To the Editor:
In the Feb. 12 letter from Alex Pomerantz on gun sanctuaries.
I am betting the writer got his “facts” from the numerous antigun groups that distort statistics and lie about gun ownership and the so-called “gun violence epidemic.”
There are more guns now in the U.S. than at any time and gun violence is down, not up. There is no epidemic.
There is absolutely no proof that the “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” (Red Flag laws), magazine capacity limits or background checks on private sales save lives or protect people. In fact, these make it harder for law-abiding gun owners to protect themselves and their families.
The Red Flag laws that are the latest craze for the anti-gun crowd are a severe violation of due process and violate the Second Amendment. Pomerantz wrote, “Extreme Risk Protection Orders are laws that allow household members, law enforcement, and less
Commonly, health care professionals to temporarily remove access to firearms from people who are thought to pose an imminent risk to themselves or others.”
This is a dishonest and manipulative way to describe these unconstitutional laws. As Broward County, Florida shows, liberal cities use these laws to target all gun owners and commonly use doctors and family members to take guns from people they don’t like.
The accused gets a surprise knock on the door, have their guns taken from them without knowing why or who reported them, and do not get to defend themselves for weeks if not months. This is a disgusting abuse of police powers and is unconstitutional.
As proof, a U.S. Veteran in Florida, Jon Carpenter, had his guns and Concealed Carry permit was taken away because he had the same name as a homeless man who was threatening people.
After weeks of fighting this insanity, he was told it would take six to eight weeks to get his guns back. So much for due process.
Where does the state get permission to limit my ability to defend myself by telling me how many bullets I can have in my gun?
Pomerantz tries to justify’ all the gun laws he wants by comparing them to drunk driving laws. This is a straw man argument common to the anti-gun crowd. Gun ownership is in the U.S. