from biting my tongue. Grrrrrr.

[Mich Hunter]

An effectively complete ban on firearms has been in effect in D.C. for over 30 years. They have a rate of violent crime unsurpassed by any city, several times higher than the rest of the United States of America.

That pretty much somes things up.

[jdad]

That was a very well thought out response. Did the paper actually print your letter?

[rjohns94]

well done,. We all must continually check ignorance and manipulation of truth at every encounter.

[Old Ironsights]

If more evidence is needed that the stakes could not be higher, a steady drumbeat of headlines is supplying it. In the first few days of March alone, just before the justices heard oral argument in the case, three kids were killed and five more wounded in Chicago.

This statement alone utterly defeats her premise.

Chicago has a gun ban in place and has had it for the past 20 years. Obviously having it has done no good.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Sort of like voting RINO...

[AmBraCol]

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Sort of like voting RINO...

Chuckle, giggle, snort, gasp, choke!!!


But we're being told "It's the only hope for our nation!" The only reason a third party has no chance in our nation is that too many folks refuse to GIVE them a chance. If all the folks who say that McCain is NOT the man for the job would band behind someone with traditional conservative values - well, they'd whip Mr. Congressman from Illinois SOLIDLY. But as long as folks say "Our only hope is a lesser evil." - it's no surprise we keep getting evil as a result...

[Hagler]

But we're being told "It's the only hope for our nation!" The only reason a third party has no chance in our nation is that too many folks refuse to GIVE them a chance. If all the folks who say that McCain is NOT the man for the job would band behind someone with traditional conservative values - well, they'd whip Mr. Congressman from Illinois SOLIDLY.

NONE of the current presidential candidates (McCain, O'Sammammamajamma) are trustworthy. It is a sad, sorry, spineless mentality that our Nation has accepted. I would like to elect someone that would probably never be elected, but I cannot cast a protest, or write-in, vote in Louisiana.

But as long as folks say "Our only hope is a lesser evil." - it's no surprise we keep getting evil as a result...

Bingo!

I have talked to too many people that follow that idiom. I cannot get them to change their ways, even though they appear to understand why they should not vote for evil. To quote BoB Enyart: "Do right, and risk the consequences!".

*****************

Tycer,

Are you alright?

Shawn

[RKrodle]

Good job Tycer!!

[Tycer]

*****************

Tycer,

Are you alright?

Shawn

I think so. Is there something in my post to lead you to think otherwise?

[Old Ironsights]

*****************

Tycer,

Are you alright?

Shawn

I think so. Is there something in my post to lead you to think otherwise?

Some guys have bled out from biting their tongue...

Me, I'll never have that problem.

People can read my posts and take them as they will. My only goal is to get my point across/stimulate discussion, not protect the sensibilities of those who aren't participating in the discussion.

[Hagler]

Tycer,

"I need to rinse my mouth with peroxide to remove the blood from biting my tongue. Grrrrrr."

That sure makes you sound a bit stressed. That is why I asked.

Shawn

[C. Cash]

Good job Tycer! You did good. After talking ad nauseum with many from "that peculiar political party" from which the Mayor draws strength, I have to say that any rational notions have done left the building a long time ago with these folks. They are staunchly committed to seeing their ends, no matter what the means. But, for those few who still question the reality handed to them by public education and media, your letter will have a positive impact. That is where we have to hit em!

[Tycer]

Tycer,

"I need to rinse my mouth with peroxide to remove the blood from biting my tongue. Grrrrrr."

That sure makes you sound a bit stressed. That is why I asked.

Shawn

You are correct sir. Blather like that irks me no end, and it's like biting my tongue to write a subdued letter like that. Bah! Ptouie!

I'm fine. I just have a standing google search in News for "Heller", and "gun+control" and others, and it's been pretty busy of late with the Heller case and the national park thingy causing a bunch of nincompoops to spew feces into print.

"NO SHRUG POLICY"
"A LIE LEFT UNCHALLENGED BECOMES THE TRUTH"

I GOTTA WRITE THEM LETTERS MAN. WRITE THEM LETTERS AND START THE DIALOG WHEREVER NINCOMPOOPS SPEW FECES. GONNA PINCH MY NOSE AND WADE IN.

[piller]

Tycer:

People like the Mayor who wrote the letter are afraid of facts, but you may help someone who reads your letter who still has the ability to reason and think critically. Keep writing this type of letter. It makes your point look good, and we need all of the good publicity we can get. I am sure that we all support you totally, and if you need help there are some really eloquent writers around this forum you might ask. Whatever you do, just keep up the good work.

[Jaguarundi]

Kudos Tycer !

[gamekeeper]

Very good reply Tycer. Keep at 'em!

[Ysabel Kid]

Tycer -

Excellent letter. Unfortunately, Mayor Franklin, like her ilk, is a historical-illiterate. She lets emotions rule her decisions. Citing two cities already possessing draconian gun-bans as the reason the rest of the country needs to be allowed to go down the same foolish and ineffective sewer pipe is ludicris. One wonders how such morons ever get elected...