|
|
|
Opinions March 6, 2008 |
|
Editorials
Microstamping Bill — One Step Closer To Gun ControlThe microstamping of firearms may seem like an innocuous bill that is geared toward helping solve crimes or even discouraging crimes from happening, but it could also be the catalyst that paves the way for future legislative gun control.
Legislative proponents of gun control know they have little chance of passing a gun bill that would blatantly violate our Second Amendment rights, but here’s a bill that could get the gun control ball rolling.
It’s already happening in California. The state passed a similar bill last fall that would require microstamping on all semiautomatic pistols manufactured after 2010. One might reason that handguns have to be registered anyway, so what’s the big deal? Just add a few characters to the tip of the firing pin and the breech face, which proponents of the bill say adds about $8 to the cost of each firearm, and in return get a sure fire method of identifying which cartridges came out of which gun.
Eight bucks seems a small price to pay for the ability to track down guns used by criminals to break the law, however, gun manufacturers would also have to endure the cost of expensive computerized laser-etching equipment to add the microstamping. One gun manufacturer, STI International in Texas, has protested California’s microstamping bill by refusing to sell firearms to anyone residing in the state due to the increased costs to manufacture guns with the microstamping and because they say they are fierce supporters of the Second Amendment.
I can’t fault STI for taking this stand, but they are unwittingly playing directly into the hands of California’s legislative gun control activists. If other gun manufacturers follow suit to protest this bill, California will have no need to implement gun control because residents won’t be able to purchase them anyway. Gun control supporters score one, Second Amendment — zero.
Of course California residents could go out of state to purchase a handgun, but I’m guessing California will make getting unstamped semiautomatic pistols into the state about as difficult as smuggling in a trunk load of meth. Therefore, criminals really will be the only ones who have guns.
Even though the microstamping bill may not specifically mandate gun control, through a round about process it happens anyway.
The proposed bill has this amendment to Federal Law attached: “A person licensed under this chapter (Federal Firearms Licensee) shall not manufacture, import, or transfer a semiautomatic pistol... that is not capable of microstamping ammunition.” This basically means a Federal Firearms Licensee will not be able to trade or sell a used semiautomatic pistol manufactured before 2010. With no legal way to sell or trade them, what will this do to the monetary value of the 250 million guns already in existence?
Microstamping will not affect criminals other than encouraging them to steal weapons as they do for the most part anyway, and perhaps a file or two to grind off the microstamping. But it will affect those who legally purchase guns through higher costs and restricted sales from companies like STI.
Since figures show that 3/4 of violent crimes are committed without guns, why are some legislative individuals and groups concentrating so hard on ways to purge our nation of guns? Why not instead focus on ways to arm and prepare law-abiding citizens on how to protect themselves and their properties from the criminal element?
It’s true; we do need, and for the most part have, laws in place to prevent dangerous people from legally purchasing guns. Now if we could just find some way to keep them from getting their hands on rocks, hammers, knives, glass bottles, crow bars and big sticks, we’ll have it made… (DS)How About a Favorable Interpretation Of The 4th Amendment
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” — 4th Amendment
Hey all you supporters of the 2nd Amendment out there. I question some of ‘you alls’ motivation when it comes to standing for the 2nd Amendment. Some of you voice your support with a hearty, “They can have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead hands.”
I think some people support the 2nd Amendment only for their love of guns and not for the love and respect for the 2nd Amendment. I say this after witnessing over the past 25 years, the erosion of rights established under the 4th Amendment. And, I’ve watched some of the strongest supporters of the 2nd Amendment lead the erosion of the 4th Amendment.
During halftime of the girls’ final of the 7-1A Dist. Boys and Girls Basketball tournament held in Baker City, with a gym full of visitors from Joseph and Imbler, the Baker City Police Canine Drug Enforcement Unit patrolled the Baker High School gymnasium. It looked like just a nice random stroll, and fishing expedition, oh, and a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Remember how briefly the 2nd Amendment has been written; a mere 27 words establishes our rights as citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in those 27 words does it say, Thou Shalt Not Microstamp Firing Pins for Identification, or Thou Shalt Not Establish a National Data Base. But, most Americans see these types of actions as exertions of control and a threat and violation to 2nd Amendment rights.
