E-mail From the Desk of Neal Lang
Hi, Pete,
I was forwarded your e-mail on the above subject by Pete Mancus. As I was
not an original recipient, I hope you don't consider my response
impertinent.
I read with interest (and sadness) your July 27th letter satirically
belittling the National Rifle Association for celebrating arguably the
"most important" political coup on behalf of the "individual right to keep
and bear arms" in the last 8 years.
I hope you don't find my corrective reply to be a flame, as I do not intend
it to be taken as such. I respect you and your efforts on behalf of "the
cause" too much.
This current epistle, while I believe errant, evidences the "passions" and
"wit" that make all your correspondence a "joy" for those "true believers"
who clearly see the "truth and the light". However, the underlying concept
that the NRA is "counter-productive" (and thereby, by implication,
undeserving of our support) is wrong. I'll tell you why.
First, your position (along with others) seems to suggest that the battle
to restore our "unalienable rights" can be won without compromise. This
position suggests that our Federal government and its Constitution were
founded on "principles" that could never be compromised.
Obviously, Dave, history tells a different story. After all, our
founders, after engaging in a desperate struggle with the most powerful
empire on earth over "principles" eloquently expressed in the "Declaration
of Independence" instituted a government by ratifying a Constitution that
codifies a "compromise" allowing slavery. A Nation born on the idea that
"all men our created equal" allowed a government based on the
"constitutional principle" that certain "man" count only a as "3/5th
persons" and "untaxed" Native Americans don't count at all.
Compared to the founders' "constitutional compromise" on "slavery", the
NRA's giving ground on "Brady" in order to demand an "Insta-Check" and a
"ban" on the government retaining records of purchasers is really quite
minor. Interestingly, by including these provisions in "Brady", we have
today a situation whereby America's chief lawman, General Ashcroft, can
insist that records illegally retained by the FBI for 180 (or more) days,
must be destroyed with 24 hours under the "rule of law". I see this as a
"glass half-full", Dave, not "half-empty". If the NRA did not have a place
at the table to get demand this compromise, we would today be "truly"
experiencing "totally unacceptable delays" in firearms purchases, along
with a "permanent registry" of firearms buyers. To think that "Brady"
would not have passed, despite NRA opposition, without these important
compromises is quite delusional, IMMHO.
The assault on Attorney General Ashcroft by "Constitutional zealots" is
also quite delusional as well, IMMHO. To say that one believes in the
"infallibility" of the U.S. Constitution and therefore I condemn the
Nation's highest law enforcement officer for saying that he will serve his
constitutional role by enforcing the law, is really quite illogical. If
you understand the Constitution, you will see that it did nothing more the
"institute a government". The form of government instituted was a
"republic", a where everyone, "the People" as well as the "magistrates"
must obey the law.
Our constitution established three distinct branches, each with different
authority and responsibility.
Article. I. Section. 1. - "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be
vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate
and House of Representatives."
Article. II. Section. 3. - "(H)e (the President) shall take Care that the
Laws be faithfully executed..."
Article III. Section. 1. - "The judicial Power of the United States shall
be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress
may from time to time ordain and establish."
Article III. Section. 2. - "(T)he supreme Court shall have appellate Jur
isdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such
Regulations as the Congress shall make."
The Executive branch, of which General Ashcroft is a member, must
"faithfully execute" the laws that are passed by the Legislative Branch and
adjudicated by Judicial branch. When one of President Clinton's "White
House Counsels" gleefully exclaimed, "Stroke of the pen, force of law,
NEAT!" - we, the believers of Constitutional law, were justifiably
horrified. Why than are we so quick to object to the Attorney General when
he states the obvious. He MUST uphold the law. He cannot on his own usurp
the authority of either the Congress or the Courts. In this he is living
his oath of office and serving as an example of the kind of "true Original
Intent" that has not been seen in Washington in at least 12 years, if not
longer.
The fact that he bravely committed his Department to the "true" meaning of
the 2nd Amendment as an "individual right" should be the cause of great
celebrations throughout our country by those of us who believe that "the
People" in fact means individuals. Instead we "parse" his words and
de-ride him for keeping his oath of office by "faithfully executing" the
Federal code he inherited. Shooting organizations should be today renaming
"Practical Shooting Matches" after this courageous American and hero of the
2nd Amendment.
Dave, the undermining of our rights begins when governmental officials
forget we have a government of laws. Our founders thought that Congress,
not the Attorney General should make the laws of our country. General
Ashcroft agrees. Historically, the Courts determine the Constitutionality
our laws, not the Attorney General. General Ashcroft agrees. I think you
should celebrate this victory, not commiserate when a public official
recognizes it.
I am glade you still retain your "life membership" in the NRA. However, as
a member, I am not sure you can see how this GREAT organization fits in the
scheme of the defense of our "unalienable rights" in the reality of 21st
America.
