By Donald H. Smith, At Large Director

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting; it's about tyranny. Our Founding Fathers weren't worried about our being able to bag a duck or a deer; they were worried about us being able to keep our fundamental freedoms. Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not to states or cities. Many of our forefathers died for this right.

Gun bans do not limit access to firearms by the bad guys. However, the bans do limit my Constitutional rights. It is not the responsibility of elected officials to legislate my ownership of firearms or firearm magazines. They are my personal property and protected by the Second Amendment.

California first introduced a so-called “assault weapons” ban in 1989 followed by Connecticut in 1993. David Kopel is research director of the Independence Institute and co-author of the law school textbook, “Firearms Law and the Second Amendment” [Aspen, 2012]. His article in the Wall Street Journal dated Dec.17, 2012 is entitled “Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown”. It states: “None of the guns that the Newtown murderer used was on the ban list since those bans concentrate on guns’ cosmetics, such as whether the gun has a bayonet lug, rather than their function”.

The Newtown, CT crime occurred in a “gun free zone”. Kopel continues: “Real gun-free zones are a wonderful idea, but they are only real if they are created by metal detectors backed up by armed guards. Pretend gun-free zones such as schools, movie theaters, shopping malls, etc, where law-abiding adults [who pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety training class] are still disarmed. These pretend gun- free zones are magnets for evildoers who know they will be able to murder at will with little threat of being fired upon”.

Safety cannot be legislated with so-called “feel good” gun bills. “People who are serious about preventing the next Newtown should embrace much greater funding for mental health, strong laws for civil commitment of the violently mentally ill and stop kidding themselves that pretend gun-free zones will stop killers.”

Furthermore, Kopel explains: “Since gun controls today are far stricter than at the time when ‘active shooters’ were rare, what can account for the increase in these shootings? One plausible answer is the media. Cable TV in the 1990’s, and the Internet today, greatly magnify the instant celebrity that a mass killer can achieve. We know that many would-be killers obsessively study their predecessors.”

Consider that automobiles are more lethal than guns. We have laws for our highways but cannot guarantee everyone will obey them. Certainly regulations and personal responsibility go hand-in-hand. Perhaps we should replace large engines with small ones? But no, this might be construed as a violation of our civil rights.

The same can be said for alcohol. We know its use can result in crime and death, particularly when used in conjunction with drugs. My brother was innocently struck and nearly killed by a driver who had consumed a large quantity of alcohol. The driver died in the accident much like shooters have killed themselves after they have killed or maimed innocent bystanders. My brother never fully recovered. Some believe in restricting the size of gun magazines in an erroneous assumption that it saves lives. This suggests that we likewise reduce the size of alcohol containers. A parallel “reasonable, balanced and measured” alcohol policy might be as follows:

• Alcohol shall be served in half-pint containers only.

• Consumers must be registered in a national database.

• Purchasers must pass a fingerprint based background check.

• Immediate failure of background check upon evidence of DWI convictions.

• Number of purchases per customer shall be limited to one half-pint per week.

Thus we can end “the risk of unnecessary, high-capacity” alcohol containers. We might even consider enhanced penalties for possession of illegal amounts of alcohol.

I am sure these proposals would be considered fair and would not offend law-abiding alcohol consumers. “We can’t just stand back, the way things are, you have to do something to make a difference.” This sounds very much like recent quotes regarding proposed gun regulations. Do we honestly consider cars, containers and guns to be the real culprits? Common sense and sound judgment should convince us otherwise.

James Madison once said something to the effect that limited government , without self - government, is worse than tyranny. Those of us who are capable of governing ourselves, and obeying the law, as per Madison, should not expect to endure infringements upon our fundamental freedoms, not the least of which is our Second Amendment. Tragic events such as Tucson and Newtown should not provide the impetus for passage of legislation restricting such rights.

I end with a perspective on the Second Amendment which is quite appropriate: “No other property or objects are guaranteed to We the People, under the Constitution, as directly as “arms’ in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is an explicit recognition of legal property ownership.”