Letter from Joel Hefley

Coinneach

Staff Alumnus
Last week, I faxed a message to Rep. Joel Hefley, R-CO, asking him to cosponsor HR347.

Today, I received the following reply.


Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding Hr 347, the Citizens Self-Defense Act. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

As you may know, I believe every citizen has the right to protect themselves, their families and their homes with a firearm. I believe in the Second Amendment and I try to consistently support legislation that upholds the freedoms granted by the Constitution.

I support the intent of HR 347, which protects these rights, however, my concern is that it would override certain state laws. While I disagree with states that have chose to enact stricter and more limiting gun ownership and gun control, I do not believe the federal government should supersede decisions made by state legislatures. I have always worked to protect the rights of U.S. citizens to bear arms, but I have also worked to grant and protect states' rights.

Colorado already has a law to protect the rights of those who use deadly force in defense of a person, premises or property and the use of deadly physical force against an intruder. The Citizens' Self-Defense Act appears to effectively apply the same common sense laws we already have in Colorado to all other states. I believe this is an action that should be undertaken by individual states.

Thank you for your letter. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
(signed)
Joel Hefley


Well. Rep. Hefley's point about usurping states' rights is a good one, but I still have some issues with his response.

For one thing, the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; it's guaranteed. A small difference, yes, but crucial.

For another, the "Make My Day" law we have has not been entirely effective. People have killed armed intruders, and still sat in jail while waiting for trial. BAB and Morgan, you may remember the Gina Gershon case from a few years ago. She was acquitted of murder, but only after a very expensive trial (for which she's still paying, I understand).

Perhaps I should forward this message to Ron Paul, asking him about the federal vs state thing.

------------------
"Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
(The sword does not kill; it is a tool in the hands of the killer.)
--Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD)
 
"For one thing, the right to bear arms is not granted by the
Constitution; it's guaranteed. A small difference, yes, but crucial."


On the contrary, its not a small difference by any means whatsoever. You and I are on the same side, but I question Mr. Hefley's veracity and comprehension of the Constitution if this is how he interprets it.

Further, I see his point about a Federal law supercedeing State's rights, however the vast majority of Federal laws supercede state's rights and I'll bet you he has voted for many of them.
In my opinion, anyone against a federal "Citizen's Self-Defense Act" is untrustworthy. The reason being that if there is a federal law supporting your right and actions of self-defense, local prosecutors have a more difficult time to try you without violating your Civil Rights and thereby themselves guilty of a federal crime.

Personally, the laws, States and Federal, are so interwoven and mixed up that I think its pretty silly to draw a "principled" line in the sand on state's rights in this issue.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
I agree. The point about states' rights doesn't seem too valid to me, unless he's already voted this way consistently. ALL federal laws supercede state laws; that's why I have to buy and renew an identification card and go into a registry to buy my guns (the FOID system in Illinois.)
 
The individual states do NOT have the legitimate authority to abrogate my right to life or to deny me the means to protect my life or the lives of others. The individual states do NOT have the legitimate authority to abrogate the Second Amendment or any other segment of the Constitution. Nor does Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court. They may have the power to do so and even the means of enforcement but they do NOT have the right except by due process of law after being found guilty of felonies by a jury of my sovereign peers.

This man's argument is specious. It shows either an appalling ignorance of our Constitution and history or an equally appalling arrogance. States' rights are not and never have been-even for one day in our history- a justification for his position.
 
Our last Civil War was fought over States Rights and guess who won?
No state can enact a law that abrogates the US Constitution. They can really only uphold it.
I would remind Mr.Hefley of his oath to support and defend the Constitution.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
I had a lot to say about this, but DC, Spartacus and Ed seem to have pretty much covered the bases.

Contact your Rep again and call him (politely) on the point and see what he says.
Let us know.

JOIN THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY TODAY!
They're the only ones who won't BS you about your rights.

------------------
Your mind is your primary weapon.
 
Back
Top