the "article."
included below, you will find an entire exchange of emails culminating in my letter to norma smith, a member of the state of washington house of representatives. in her otherwise cordial letter to her constituent, she remarks that public gun ownership is a right “given to” the public by the constitutions of the united states and of washington: how sweet of her to think that she has “given” us such rights, and how fundamentally mistaken. such ignorance of the law of our land, of our political heritage, is absolutely unforgivable. as a state legislator she should know better, she should have some inkling of the law of the land, and, as demonstrated by her public utterance, either she doesn’t have a clue about the source of our liberties, or she is not very careful about the way she writes, or thinks, about them.
such poor expression of fundamental concepts by ms. smith, a law maker, leads eventually to an equally poor understanding of them (or perhaps resulted from same), and then, ultimately, to a lack of any comprehension at all of what she speaks about. and, make no mistake about it, she misstates the law, and displays a frightening lack of comprehension about our political heritage, about the philosophy that gave it life and sustained it for so long, and about the public law derivative of these things. sloppiness of expression inevitably leads to sloppiness of thought.
state representative norma smith is a dangerous person. she is not intentionally dangerous, and is actually probably very well intentioned about protecting the liberties of her constituents: she did answer the letter, and she was very cordial, after all. but, she is not an ordinary person: she has been given through the electoral process a position in which she shepherds our liberties, and protects our rights, quite literally, a position of trust: to do so adequately, she needs to understand our rights and liberties, their dimension, and how they originated and exactly how the bill of rights has been enshrined to protect them from government encroachment. anyone who knows so little about such matters will be entirely without compunction about attempting to abridge them, for reasons misguided or ill intended. ignorance of such matters does not perform the trust she has been given, by us.
so, i may sound overly harsh, and it may look that i have seized upon what might be an inadvertent misstatement of something norma smith understands very well indeed, just to show off. but, she is the state representative, and she sought the office, and she is given the task of performing that office well. she simply has not done so in this letter to her constituent, because she evidently doesn’t know what she is talking about: she is to be held to her written word. so, she has to be properly informed. that is our job as citizens.
for those of you in europe who read these pages from time to time.—this is how we talk to our elected representatives, and we damn well expect them to listen. and, for members of our legislature, they should be reminded that they will have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers. (thank you, harlon carter and charlton heston, for first voicing that phrase. it is just such a precise way of enunciating the fact, that as citizens, we determine the parameters of those rights which we possess, and those rights and liberties that we will never voluntarily relinquish. period. the matter is not open to discussion. period.)
the thread follows. the emails speak for themselves.—
constituent: gun ban
dear representative smith:
your heart is in the right place, and since it is such a nice heart it should be joined by an equally informed intellect, a desirable joinder especially for someone in your line of work.
the essence of what i am going to relate for you is simple.--
rights and liberties are not conferred upon citizens in our country by the constitutions of the federal government or by the state governments. rights and liberties belong absolutely to the individual, and precede and exist before the formation of government, and are not ceded by individuals to government upon its formation except by formal expression.
this is called "natural law" theory, and it is the theory which is the foundation to our government, and it is the political theory which is recognized in the organic law of the federal government and the several states. not only is it theory that was recognized at the foundation of the government, but it is theory given vigor and renewal from time to time in the supreme courts of the states and in the supreme court of the united states, most recently in the case of heller vs. washington d.c., in which natural law theory was recognized as the bedrock for the right of individuals to own firearms.
you may ask, how could this be?
these theories were enunciated and espoused by seminal writers/philosophers of our political heritage, being no less than roseau, montesquieu, lock and sir william blackstone, the great compiler of the english common law (commentaries on the laws of england), and an advocate of natural law theory.
the greatest proponent of natural law of them all was john locke. he advanced the notion of a social compact existing between the ruler, who we may as well call the magistrate because that is where we end up, and it means all government and not just judges though it is they who announce the legitimacy of law (you may recognize this), and those who are ruled, usually called subjects by locke.
