Webmaster

To those outside of Rockland, Alex Gromack is one of Rockland's 3 Assemblypersons. This election, he challenged Scott Vanderhoef [R], the incumbent, for County Executive. He lost by about 3000 or 4000 votes. The letter below went out last Friday [on office stationary]. Thought I'd share the letter.

PAUL > Committee for Law-Abiding Gun-Owners, Rockland [LAGR]

Dear Alex:

     Defeat is always a bitter pill to swallow. But it was with truly deep disappointment, and the first time, that our family of four voters pulled the lever in that little booth for your opponent. While I made no effort to influence the votes of other Rockland gun-owners, I suspect that many of them voted the way our family did, and for the same reasons. After more than a week of thought on the matter, it became clear to me that the person who really defeated you was....you!

     I could have lived without the Optometric therapeutic bill passing. I had practiced here in Rockland County for nearly 20 years earlier without the benefit of that legislation, although virtually all other states had already enacted similar laws because they were in the public interest. That you supported the bill, all the while steadfastly supporting the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of Americans to keep and bear arms, indicated to me that your votes in the Assembly were based upon principle, and was not cast simply along party lines, or for other expediencies.

     Somewhere along the way, however, all that changed. I suspect it was when you set your sights on the position of County Executive, and made the decision to sacrifice integrity for politics, perhaps in some deal to gain Democratic party support for that position.

     A good friend of mine, even longer involved in the Second Amendment movement than I, many years ago articulated what I had instinctively known. Voting for a candidate based on his or her stand on the issue of "gun-control" does not make that person a "one-issue" voter. A politician's vote on gun-control is more of a political barometer of integrity, because civilian disarmament - "gun-control" - is irreconcilable with a respect for liberty. Voting against "gun-control" is simply the "right thing" to do, even if it's the "politically-incorrect" move in today's climate. It was your voting record on this issue in the last year which made our choice for County Executive a no-brainer!

     Until about a year ago, you were one politician we had nothing but unbridled respect and admiration for. The Gallant family has never voted on the basis of party affiliation, even though I am registered as a Republican - we always voted for the best candidate. That we had voted for you - a Democrat - and urged others to vote likewise, is proof of that.

     Your votes on the "bullet-ban" and "taggants" bills tarnished that respect, and I personally wrote to you, after each, expressing my disappointment. But all respect and admiration for you were erased by your recent vote in favor of the Westchester "home rule" law.

     In the case of the two earlier bills, the public relations aspect of voting for bills which "helped save the lives of cops", or "helped do something about terrorism" - and the potential for vilification for voting against them - were identifiable, if not forgivable. The Westchester "home rule" bill, however, was the personification of pure evil, set forth under a transparent veneer of "public safety". A vote in favor of that bill was simply irreconcilable with a regard for the principles upon which our country was founded. For our family, it was your decision on that which was the straw that broke the camel's back.

     You may note that this letter neither addresses you as "Hon.", nor ends "Respectfully yours". For, as you may have already surmised from the preceding, it is our family's opinion that you have dishonored and forsaken your position of trust for political expediency, and, in the process, have lost all respect from at least this family of four.

Paul

The following letter was written by Charles W. Parrott, III in reply to a letter in the Nov. 18, 1997 Miami Herald. As of Dec. 31, 1977 this letter has not been published, and is not likely to be published. The only First Amendment rights the Herald are concerned with are theirs!

November 18, 1997
Charles W. Parrott, III
4601 S.W. 43th Ave.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314-4722
(954) 316-3082

Editor:

     Steve Bourie, President, Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, began his letter in today's Herald with "I must address some erroneous statements made by Michael Vallone and John Donnelly in their recent letters about gun control." Let me begin this letter with the same statement, but substitute Mr. Bourie's name for that of Mr. Vallone and Donnelly. Mr. Bourie says that "The Second Amendment applies only to state militias, not to the right of an individual to carry a gun." I refer Mr. Bourie to the 1990 (110 S. Ct. 3039) U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down in United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez. This case resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.

     This case involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States".

     For over 200 years the Second Amendment has been interpreted exactly as it is written. The "militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment refers to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun in U.S. v. Miller (307 U.S. 174) in 1939.

     Despite the fact that the FBI reports that only approximately 7% of felons attempt to purchase firearms from legal sources, there has been only 4 prosecutions to date resulting from the Brady Law. The thousands of "felons" denied firearm purchases touted by the anti-self-defense crowd are really persons who can legally purchase firearms but were delayed by paper work errors, similar names and other errors. The only thing the Brady Law has accomplished is to make it harder for a law-abiding citizen to purchase a firearm. There have been cases of lives lost because of this delay, since a firearm could not be purchased in time to be used for self-defense against a known threat.

     Mr. Donnelly was quite correct when he quoted the very accurate Lott/Mustard study released by the University of Chicago in 1996. This study, which took over 15 years and examined every county in the U.S.A. (3,054), found another very important fact. By comparison to the 31 states that do allow citizens who are not convicted felons, drug or alcohol abusers or have a history of mental illness to carry concealed handguns, the savings in crimes committed is quite significant.

The Reader's Forum

     For example, if the 19 states that do not allow concealed carry by law-abiding citizens who meet the above requirements had these laws in effect, this would have resulted in 1,570 fewer annual murders (a savings of over $4.75 billion annually), 4,177 fewer annual rapes (a saving of over $374 million annually) and over 60,000 fewer annual aggravated assaults (a savings of over $1.4 billion annually). When the good guys can carry guns, as well as the bad guys, who will always have them, regardless of the law, crime always goes down.

     Mr. Bourie is somewhat confused on his firearm accident facts. Firearm safety is at an all time high. In 1993 there were 1,334 drownings and 528 firearm related accidental deaths between the ages 0-19 years. While drowning deaths would seem to outnumber firearm accidents by almost 3 to 1, that's not a fair comparison of the relative risks of accidental death. According to the National Spa and Pool Institute, there were approximately 6 million residential pools (where the overwhelming majority of drownings occur) in the United States in 1993. Lawfully owned firearms in private hands in America are estimated at 200 million. With firearms outnumbering pools by a factor of more than 30 to 1, the real risk of accidental death from drowning in a pool is nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm. From ages 0 to 5, the disparity is even more dramatic.

     What Mr. Bourie does not want to mention is that gun control is always about people control, never about crime control or saving lives. In fact, with stringent gun control laws in effect, crime, rape and murders always escalate. Gun control in this country had its beginnings in the south immediately after the Civil War, and the sole purpose was to keep the newly freed slaves disarmed so they could be controlled easily. Gun control had its start in America as a racist law.

     Those who would disarm the law-abiding populace always have but one agenda in mind. A look at history will show what this agenda is. The high murder rate in this country is not a gun problem, but a culture problem. Until we solve that problem, the violence in this country will continue, with or without guns. Guns make it easier for the innocent and law-abiding to defend themselves against the criminal element, a fact which is proven over and over again and that all credible studies support.

     If Mr. Bourie wants to save lives, I suggest he turn his energies toward repairing our broken criminal justice system and let's keep our violent felons behind bars, where they so rightly belong. And the agenda of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence as well as Handgun Control, Inc. and all the other anti-self-defense groups is very simple - disarm every law-abiding citizen in America, notwithstanding their recent claims to the contrary.