February 2013 - President’s Message-Pg 5
by Marty Hayes, J.D.
As you know by now, this eJournal published an opinion piece as its lead article this month. This is far outside our normal content and I would like to explain why we did it. But first off, for those who were offended by my use of the undefined term “assault weapon” please understand that I used it to entice readership from the more liberal factions of our population. While I wouldn’t normally do that since we write the journal for our members, we wanted this particular article shared far and wide on social media. Perhaps it will do some good in leading those who have not completely thought out the issue to come to an understanding of the history and intent of the Second Amendment. Please feel free to post links to it far and wide on the Internet.
Frankly, I think that if we gun owners continue to argue about the minutiae of commonly used terms–such as getting all indignant when someone calls a “box magazine” a “clip”–instead of arguing the salient points, we will never win our case. So, go ahead and box me about the ears, I can take it. When you hear someone say “clip” instead of “magazine” consider that a gift from God, as you have been given a clue as to the sophistication of the target of your intellectual discourse.
In any event, that’s the reason I felt it was a good idea to lead this month’s journal with what is basically my viewpoint on the topic of banning “detachable-magazine fed semi-automatic rifles and pistols that hold more than ten rounds, that have flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and pistol grips.”
I hope you will share the article, and specifically the link to the web pages containing this month’s journal, far and wide in your sphere of influence on the Internet. I wrote something that I believe people need to read, especially those who don’t understand what we understand.
MODERN SPORTING RIFLES?
Speaking of terminology, over the last few weeks, many pro-gun associations and people have started using the term “modern sporting rifle” in lieu of “assault weapon” or “assault rifle.” I guess it is some way to try to make the magazine-fed, military-style semi-automatic rifle more socially or politically correct.
I think this is a bad idea, and here is why. First, I know that many people use the AR-15 style rifle for sporting purposes. I get it. I have personally used the rifles in three-gun sporting events and have successfully hunted with them. In fact, just this year I took a Stoner SR-25 (.308 caliber) into the woods to hunt deer. And, several years ago I killed my first buck with an Olympic Arms AR-15 re-chambered to 6mm x 45mm.
As I said, I get it, but here is the problem. The Second Amendment isn’t about deer hunting or shooting matches. When the United States Supreme Court upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms (Heller Decision) with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the majority opinion, they upheld that right for the purpose of self defense AND for resisting a tyrannical government, not deer hunting or IPSC three-gun matches. If you have been using this term lately to describe the AR-15 semi-auto rifle, I would ask you to quit using that term, and use a different one, one that does not minimize the scholarship of the Heller Decision. I, for one, am going to start using the term “modern semi-automatic rifle” (or pistol) when referring to these weapons in print or verbally.