Beth Murphy got a few things wrong about the second amendment in her column, “The Untouchables.” The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 did not ban sawed off shotguns, they could still be possessed if you paid a $200 tax. Miller got in trouble for not paying the tax. Contrary to Beth’s opinion, the decision in Miller was silent as to whether the second amendment was a collective (militia) right or an individual right. In fact, the court never addressed this issue at all until the Heller decision in 2008.
Until 1968 the individual right to own firearms has had little restriction. You are seeing groups like the NRA, which has a membership of over five million individuals, becoming more politically active to preserve gun ownership rights because people like Beth want to demolish the second amendment.
Sure, many companies in the gun business also contribute to the NRA, in fact one online retailer has donated over $10 million to the NRA in the past two decades from their “round-up” program. The way this program works is that customers are asked if they want to round up a purchase, say from $21.75 to $22 — The 25 cents being donated to the NRA. That’s a lot of small individual contributions that went into that $10 million, even though the check is signed by the corporation.
Congress has not been able to pass new gun laws because the majority of people understand that more gun laws are not the answer to the crime problem. Polls bear this out. I don’t see much support for changing the second amendment language either, other than from the far left.
The Supreme Court got it right in Heller. It’s settled law. Get over it.
In the right
In response to the letters of Beth Murphy and Laurel Lindewall: Beth, I appreciate your defense of one of your own party. However, Laura Lindewall’s letter to the editor was filled with inaccuracies.
For example, my writing about the USPS was exclusive to packages for our deployed troops, which she distorted.
Donna Greco is very passionate in her beliefs and in her writing. It is indeed admirable that she writes not as part of any party agenda but as an individual homeowner/taxpayer with concerns for her fellow home owners. She does her research and as a writer becomes an easy target. I think it is very ironic to associate Donna with communism now that the communistic comprehensive plan had been passed by the Saugerties Town Board, a plan supported by Democrats and some members of the GOP.
These letters are an attempt to discredit those who oppose state Sen. Tkaczyk who is now facing George Amedore and who won by only 18 votes two years ago. Until her alleged town hall meeting (Working Families and Democrat love fest) I had no interaction with Laurel. This state senator adjourned her town hall meeting which she advertised as being for two hours after just one hour as soon as a challenging question came forth from a voter. Laurel was present when I questioned Tkaczyk’s position on the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Act. It was Laurel and another Tkaczyk supporter who were speechless when I asked how they would defend themselves in the event of a break-in. After a few moments of thought their response was, “I would call the police and call my neighbors.” Good luck, ladies! Maybe your disarmed neighbor’s will throw their slippers at the intruders from their windows until the police arrive. The Second Amendment is a women’s issue, but not exclusive to women.
As far as “affordable housing” is concerned, this issue may appear differently to those who live in parts of town protected from overdevelopment. Unfortunately, other areas of Saugerties have quite arbitrarily been deemed “high density” and these are the areas in which these housing projects are targeted. I am reminded of the hundreds of voters that I visited in my door-to-door campaign last year who told me about the likelihood of losing their homes to high taxes. That was my reason for running but unfortunately as soon as the “coast is clear” with Helsmoortel back in office the carpetbagger developers are again making their raids on Saugerties.