the theory goes like this.-- people live in a natural state, prior to government. it is a state in which each man has unfettered liberty. it is a state in which each man exercises and protects such liberty, and, as you might expect, this engenders conflict as such liberties and such people rub up against each other in the daily expression of those rights. life, in this state of nature, is not free of deadly conflict, either, as the matter goes. locke's formulation on government is that in order to achieve some degree of order, man cedes a bit of his liberty to the magistrate, and confers upon the magistrate the authority to decide such of man's disagreements as man submits, voluntarily, to the magistrate for decision, and man agrees to abide by those decisions in order to achieve desirable levels of order, and to reduce open violence and murder. arising from this are a whole host of mutual and reciprocal rights and obligations between the magistrate and his subject: for instance, the magistrate assumes the obligation to protect his citizens, while the citizens agree to confer obeisance upon the magistrate. he rules, they obey, ... , and he rules justly so long as they obey justly, and they obey as long as he rules justly. the corollary of this, is that if the magistrate rules unwisely or cannot protect his subjects, they no longer owe him any duty of fealty, and may rise up against the magistrate in rebellion, and reformulate the nature of their government.
please allow me to recommend to you a wonderful book, written during the course of the ratification process for our federal constitution in the form of periodic street pamphlets and newspaper editorials in support of ratification, and to meet arguments & debate against it, called the "federalist papers." the federalist papers were written by "publius," the pen-names for james madison, alexander hamilton, and john jay (who also wrote the state constitution of the state of new york, the "flag ship" of the fleet even in those days) who later became the first chief justice of the united states. (that is the proper way to say it.)
the "federalist papers" are recognized as the pre-eminent expression of political theory ever written by americans. they are also recognized as part of the "organic documents" of our form of government and society, along with the declaration of independence and the constitution of the united states: this recognition has been by scholars no less than clinton rossitor, and no less authoritatively than by the supreme court of the united states. you can look it up in the united states code annotated, which has a preliminary section devoted to such matters in the first volume.
this is not surprising, is it?
alexander hamilton was george washington's aide de camp in the revolutionary war, and became the first secretary of the treasury in washington's cabinet, and a recognized leader of the federalist party. he wrote the bulk of the federalist papers under the guise of "publius."
john jay was prominent in new york state, writing the first constitution which served ably until the mid 1900's. jay negotiated the peace of paris ending formal hostilities between the colonies and england. and, jay became the first chief justice of the united states, serving in that capacity until ill health prompted his resignation. so respected was he, that when it came time to select a third chief justice, he was offered the position, which he declined: john marshall was appointed instead, and the rest of the history of the supreme court was secured. jay wrote only 4 articles of the papers, one of them being recognized as a core advocacy for the constitution.
james madison became the fourth president of the united states, as well as having previously served as majority leader of the house of representative under washington, and having written about 1/3 of the federalist papers.
it is no surprise that even to this day when guidance is needed on the deciding of issues of constitutional magnitude having to do with the structure and function of government in a federal state, the "federalist papers" are turned to. it remains the authoritative oracle in such matters.
do you know why? well, because it is brilliantly written.
which brings me to my close.--
one of the things brilliantly written about in the federalist papers is the right of individuals to own guns. and, one of the places that the supreme court recently looked to on this issues was the federalist papers. hey, how about that. in the federalist papers, jay, hamilton and madison asserted that gun ownership was a bulwark against government oppression and governmental usurpation and infringement upon basic right and liberty. they asserted very clearly the right of the people to rise up and overthrow tyrannical government, to throw out tyrants, and they recognized the role of firearms in such situations as a legitimate expression of the political liberty owing to each free man.
think of this.
these men were sober men, lawyers, scholars, founding fathers and leaders of this great nation at her birth. they were not light nor frivolous men. and, to a man, they participated in, lead, and fought in their respective manners in revolution. they had taken the gun in hand, as it were, and defeated a usurping government. their writings, in this regard then, are to be given some credence, and some recognition as being authoritative on the subject, as indeed, they were and are in heller vs. washington d.c.
