This is from our local paper today...
EDITORIAL
Still a right
Second Amendment isn’t about how government defines ‘sport’
Acouple of recent events got us thinking about the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense. Ohio lawmakers having just in the last couple years recognized the Second Amendment also should apply here, we were hoping to have a little longer with a freedom, but perhaps not.
Hunting and outdoor writer Jim Zumbo recently stuck his foot in his mouth regarding firearms he thought were unsuitable for hunting and had an unfortunate association with terrorists — rifles based on the design of the AK-47 and AR-15. And there’s a new push in Congress to ban such rifles and other firearms some people view as unneeded by the public. We suppose with a new Democratic majority in Washington it was just a matter of time before this bill came around again.
Up until last week, Zumbo was a respected outdoors and hunting writer and editor for Outdoor Life magazine. He had the job most hunters and sport shooters dream of: spend most of the year hunting and field testing new shooting gear and getting paid for it! Alas, it all came crashing down because of a few ill-chosen words on his Outdoor Life blog. In relating a discussion he and his guides had regarding AK and AR-style rifles, he wrote that he refers to them as “terrorist rifles” and believes they have no place in hunting. The shooting sports blogosphere erupted with such fury that Zumbo was forced to make two public apologies, lost his job at Outdoor Life and most, if not all, of his sponsorships with firearms manufacturers and gear companies.
Most of the comments Freedom Communications read had to do with Zumbo’s apparent lack of knowledge as to the meaning of the Second Amendment. Even in his apologies he keeps coming back to the rifles’ appropriateness for hunting. We believe, along with a huge number of other firearms-rights activists, that, to quote the bumper sticker, “The Second Amendment ain’t about hunting.” In a free society, government shouldn’t issue blanket bans of things or actions that might cause harm.
More troubling from a public policy standpoint than the views of one man, however, are the actions of New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, who has introduced HR 1022, which would reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired nearly three years ago. The bill has all the problems of the original ban, and it bans additional firearms. Some provisions are more restrictive than the 1994 ban, but will likely have just as little impact on public safety.
The problem with banning certain types of firearms because of cosmetic differences is that such a ban is all smoke and mirrors. A rifle is no more dangerous if it has a bayonet lug or second pistol grip than a rifle that fires an identical cartridge, but looks like what most people think of as a “traditional” rifle. Ban proponents often point out that what they call “assault rifles” are not suitable for hunting. Setting aside our earlier argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment, the banners are wrong; many of these rifles are used for hunting.
The worst part of HR 1022, however, is the provision that gives the attorney general the authority to decide what is a “sporting purpose” for firearms. So now we’ll have the government deciding which shooting sports are appropriate for free citizens.
(continued)
