Monday, April 28, 2008

Steve Novick for Senate - Statement on Firearms and the 2nd Amendment

Oregon Democratic Senate Candidate, Steve Novick, sends us the following statement regarding his views on the 2nd Amendment. It is printed here without editing.

For more information, please view Novick for U.S. Senate.


NOVICK FOR SENATE - Statement on Firearms and the 2nd Amendment

"Growing up in rural Oregon, I have a deep appreciation of the importance of firearm ownership for many Americans. It is my pledge as Oregon’s next senator to support sensible gun safety measures, while preserving the rights of lawful Americans to possess and use firearms. In addition, it is my pledge to always provide an open door for Oregonians to register their concerns and priorities and that pledge extends to all firearm owners.

Generally, I think that Clinton-era federal laws struck the right balance between the constitutional rights of firearm owners and concerns about public safety regarding the dangerous or illegal use of firearms. I believe that the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights guarantees the right of individuals to own and use firearms. As I have said frequently on the campaign trail, progressives can’t pick and choose what part of the Constitution they support. If you stand up for the First, Fourth or Fifth Amendments, you need to stand up for the Second too.

My campaign is founded on upholding consistent principles and being honest with voters about the issues and choices we face as a nation. I know from personal experience that the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens who pose no threat to others and regard guns as an important part of their daily life – either for protection or recreation. In my mind, it is also basic common sense to recognize that the realities of firearm ownership are very different for those living in rural communities to those living in our urban areas – yet absolutists on both sides of the issue fail to recognize this distinction. It is my commitment to offer sensible, fair representation of Oregonians when it comes to gun safety and gun rights issues in the Senate."

(End of Statement)


brian r said...

I have been a supporter of Novick through out this race, but I must say that when he says that he thinks that the Clinton gun ban was a good balance between gun rights and safety, he sounds very uneducated. I think most gun owners would agree w/ me that most of the "bans" from the clinton era did nothing to create a safer environment, and only hurt law abiding citizens. How is banning bayonettes, teloscoping stocks, etc, keeping people safer? i hope that Novick is willing to do a bit more to ensure gun rights.

Lee Coleman said...

"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 be infringed." Clearly, the idea is that the only constitutional underpinning for this right is the security of a free state at the hands of a well-regulated militia.

The key thought here is "regulated." Anyone who thinks that the State may not regulate possession of any kind of arms for criminal uses simply isn't paying attention. Anyone who thinks that unregulated possession of assault weapons (which are relevant only to military uses) by anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia is sanctioned by the Constitution simply doesn't understand the thrust of the Second Amendment.

Kevin Starrett said...

I faced Novick in the Supreme Court in 1999. I was defending Oregonians' rights to transfer guns at "gun shows." Novick argued against that right. Later, when I heard him call home schoolers "drug dealers" I knew I was dealing with a person who hated anyone who was not a slave to the state. Democrats could do much better than Novick.

Zak J. said...

I have to disagree with you on the "assault weapons" thing, Lee. Defining a tool on its cosmetic appearance is only an easy way to manipulate the uneducated.

And anyway, part of the reason for the 2nd amendment is to ensure the public's right for military action in times of crisis.

Robert said...

Lee, well regulated does not mean regulated by the state. It means well trained. If you look at the history of the 2nd, it is clear that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms to protect their land, their family, their country, etc.

It is not reserved for a state or federally regulated group. The Framers came from a society where the people were kept under control by threat of force from a tyrannical monarch. The Framers were revolutionaries who recognized that the people need the means to throw off the rule of King George.

You do not understand the meaning of this right or why it was written. A military weapon in 1776 was a simple rifle. A military weapon today is a fully automatic magazine or belt fed rifle. With only semi-auto, magazine fed rifles available to the general public, we the people are clearly out gunned by a military force intent on subjecting us to force or death.

Who will protect you from OUR government? That is the question the Framers answered. YOU! ME!

Zak Johnson said...

I agree with you, Robert. Genocide by the ruling government is nothing new--the founders saw a perfect example of it when George II took revenge on the Scottish Highlanders in the late 1740s. Death by government remains a leading cause of death and the surest way to protect minority rights and safety, not to mention majority safest, too, is to have an armed population.