Anti-Gun editorial in N.W. Indiana Newspaper - LEAVE COMMENTS!

[melensdad]

You have to see this. This guy clearly doesn't have a clue.

Please read the editorial and leave comments!!!! We need a revolt here!!! This guy wants to set up police roadblocks to search our cars for guns.

Set up barriers to get more guns off our streets / nwi.com

Set up barriers to get more guns off our streets
Story
Discussion
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size
By Dennis Rittenmeyer | Sunday, June 22, 2008 | No comments posted.

Numerous people have told me it can't be done, but I don't believe it. Our worsening problem of gun violence requires creative and extraordinary action, and I believe we can do it if we have the will.

Yes, I am talking about guns -- guns in our streets, guns that kill our children, guns that frighten our citizens, guns that endanger the lives of our law enforcement professionals, guns that destroy our quality of life, guns that are illegal to possess without the required permits.

The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a gun ban law in Washington, D.C. It is alleged this law is unconstitutional. You know the argument: it is our constitutional right to bear arms! Chicago has a similar law and, therefore, the outcome of the D.C. case might have implications for Chicago as well.

Regardless of the outcome of this case, the possession of a gun without the required permit or license is still illegal. Depending on the outcome of the D.C. case, having the gun with a permit might no longer be illegal, but not having the permit or license will remain illegal. It is illegal today in every state where a license or permit is required.

I am not suggesting we take away legally owned and registered firearms. But, as a practical matter, many of the weapons used in crimes are illegal firearms held by individuals without the proper permit. In large measure that is because they are ineligible for such permits -- such as convicted felons, for example

If you have traveled to California recently, you know there are roadblocks set up to apprehend undocumented aliens who have come across our border illegally.

Immigrants can legally cross our borders, but not without the proper papers.

Additionally, if you enter California by car, you will be stopped by state law enforcement officers searching for fruit and vegetables. In case you have not done it, you might not know that you cannot go into that state bringing perfectly legal fruit and vegetables because it is against state law to bring fruit and vegetables into California from another state. California decided years ago that it wanted to protect its agricultural economy from pests and diseases brought into the state from outside its boundaries.

Here in Northwest Indiana, we use roadblocks to check for seat belt violations and to check for drunk drivers. You can drive a car, and you can drink alcohol. You cannot, however, drive drunk or without fastening your seat belt. It is against the law!

If we can create roadblocks for illegal immigrants, seat-belt violators, people who drive while under the influence of alcohol, and for bringing fruits and vegetables into another state, we most certainly can search for illegal weapons.

I want to emphasize this point. We don't necessarily need new laws; we need to proactively enforce the ones we have.

It is time to look for solutions to the problem of gun violence and not simply say, "There is nothing we can do about the guns."

Dennis Rittenmeyer is president of Calumet College of St. Joseph. The opinion expressed in this column is the writer's and not necessarily that of The Times.

[NateIU10]

I left this comment, it's pending approval:

Mr. Rittenmeyer,
You seem adamant about the fact that you do not want to infringe upon people's 2nd Amendment rights, but the fact you are suggesting random searches directly infringes on a person's 4th amendment rights. Drunk driving and seatbelt checkpoints are used so officers can observe something physically to give him probable cause for further search or to detain the vehicle occupants. It is 100% unconstitutional and unreasonable to pull random people over and physically search them without any probable cause.

[ashylarry]

Originally Posted by NateIU10

I left this comment, it's pending approval:

Great comment. Im sure he had to look up the 4th amendment

[NateIU10]

Originally Posted by ashylarry

Great comment. Im sure he had to look up the 4th amendment

For being the "president of Calumet College of St. Joseph" he sure sounds pretty dumb

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by NateIU10

I left this comment, it's pending approval:

Good job! Here's mine, also pending approval.

Wow! So many false & disingenuous statements here! Possession of a firearm in IN requires no governmental "permission slip". I can purchase one from any IN resident completely in compliance with any/all state/federal laws-no permit, background check, or registration. He/she can lawfully sell it to me unless he/she has reason to believe I am a felon, a person with alcohol/drug problems, or mentally ill. Law-abiding citizens submit fingerprints & allow their backgrounds to be checked at local, state, & federal levels if they wish to lawfully carry guns off of their own property, with very narrowly defined exceptions. No law seems to stop criminals from carrying wherever they wish. Even in places that do require registration of guns, the Supreme Court has held that criminals may not be forced to register their guns, as this would violate their 5th Amendment rights! If we're going to start searching cars, let's start doing so for criminals who break the law, not for legal objects that alone, hurt no one and 2.5M times a year,are used to prevent crimes againt the law-abiding. I guess finding and stopping criminals is harder than trying to infringe on the rights of those who obey laws, huh?

Blessings,
B

ETA: Thanks for posting this, melensdad!

[sanzo87]

too long is what it said only 200 word cound aloud


but if you wanna read it here



For one in CA it is not like you always get stopped. I used to go from AZ to CA all the time. And, only once hit one of the check points they are not road blocks but check points that are always there. They also Don’t and can not search your car unless they have probable cause look up the 4th amendment but they do ask if you do hit the check point if you have fruit or not. So making road blocks to check for guns would be against the 4th amendment (if you had them look through the cars) so it would be useless because if you followed the law all they could do is ask. As well as, you are incorrect in saying that you have to have "paper work" to own a firearm you do not. But you must have a permit in “most” states to carry firearms on your person {but some like NM you do not have to have a permit or any thing to carry a firearm on your person if it is openly visible or in a car visible or not} (or in some states in a car loaded) but you can in every state as long as you are just passing through have it unloaded in the car as long as you fallow with in the transport laws (in other words unloaded and not readily accessible by the driver or passengers). Any one that has not been convicted of a felony or have any other reason that they can not own a firearm you can no permit registration or other paper work is needed. As long as, you pass the background check(if buying from a FFL and from a person no background check is done or even necessary) a person is not to sell to another person if they are a felon, a person with alcohol/drug problems, mentally ill or a cupple of other things. So you seem to be lacking in your info before you wrote your article here and are very uninformed in my personal opinion. Also, get it right guns are not the problem but the people who will use any weapon to do misconduct rather it be a gun or any other object used as a weapon. And, more often than not is not a firearm that’s uses at all but another object that is used. And I for one would like to see the media stop trying to vilify guns and many other things that are “wrong and out dated ideals”. So how about you all get a clue and stop infringing on our rights. (oh and another little fact for you even in places that guns are illegal nation wide like England the criminals still can find a way to get guns or other weapons)

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by sanzo87

too long is what it said only 200 word cound aloud

It didn't want to take mine either, until I edited it down. Hell, I could have written two or three more, but they would have cut one in the middle and the rest would not have made sense without it, so I kept it to one post.

Blessings,
B

[melensdad]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

It didn't want to take mine either, until I edited it down.

Well you didn't expect them to be FAIR and provide you with EQUAL space for a reasoned rebuttal did you Nope, they take all the space they need to trash our rights, but we only a get a long paragraph to refute the lies and errors. That is why it is so important for multiple people to respond. The more who respond with thoughtful replies the more likely it is that each of his allegations or ideas will be rebuked with factual information.

[Annie]

Originally Posted by melensdad

Well you didn't expect them to be FAIR and provide you with EQUAL space for a reasoned rebuttal did you

HA!!
Rep'd!!

[Bill of Rights]

I would've rep'd you too, but the bloody thing won't let me.

Feh.

Blessings,
B

ETA: Though I do wonder, if one of us posted a good rebuttal, how long it would take for anti replies to post...