An Outdoors Niagara Exclusive!

Back to Home Page        Back to Bob Confer's Outdoors 

Bob Confer's Outdoors
Section Two    "Guns for the people"                         

Back to Bob Confer on "Disagreeing with the editorial on the handgun issue"  /   Back to Bob Confer's Outdoors on fishing   /   "New York steals gun rights"Back to Outdoors Niagara Home Page


Bob is a Libertarian, desirous of the personal liberty that our nation’s forefathers had intended. He is neither a Republican nor a Democrat...his views are his own, unique and not beholden to any party. His opinions are a blend of all beliefs and are founded upon common sense and patriotism. You will often find him to be critical of government actions while at other times quite supportive. He is a voice of the people driven by the need to make our elected officials accountable, thus making America an even-greater breeding ground for liberty and capitalism. 

The following article [s] were published in the Greater Niagara Newspapers, and is the opinion of the writer 

By Bob Confer

October 23 2007

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not infringed"

When it comes to the creation, interpretation and, ultimately, the enforcement of laws wording is everything. The anti-gun crowd understands this quite well and has invested considerable effort in the analysis of the language of the Second Amendment. They are hell bent on using semantics to make the Constitution meet their needs despite knowing that these needs in no way match the original intent of the founding fathers who all to a man believed in the natural right of self-preservation (against Man, beast or tyranny) and the requisite ownership of weaponry that allows one to satisfy that right.

Because of this indifference to historical record and actual intent, one could consider the anti-gun efforts to be flawed if not evil.

The logic applied definitely is.

The most cherished argument of those against guns is their belief, based upon their bastardization of the wording, that the right to bear arms is a collective one and not a singular one. To make this point, they have focused on the words "the people", citing the usage of the word as being based in multiples. Hence, they believe the Constitution implies the need of an armed protective force (police or military) that looks out for the people as a whole, rather than each and every one of us sharing the same responsibility.

By picking apart language of the Second Amendment and looking at it as a stand-alone law independent of the rest of the Constitution these souls have ignored how it fits into the whole scheme of things and how this law, no, this right, should be appropriately interpreted. The amendment is properly written and, therefore, non-controversial as long as one looks at how its language is used in the rest of the Constitution.

The maligned "the people" appears throughout the original document, also showing up in amendments 1, 4, 9, and 10. The phrase is used in the same fashion on every occasion. If it were to be looked at in the collective sense every time our nation would be very short on personal rights.

Were the anti-gun version to be used on the First Amendment (freedom of speech) you could not stand up and make your voice heard at a legislative meeting, participate in a protest, or hold a concerned citizens meeting. Instead, you would have to allow the government to call together such an action and then your voice could not be yours, it would have to mirror that of the collective.

If it were applied to the Fourth Amendment (protection from unreasonable search and seizure) that right would be utterly nonsensical. It is universally understood that "the people" in this case applies to the rights of the individual, as it is he or she being searched and owns the houses and properties made note of. Usage of the collective style of "the people" here would negate all rights to both personal security and property. Everything in this nation would be based in communal, at-large ownership.

The phrase’s appearance in – and the continued ignorance of - the Ninth Amendment shows what happens if a Constitutional right is denied, just as the anti-gun folk want it. The founding fathers rightly knew there are assumed inalienable rights not called-out or covered by the Constitution (like freedom to privacy) that every person has, rights that were granted to us naturally, be it through the play of the universe or at the controlling hand of God. The Ninth was intended to prevent the government from becoming our world’s controlling power, something like a God State that would steal or override our natural rights. It didn’t stop the government from doing just that: Today’s modern United States is nothing like intended and something in defiance of the rights of the individual which are the rights of "the people".

This affront to natural, personal and Constitutional rights occurred because the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning and the language of the Ninth Amendment in self-serving ways it saw fit.

That is the same tactic the anti-gun crowd wants to use. They want to twist and turn the language of our nation’s Bible to fit their needs, even though their needs don’t jibe with those of all Americans, collectively and singularly, philosophically and realistically.


By Bob Confer

When George Pataki ran for governor in 1994 he had positioned himself as a Conservative Republican. If there’s anything that we’ve learned in the 12 years of his reign it’s that he has been anything but. Taxes, expenditures, and debt all increased significantly while he was in control. In a similar anti-Conservative bent, gun control laws became far too powerful while Pataki flexed his Big Government muscles. As matter of fact, he may have been the worst New York governor in terms of gun rights.

Under Pataki’s watch the legislature had tried and succeeded in making certain methods of possession illegal. Pistol permit fees grew and the handgun ownership age was pushed to 21. He introduced intrusive background checks that more or less defined gun shows as criminal enterprises. Two years ago Pataki proposed legislation (that was subsequently denied) that would have taken away the lifetime pistol license and required renewal every five years. He capped-off this gubernatorial anti-gun crusade two weeks ago, signing legislation that strengthened the penalization for possessing loaded firearms that he and his anti-gun ilk deem "illegal".

These and various other laws are making gun ownership nearly impossible in the Empire State. Such actions are an affront to what American liberty stands for. The natural right to protect ourselves was called out in the Constitution of the United States as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Under the framing of this very same Constitution powers were allotted to each of the states to on their own create and enforce legislation that would affect governance within their borders. The caveat to this designation was that the states could not infringe upon any of the natural rights and rules of government (amendments) called-out in the Constitution. Therefore, the gun laws spawned by the Pataki administration are philosophically and legally unconstitutional.

Fortunately, Pataki’s reign is coming to an end. But, unfortunately, this does not mean that good times are ahead for the classic interpretation of the Constitution and human rights. Even though they may find some delight as Pataki rides off into the sunset, gun owners, Constitutional fundamentalists, and average citizens will be no better off with his successor. They may actually be much worse off for, if anything, Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer makes Pataki’s anti-gun stance look almost pedestrian.

This mindset was perfectly exemplified back in 2000 when, as attorney-general, Spitzer spearheaded efforts that made New York State the first state to sue gun manufacturers, importers and wholesalers under the illogical and twisted assumption those companies contributed to danger and crime. The only thing that saved these law-abiding vendors – and their law-abiding customers - from ruin was a 2005 federal law that shielded manufacturers from such lawsuits and cited the need for personal responsibility and liability in regards to gun crimes and offenses.

Upon getting derailed in this deviant effort, Spitzer vowed that the fight was not over. Such a threat does not bode well for the future of gun rights in New York. It has become more and more difficult to acquire a gun in New York over the years and this trend looks to continue in even greater earnest under Spitzer. With such a mentality in play - and completely empowered by the voters and the legislature - one could legitimately fear that it may actually become difficult for New Yorkers to keep their firearms. Our very rights are under fire and New York’s passive population just rolls with the punches and accepts the bad deals that are brought upon us.

This desecration of the US Constitution is a sad commentary on where New York State is going. It’s an even sadder commentary on what our great nation may one day become.

ODN Webmasters repeat of above article just to reiterate:  "Our very rights are under fire and New York’s passive population just rolls with the punches and accepts the bad deals that are brought upon us."


Back to Home Page        Back to Bob Confer's Outdoors 

 Post your opinions about this page and our other pages on our Message Board & Forum   

Is the United States Coast Guard our enemy?    
GO HERE and find out what Confer says!