The CA Lies About Guns (Again)
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:16 pmThe CA called today, 9-24, to verify I wrote this:
September 23, 2004
Dear Editor:
Your September 22nd editorial “Keeping D.C. safe for guns†not only has a confusing title, it contains inaccuracies and it failed to mention that D.C. law prohibits residents of our nation’s capital from having ANY operable firearm. You state that Washington D.C. has a law; “restricting firearms to the owner’s home or businessâ€. D.C. law states that no handgun can be registered in the District. Even handguns registered prior to D.C.'s 1976 ban cannot be carried from room to room in the home without a license. Moreover; ALL FIREARMS in the home must be unloaded and either disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock. In effect, no one in D.C. can possess a functional firearm in his or her own residence. Yet, Washington, D.C. is, and has been, one of the most violent cities in America for years. This is because the ban only enables criminal predators, while punishing the lawful. Your article also blames the attempt to restore D.C. resident’s civil rights on some Republican conspiracy, but in fact, the catalyst for the repeal was from residents of the District. Plaintiffs have filed a civil lawsuit in federal court (Parker v. District of Columbia) to vindicate the right of D.C. residents to defend themselves in their own homes.
Your editorial also states the sunset of the so called “assault weapons banâ€, which restricted cosmetic features of common, semi-automatic firearms, “will have real consequencesâ€. However, an independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) states; "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violenceâ€. This was published by NIJ and written by Christopher Koper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
Indeed, your editorial specifically said that the “Street Sweeper†shot gun was one of the weapons that can now be purchased, but the BATF website (http://www.atf.gov/) says that’s not true:
“USAS-12 and Striker12/Streetsweeper shotguns are still classified as destructive devices under ATF Rulings 94-1 and 94-2 and must be possessed and transferred in accordance with the NFA.â€
I could go on giving you facts, such as the 69% increase in violent crime in the island nation of England after they outlawed guns, which created a thriving black market in them, but I’ll close with a question. While it’s true that your inaccuracies were in an opinion piece; don’t you believe that as the main publication of the Mid-South, that the CA has an obligation to back up your opinion with some accurate facts? Especially in the current climate, where the main stream media’s credibility is being questioned. I challenge you to print my letter to set the record straight regarding your article.
Thank you,
Patrick McGarrity, Jr.
Bartlett, TN
September 23, 2004
Dear Editor:
Your September 22nd editorial “Keeping D.C. safe for guns†not only has a confusing title, it contains inaccuracies and it failed to mention that D.C. law prohibits residents of our nation’s capital from having ANY operable firearm. You state that Washington D.C. has a law; “restricting firearms to the owner’s home or businessâ€. D.C. law states that no handgun can be registered in the District. Even handguns registered prior to D.C.'s 1976 ban cannot be carried from room to room in the home without a license. Moreover; ALL FIREARMS in the home must be unloaded and either disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock. In effect, no one in D.C. can possess a functional firearm in his or her own residence. Yet, Washington, D.C. is, and has been, one of the most violent cities in America for years. This is because the ban only enables criminal predators, while punishing the lawful. Your article also blames the attempt to restore D.C. resident’s civil rights on some Republican conspiracy, but in fact, the catalyst for the repeal was from residents of the District. Plaintiffs have filed a civil lawsuit in federal court (Parker v. District of Columbia) to vindicate the right of D.C. residents to defend themselves in their own homes.
Your editorial also states the sunset of the so called “assault weapons banâ€, which restricted cosmetic features of common, semi-automatic firearms, “will have real consequencesâ€. However, an independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) states; "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violenceâ€. This was published by NIJ and written by Christopher Koper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
Indeed, your editorial specifically said that the “Street Sweeper†shot gun was one of the weapons that can now be purchased, but the BATF website (http://www.atf.gov/) says that’s not true:
“USAS-12 and Striker12/Streetsweeper shotguns are still classified as destructive devices under ATF Rulings 94-1 and 94-2 and must be possessed and transferred in accordance with the NFA.â€
I could go on giving you facts, such as the 69% increase in violent crime in the island nation of England after they outlawed guns, which created a thriving black market in them, but I’ll close with a question. While it’s true that your inaccuracies were in an opinion piece; don’t you believe that as the main publication of the Mid-South, that the CA has an obligation to back up your opinion with some accurate facts? Especially in the current climate, where the main stream media’s credibility is being questioned. I challenge you to print my letter to set the record straight regarding your article.
Thank you,
Patrick McGarrity, Jr.
Bartlett, TN