My question is; Where’s all the support and favorable interpretation for the 4th Amendment? If microstamping firing pins threatens the 2nd Amendment (and in my opinion it certainly does), then isn’t a random search by a canine unit during a public event a violation of the 4th Amendment? To me it most certainly is a violation of the rights established under the 4th Amendment.
The thing that makes the point of my argument such a pernicious and insidious comparison is that some of the most adamant supporters of the 2nd Amendment are people who work in the police and law enforcement communities. This group of 2nd Amendment supporters is the group which also disregards such legal scrutiny and favorable interpretation when it comes to the 4th Amendment. The erosion of the 4th Amendment only weakens the 2nd Amendment, and the Constitution of the United States, and it weakens arguments protecting our rights.
A quick study of world and US history will help people learn about the use of dogs against citizens. I won’t name any names, not going to go there, but the last century witnessed a national government and police force that ended up getting quite a bit of mileage out of their canine units. My fear is that we will be able to gain some sense of this history simply by watching what happens next here in our own country. (BA)
Letters
Congrats BHS Jazz BandTo The Record-Courier:Congratulations to Mr. Jeff Sizer and the Baker High School Jazz Band for winning first place at the Lionel Hampton Jazz Festival at the University of Idaho.
The patrons of School District 5J should be very proud of their music department. Various choral groups under the direction of Tom Isaacson have also won many awards.Frances BurgessBaker City Police Building Purchase Needs Public InputTo The Record-Courier:Open Letter to Councilors Bryan, Schumacher and Bass, City Manager Brocato, and Police Chief Lohner:
I just finished watching the Library's tape of Tuesday's Council Meeting, and the Council's consideration of the new Police department building purchase.
Despite Mr. Schumacher's statements about public participation on the issue, I must tell you that the show (there is an aptly phrased name for it) put on for an audience packed with public safety personnel, as well prepared as it was, makes it appear that you are contemptuous of a fair and democratic public process, if not the public themselves.
The Council's vote effectively ended potential public input before they could give the issue adequate thought and respond appropriately.
As Ms. Valenzuela pointed out, the public has not had an adequate time to think about the issue, and it does not constitute the kind of emergency that would warrant cutting short the public's participation.
As Mr. Rienks pointed out, we are not a wealthy community, and we need to keep our expenditures for public employees and services in line with that reality. The fact that Thursday's The Record-Courier article, with Chief Lohner making a case for the purchase, comes after the Council vote on Tuesday, is ample evidence that the City did not give adequate information to the public in a timely fashion.
As was mentioned, the presentation was compelling, but most one-sided presentations are, especially when there is little in the way of informed and organized public input, which there couldn't be, because your process didn't allow for it. I believe that is exactly how you wanted it to be, as the model is well-known among elitist governments who serve special interests, not the least of whom are their own favored, ever-expanding government bureaucracies.
Chief Lohner and Chief Price were given unlimited time to present their case and to rebut some statements that have been made by those opposed. There has been no other time or forum afforded those who have questions, except for the three minutes the Council allowed those who felt confident enough to show up and speak against the wishes of those in the fire and police departments, and except for the few hundred words citizens are not too frequently allotted by the local papers.
We can't expect to scrutinize every expenditure, or government would grind to a halt, but as others have also tried to explain, a non-emergency expenditure of this size warrants adequate public involvement.
Despite the City managers apparent feeling that actual democracy would compromise his ability to negotiate on price, the Council's obvious eagerness to purchase the building, in the face of serious public opposition, sends a clear message to the owners of the building to stick firm. In any event, no one has ever claimed that democracy is necessarily cheap or always efficient. It is supposed to be about the people's wishes and self-government, messy as that may be.
You may well be right in asserting that the purchase of the building is both necessary and affordable, but you should be ashamed of yourselves for not allowing the public to become fully informed about the need, about the ability of the community to pay when all currently prioritized needs and economic conditions are fully considered, and whether there are still other options to be looked at, such as remodeling existing space for additional privacy, etc., or consolidating law enforcement in Baker County. You simply steamrolled the public on this issue.
