Don't be fooled by the title of this blog. I don't discuss herbs very much here. This blog is general-purpose, although I do like ranting about politics and religion.

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

Our Anti-Gun Governor

A number of weeks ago, our dear Governor, Gary Locke, put out a Press Release whining about how the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban had expired and what a bad thing that was. I wrote him a letter (even though he's a lame duck governor) answering his piece. Just for grins I am reproducing it here. He hasn't responded to my letter, by the way. If he does, I will post it here.


Governor Locke,

I read you message concerning the expiration of the so-called Assault Weapons ban and felt I must let you know how misled you are about it.

You wrote:
"Assault weapons serve no legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and have no place in our communities."
First of all, the term "assault weapon" is a serious misnomer when applied to the firearms which the so-called ban covered. A true "assault weapon" is fully automatic, and the only firearms actually banned from importation and manufacture were all semi-automatic and functionally identical to numerous other firearms which were not banned. Further, merely by removing certain non-functional cosmetic features, such as flash hiders and pistol grips, manufacture and importation of was perfectly legal!

Secondly, the phrase "legitimate sporting or hunting purpose" is itself a demonstration of the lack of understanding of the role of firearms in the community. Neither the Second Amendment to the federal constitution, nor Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution deals with sport or hunting, but the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of self or the state:

"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."
For the purposes of this right, as enumerated in the state constitution, so-called "assault weapons" are exactly the kind of firearm necessary to help defend the state! By banning so-called "assault weapons" the federal government took the first steps towards disabling the citizens of the state in their role as the Unorganized Militia of the state (state constitution Article X Section 1 and RCW 38.04.040):

"SECTION 1 WHO LIABLE TO MILITARY DUTY. All able-bodied male citizens of this state between the ages of eighteen (18) and forty-five (45) years except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or by the laws of this state, shall be liable to military duty."
You, as Governor, have the authority to call out the Unorganized Militia, as described in RCW 38.08.050:

"In event of, or imminent danger of, war, insurrection, rebellion, invasion, tumult, riot, resistance to law or process or breach of the peace, if the governor shall have ordered into active service all of the available forces of the organized militia of Washington and shall consider them insufficient in number to properly accomplish the purpose, he or she may then in addition order out the unorganized militia or such portion thereof as he may deem necessary, and cause them to perform such military duty as the circumstances may require."
Now, what happens when the Unorganized Militia comes to report for duty, how shall they be armed except with so-called "assault weapons"? You expect them to defend the state with muzzle-loaders, or single-shot rifles, or perhaps with swords?

The rest of your message was full of distortions of both fact and language, and I doubt you will even read this far, so I won't go further --- I truly believe I am wasting my time --- but I would love to have the chance to sit down and discuss the matter with you. I would be surprised if you could find the time to talk with me about it, so I won't make a big deal about it, but the offer's open.

In the end, since the end of your final term is approaching, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your service to this state as Governor. Although I disagreed with you on many issues, I nevertheless feel you did as well as I could expect as a Democrat. I think you saved the state from a serious lot of trouble after the dot-com boom went bust. I wish you well in your future endeavors!

Mike Clark


Post a Comment

<< Home