Personally, I believe neither the NRA, the Constitution, POTUS, the
Attorney General, Congress, nor the Supreme Court have any bearing on the
actual existence of any my "unalienable rights". I sleep peacefully every
night in the knowledge that while my government may have the "power" to
kill me, it does not have the "authority" to "separate me from these
rights". In fact, I, myself, cannot even "give away" these "unalienable
rights" if I wanted to - else they would not be "unalienable".
The struggle to insure these rights "politically" in the "good old" U.S. of
A. must be fought on at least three fronts. These fronts are:
1. The Judicial - overturning existing "bad laws" in the Courts. This
requires the nomination of good judges that understand the meaning of
republic and the simple plan English of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Legislative - passing new laws that correct existing "bad laws" and
promote expansion of our 2nd Amendment rights to the States and local
governments. This would be similar to the Civil Rights legislation of the
1960. This requires electing good Representatives that understand the
Constitutional limits imposed on Congress.
3. The Promotional - to insure the appropriate "public relations" climate
to insure items 1. and 2. This involves also election the "right" public
officials to nominate the "right" kind of Justices and to pass the "right"
kind of legislation.
I submit, Dave, that the NRA is carrying the battle on these three most
effectively. After all, being rated the "Most Influential" lobby in
Washington indicates to me that the NRA is nothing if it is not effective.
To fault the NRA in the absence of a more effective means of defending our
rights is quite easy. If you analyze the "political" battlefield were
meaning and effect of the 2nd Amendment as it stands today is being
determined, you will find that:
1. Congress, as a whole, does not see the 2nd Amendment as do you or I, or
the GOA, JPFO, COA, or the NRA, for that matter. For this reason the NRA
legislative strategy since 1968 has been a "rear guard" action. Through
"political compromise" they attempted (and for the most part succeeded) to
blunt the more onerous Federal and State laws invading our 2nd Amendment
rights.
2. The Courts, in general, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in particular, do
not see the 2nd Amendment as do you or I, or the GOA, JPFO, COA, or the
NRA, for that matter. Through lifetime, "good Behaviour" tenure, most
judges are "immune" to "politics". However, before their confirmations,
the NRA can and does have some influence in the selection, nomination and
confirmation of these Judges. Additionally, in very well prepared and
persuasive "Amicus Briefs", the NRA helps promote an "unalienable,
individual" 2nd Amendment Right in the courts. In fact, a fair reading of
their Amicus Curiae in Emerson would indicate that NRA position on
Lautenberg parallels mine (and maybe yours?) - (it can be read at:
http://www.saf.org/NRAbrief.htm ) - despite how you have painted it in your
letter.
3. The public at large ("the People" of the Constitution) generally does
not see the 2nd Amendment the same as you or I, or the GOA, JPFO, COA, or
the NRA, for that matter. This is our "PR gap". I think the NRA has been
most effective on this front in the "battle", as well. While accepting
their inevitable defeat in Congressional on the "Assault Weapons Ban", in
1994 the NRA came back with a "vengeance" that helped account for one of
the most historic political "turnarounds" in U.S. history, giving control
of Congress to the more "2nd Amendment friendly" Republicans. This caused
our "true" enemies to institute those IRS audits about which you write in
revenge for NRA part in their worse 20th Century political loss.
Do I wish we lived in a utopia where all gun owners truly understood their
rights and voted? You bet. But the sad truth is, Dave, many gun owners
haven't a clue, and many of those that do, don't bother to vote. This is
the "real world" in which the NRA is attempting to "hold the line". Do
they make mistakes? Of course they do. But on balance, IMMHO, without NRA
we would be today looking at British-like total bans on all firearms. If
you are fair, I think you will agree.
While we need to help this organization to "stay on the mark", we also must
recognize their tremendous contribution. As such we must be careful not to
destroy this truly effective and necessary organization, as we attempt to
promote the "true" meaning of "unalienable rights". I fear, my friend,
that sometimes passionate words, even amongst friends and "true believers",
can also be damaging and counter-productive.
One reason, Dave, I enjoy so much your "in your face" correspondence
directed at the real "forces of evil" is the passion you display in
"fighting the good fight". I love the way you verbally "hold them by their
nose while you kick their ass". However, that said, I also think when
addressing the "choir", some check on passion in the direction of
presenting the "all the facts" might be the "order of the day". While
"tearing down" is sometimes necessary in order to "build-up", care must be
used when instructing on "enemy recognition".
A fair reading of this latest epistle of yours has the NRA as the "enemy".
IMMHO, Dave, they are not. If enough of NRA members that truly respect
you take you at your word, serious damage will be done to the NRA and also
to our "right to keep and bear arms". If that happens, the opportunity to
re-take our "rights" on the three fronts of the Legislative; the Judiciary
and the Public Opinion will be lost leaving only one "Civil War" as the
only available option. I don't think I need to remind you, my friend, that
the last "Civil War", killed more Americans that all the conflicts we were
involved in - combined.
Remember, Dave, when it comes to "2nd Amendment rights", we will, in fact,
"all hang separately, if we can't hang together".
Keep the Faith,
Neal
Neal J. Lang (Signed)
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