Unfortunately, it is not clear whether the purchase will cause more burning homes to be saved, whether fewer cars and buildings will be broken into, or whether the speed trap on north 17th Street will be given up for speed enforcement where it is really needed in the neighborhoods.Christopher ChristieBaker City Celebrate-Remember-Fight BackTo The Record-Courier:Fifty years ago, at the age of 8, my oldest brother was diagnosed with leukemia and within a matter of weeks he was gone. There was no hope, there was no treatment, there was no cure. Today, after years of research, there is hope, and while the treatment is grueling and sometimes agonizing, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Now, more times than not, a child diagnosed with leukemia survives, thanks to the work of dedicated researchers funded in large measure by the American Cancer Society.
American Cancer Society’s premier fund raiser, RELAY FOR LIFE, is underway in Baker City! Fifteen new teams were formed at Kick-Off last Tuesday evening. We look forward to a successful event, which is set for Aug. 1 and 2 at the Baker High School Track.
It’s about being a community that takes up the fight! I would like to thank Community Connections for offering the use of their facility for our Kick-Off and team captain meetings (team captain meetings begin in April). Tom Fisk at Baker City and Rod Rogers at OTEC for their help with hanging the banner on Main Street, Dave Davis at Davis Computers for his technical expertise, and the people and merchants at Baker City for their generous support. Let’s work hard to raise some money for the work done by the American Cancer Society to brighten that light at the end of the tunnel, giving us all HOPE and, sooner rather than later, FINDING A CURE.
For more information about joining an existing team or forming a new team call Jerri Wickert at 523-3447 or Jodi Tool at 523-2713. For more information about corporate sponsorship call Ronaele Mello at 523-4509 or Deb Bainter at 523-5855.
For more information about RELAY FOR LIFE, visit www.relayforlife.org, click on Find Relay Events and type in Baker City; or call Gloria Schott at 523-7125, Kelly Hardy at 523-2484 or June Bennett at 523-6119. Join us at Relay to CELEBRATE, REMEMBER and FIGHT BACK!Kelly HardyBaker CityHow About Sharing Information?To The Record-Courier:Information sharing regarding community facilities, major expenditures, and pressing needs should be part of the job the City Manager and senior management would be expected to perform.
The recent unwillingness to share information and the rapid decision made at the last City Council meeting to purchase a permanent home for the Police leaves much to be desired. The poor decision-making process that ended with the fire and police sharing a building seems to perpetuate itself - only in modified form. The dire circumstances that exist for police, victims, and security of evidence has existed for three years, yet it just appeared on the public radar screen.
I support the need for adequate Police and Fire facilities. The building chosen may be the best choice. We don’t know, because no one has given a concise list of needs (allocation needed for secure evidence storage, records, offices, etc.)
Chief Lohner gave a fine presentation to the Council and the need for adequate space seems compelling. However, it was done at the Council minutes before the decision to purchase a specific building was voted on. This is inadequate and not appropriate. What are the needs, priority, how does it fit into Capital Improvements Plan?
It is very nice that the City Manager had presented info to HBC, City Councilors, Budget Committee and press were given tours. The public was never given the chance to participate, although I was later told I could have gone along, if I had asked. I don’t know how to ask for a tour I never knew existed until it was over.
Were there others in the community who would have taken a tour if the opportunity had been offered? How else could information be shared without public tours in overcrowded offices and disruption to fire and police personnel?
Can we afford the building? The City Manager says yes, and the money is available. He recommends financing the building, but isn’t sure of costs. The asking price plus remodel costs were the only costs given. Some of the information is available from Chief Lohner directly. I asked the City Manager and he suggested that I fill out a Freedom of Information Act request or look at the Council packet available on the Internet. So if you are willing to dig to get the information you can obtain some from various sources.
Friday, I went to pick up the staff report I had requested. Apparently the Council packet acts as the staff report. It appears that no one should ask questions or express concerns about the process that leads to important decisions in our community. Baker City is not a private business, it is government business — the difference is public dollars.
Give the public a chance for discussion and input. Make a decision after public has a chance to comment and respond to the complete proposal.Vickie ValenzuelaBaker City |
|
|