read again, ms. smith, if you will, the bill of rights. the first, second, ... , and, 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution. read those provisions which state that those rights and powers not expressly delegated to the government by the formation of the government, in the constitution, remain inviolate, inalienable and fully formed in the people of the united states of america.
and, among these rights are the right to own guns, to assert one's inalienable right of self defense, and to assert one's liberties and rights.
and, if i may be so bold, ms. smith, i think that you ought, as a legislator, to sit down and completely read or re-read the "federalist papers", and you ought to delve into the writings of john locke and sir william blackstone. i can assure you, that almost to a man and a woman, the leaders of the american revolution had the writings of both men in their libraries, and that they were intimately familiar with them. if you read all of these things, re-read jefferson's declaration of independence, and re-read the constitution and the bill of rights, and john locke and sir william blackstone come shining through.
john jay
whitman college, b.a. political science, 1971
university of oregon school of law, j.d., 1977
john jay
136 s.e. 8th avenue
milton freewater, oregon 97862
phone: 509.307.5272
from: [email protected]
date: tue, 19 jan 2010 06:08:35 -0800
subject: fwd: constituent: gun ban
to: _________________
pretty good, except for her understanding that the constitution gives rights. it guarantees rights we already have!
_____________________
begin forwarded message:
From: "Smith, Rep. Norma" <[email protected]>
Date: January 18, 2010 4:01:47 PM PST
To: ________________________
Subject: RE: Constituent: Gun ban
[you ever notice how important people like to use “all caps” and “bold” for their email names & addresses? kind of like yelling, ain’t it?: jjay. laughing.]
dear ___,
thank you for your email, and for taking the time to share your comments regarding senate bill 6396. this bill was referred to the senate judiciary committee on january 13th and has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing. i oppose this type of legislation, as these regulations simply make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms - a right given to them through both our state and national constitutions.
public safety is at the heart of all we do as legislators. our families and individuals deserve to feel safe and secure in their communities. we must focus our laws on the criminals, especially those who use firearms to commit their crimes, and keeping those who choose to abuse their freedoms off the streets. as your legislator, i will continue to advocate for tougher sentences, and do what i can to ensure that violent felons serve their full time. placing more restrictions on the rights of law-abiding citizens is not the answer.
again, thank you for your email. i will be certain to keep your comments in mind, and do hope you will keep in touch.
warm regards,
norma smith
state representative
10th legislative district
-----Original Message----
from: ___________________
sent: thursday, january 14, 2010 6:41 am
to: bailey, rep. barbara
cc: smith, rep. norma; haugen, sen. mary margaret
subject: constituent: gun ban
……………………………
from: mr. ________(constituent)
bill: 6396 (against)
subject: gun ban
message:
honorable senators and representatives:
as a retired police officer, as well as retired from the wa national guard, where i was a member of the marksmanship unit for 16 years, i take offense when lawmakers seek to use horrendous incidents to further a political agenda that otherwise would be unpopular. the so called assault weapon ban passed by the clinton administration was proven to be ineffective and was dropped after 10 years. because one person uses a particular type of firearm to commit a crime, is no reason to punish those who didn't do it.
i can tell you, from experience, that the only effect of the clinton assault weapon ban, was to make certain firearms much more in demand, therefore more expensive, as well as the magazines for them and other restricted firearms. there were other unintended consequences of this sorry piece of legislation, too numerous to mention. the very title of the bill is without fact. the fact is, true assault weapons are already banned in the state of washington, because assault weapons are fully automatic, (machine guns).
there are a great many people in the state of washington that own and use firearms for hunting, sport and self defense, that would never consider using one to commit a crime. because one or two miscreants choose to do so is not a good reason to restrict the rights of those people, especially after such a law has already been proven to be ineffective.
________________________
distinguished rifleman
member, president's hundred and governor's twenty
note: we are 99% sure that this constituent is in your district
response requested: mr. ______ has requested a response to this message
Comments