The Supreme Court's Case: District of Columbia vs. Heller. Why Gun Control Is Anti-American and a Law Enforcement Disaster by Andrew Molchan (This article first ran in the February 2008 issue of American Firearms Industry Magazine.)

(January 24, 2008) Despite the many dumb decisions made by President Bush over the years, at least we firearms people could say, "He's not actively anti-firearms, and he did help pass the firearms litigation protection Bill, and for that we are grateful."

Now, we have the big one, the Heller case that is currently before the Supreme Court. Plaintiff Dick Heller challenged the Washington D.C. ban on nongovernment persons having firearms within the city. The D.C. Circuit Court headed by Judge Laurence Silberman said that, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and is not limited to people serving in a modern militia." The City of Washington D.C. is challenging that decision.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, from President Bush's Justice Department, has filed an amices brief, that in essence, invites the Supreme Court to uphold Judge Silberman's decision, BUT, in a way that opens the door for lawyers, and left wing politicians and judges, to in the future piecemeal to death a favorable decision.

I thought, all of President Bush's hot air ravings about Democracy and he ends up helping to subvert the Bill of Rights! Supposedly, Solicitor General Clement is worried about felons getting machine guns, tanks, and so forth under a ruling that clearly states the Second Amendment says what it says.

This is a Red Herring. I've been fighting for gun rights for over 40 years, and our firearms industry has NEVER said that "everyone" should be able to have a firearm. Our industry has ALWAYS said there are individuals who are untrustworthy. Felons and mentally disturbed people should NOT have firearms. I believe all non-citizens should not have firearms. For years, our Association has said that anyone walking into a bank or 7-11 with a gun to rob it should get 20 years in jail without parole. In 40 years in the firearms industry, no firearms manufacturer has advocated fully automatic weapons for anyone who wants them. Every firearms manufacturer has said, and they continue to say, there are people who should not have guns.

After fighting the "gun issue" for 40 years, I am an expert. The core issue with "gun rights" is also the core issue of what should be the relationship between government and non-government people in a country. During the last 30 years in particular, there has been a growing wall with "government people" on one side and "everyone else" on the other side. This is the core issue. For many government people you are, "Either government, or you are scum," and there's nothing between.

The essence of the United States, what our founding fathers deeply wanted, was a nation that did NOT have the usual big walls between the "people" and the "government." The essence of the Constitution is all about NOT having a "them" and "us" nation. The "people" are supposed to be the government and the government is supposed to be the people. This is why the Second Amendment is there, and second only to the First Amendment. The Second Amendment's intent was to block the building of the usual wall most governments had between the "people" and the government.

Homo sapiens have a built-in genetic tendency to dominate what they can dominate. Without checks, governments build walls, and take an ever increasing "them" and "us" attitude. Technology changes, but Homo sapiens do NOT change. Homo sapiens have the same hard wiring in their brains in 2008, as they had in 1778. Because Homo sapiens do not change, our founding fathers in George Washington's time could look back on 3000 years of history and see the root problems with most governments. They could see the walls, and the usual "them" and "us" attitude and that is what

THEY DID NOT WANT FOR AMERICA.

General Washington could have created a monarchy. America could have had an elitist government like everything in Europe was at that time. However, our founding father did NOT want walls between the "people" and the government. During the last 30 years the "them" vs. "us" attitude has grown within the government and the left wing fascists. The Supreme Court has a historic opportunity to tear down an anti-people wall, and to put America back onto the path that our founding fathers wanted.

Unfortunately, the "them" versus "us" attitude is very much alive in the government, and highly destructive in many ways. I'll give you a personal example. In the mid-1970's, I went to Washington D.C. lobbying for the arming of commercial pilots. There was nothing in it for me, but being a prophet I could see the danger coming. I ran into the attitude of: you're either government or your scum. Airline pilots were not government, so that made them scum, and you don't give guns to scum.

If it hadn't been for the wall between government people and everyone else, the pilots who wanted, could have been armed back in the 1970's. The attack of 9/11 would not have happened. President Bush would not have had an excuse to attack Iraq. Some 9,000 Americans (9/11 and US military) would still be alive, 12,000 Americans would NOT be permanently disabled, and 600 billion dollars in 9/11 and Iraq war costs would not have been wasted. We would NOT be mired down in a disastrous war that has turned the whole world against us.

The above example is only one of the thousands of costs of the "us" versus "them" firearms attitude. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote the Second Amendment. America should not be the government versus the "people." It should return to what was intended by the Second Amendment; the good people (both government and non-government) versus the bad people (either government or non-government).

Those who will argue before the Supreme Court about the, "Dangers of firearms in civilian hands," conveniently forget that from 1776 until well into the 20th century almost any civilian (the "people") anywhere in America could own firearms.

In Israel, 73% of the Jewish households have firearms, and 51% of those firearms are fully automatic machineguns. Do they make Jewish households safer, or less safe? Answer, they have made them safer. In Tel Aviv and Jerusalem there's NO wall between Jewish households with firearms and the government, and in Washington D.C, there should not be one either.

When I ask the typical anti-gun person the above question about Israeli households being armed, they usually say, "But Israel has a problem with terrorists and households need guns." Then I ask, "Have you been to lower Manhattan in the last six years?"

DEALERS. If you agree with the above firearms/Supreme Court article, go to AFI's website, amfire.com, and you can download a copy of only this Supreme Court segment of this column. Send that copy to the Supreme Court, with a personal comment if you like. There's no law that says you cannot send letters to the Justices. It's your county too; let the Justices know what you think. If the Supreme Court moved closer to the "people" it would be a good thing for every American. The Address is:

US Supreme Court
(Justice's Name)
One 1st Street N.E.
Washington D.C. 20543.

Send nine individual letters with a return address on the envelopes, to: Chief Justice John Roberts, (Start your letter, Dear Chief Justice Roberts), and Justices, Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, David Hackett Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Justice Clarence Thomas. (If you write, start your letters, "Dear Justice...").

Best wishes,
Andrew Molchan

American Firearms Industry magazine is a business-to-business publication (issued monthly). It is only circulated to professionsals within the American and International arms industry and to interested parties within the universe of law enforcement, security and the military.

For those interested in subscribing to American Firearms Industry, please email kathy@amfire.com  for details.