An open letter that never closed

Courtesy of Oleg Volk, A Human Right

Although I lived in Southern California from the late 70's until last year when I moved back to Ohio, I never stopped monitoring events from "home." This is a letter I wrote over 9 years ago, when then-mayor Michael White joined other cities in filing a lawsuit against gun manufacturers.

While their efforts were eventually (somewhat) thwarted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the fundamental municipal hostility against guns remains, and the historical examples cited herein, and the implications of "gun control" as a vehicle for racial discrimination (and its expansion and application to include all Americans) are still relevant today.

No one can credibly argue that peaceable citizens in urban areas do not have a need to defend themselves. All human beings have an unalienable right to protect themselves, their families and their communities against aggression. The right to keep and bear arms is color-blind, and belongs to us all. It is not, and never can be, the sole province of the "only ones," which would be, by definition, a police state enjoying a monopoly of force.

------------

April 12, 1999

Mayor Michael R. White
Cleveland City Hall
601 Lakeside Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44114

Dear Mayor White,

"The industry has failed in its duty to make a safer gun and as a direct result, the city of Cleveland has been forced to spend tremendous amounts of money dealing with the gun industry's failure."

These are your words. I am astounded that someone could forward an opinion that disconnects so totally with present realities as well as the lessons of history. Or at least do so honestly.

Mayor White, no such thing as a "safer gun" exists. True, Colt Manufacturing is working on so-called "smart-gun" technology, but such a device is not only years away from non-experimental production, it also is not intended as, nor can it ever be, a substitute for safe, responsible and lawful gun handling. In their own words:

"Colt is strongly against 'smart gun' mandates and will proactively work against these measures. 'Smart guns' should be a consumer option for addressing safety for a sizeable group of individuals, but should not be a requirement for gun ownership."

But let us not beat around the bush. You know all this. If you truly believed that existing guns were dangerous in and of themselves, you would demand that all members of your armed entourage, and the Cleveland Police force, immediately cease using these "unsafe" products.

We both know that you are not interested in safer guns. You don't even want to eliminate guns from society. You simply want to be on the side that is armed. And blaming an industry for criminal actions performed mainly in the community that provides your political base is a poorly disguised mechanism to consolidate your power, as well as a transparent and greedy ploy to leech funds from the gun industry.

And let the ultimate impact on your constituents' unalienable rights be damned.

I wonder what these constituents would say if they were provided the truth about the racist origins and continued discriminatory application of the gun control measures you promulgate? Have you told them about the Slave Codes, that would allow a black man to be whipped (or worse) for possession of any kind of weapon? Or the post-Civil War Black Codes, designed to keep the newly emancipated from obtaining the means of defense during the heyday of Klan terror?

Why don't you circulate the following Louisiana statute among a few of the churches that you get your precinct walkers from, and see what they have to say?

"No negro who is not in the military service shall be allowed to carry fire-arms, or any kind of weapons, within the parish, without the special written permission of his employers, approved and endorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol."

If that doesn't make an impression, why not try the following offering from Mississippi?

"No freedman, free Negro, or mulatto not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry firearms of any kind..."

Oh, hell, Mayor White, let's cut to the chase and clue them in to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857):

"Protection of the ‘absolute rights of individuals' to personal security, liberty, and private property is secured in part by ‘the right of bearing arms'--which with us is...practically enjoyed by every citizen, and is among his most valuable privileges, since it furnishes the means of resisting as a freeman ought, the inroads of usurpation."

Tell them how racist Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney concluded that blacks, as legal scholar and civil rights attorney Professor Don B. Kates has recorded, "could not be ‘citizens,' because if they were, they would have the right to vote, to assemble, to speak on political subjects, to travel freely, and ‘to keep and carry arms wherever they went.'"

Now tell them how the City of Cleveland has neither the legal obligation nor the capability to protect them, and how your police will not arrive in most life-and-death situations in time to do anything but tape off the crime scene, cover the body and take a report. Then make sure you tell them that you don't credit them with having the judgement or maturity to be entrusted with the means of personal defense, in spite of landmark peer-reviewed studies from Florida State University and the University of Chicago that conclusively demonstrate the crime-deterring, life- saving value of guns in private, law-abiding hands.

I suspect you won't tell them any of this. And, because of the unique privileges and stature that you enjoy in your position, this is especially contemptible.

To have risen to such a prestigious and powerful position speaks of many positive and remarkable characteristics that you must be blessed with, including intelligence, determination and leadership. But a true leader would use his authority to preserve, protect and champion the freedoms of those he serves. How sad, how telling, and how ultimately treasonous that you have chosen to misapply yours for your own gain.

And rather than being a leader in liberty, you have opted to become just another one of the plantation's overseers.

Sincerely,

David Codrea

------------

Unsurprisingly, I never got a response.

Germane to this discussion is an "inclusion statement" that I drafted for the now-defunct GunTruths.com, a pioneering RKBA website developed by myself and a close group of colleagues and friends:

GunTruths supports the right of all peaceable people to keep and bear arms.

Your age, race, sex, religion, political party, sexual orientation, or national origin are of no concern to us. Anyone who requires you to disarm is not your friend, and not our friend.

Only when all peaceable citizens can freely exercise their inalienable right to self defense, and their right to keep and bear arms, will we attain the ultimate safeguard for our mutual protection, as individuals, as members of a community, and as citizens of the Republic.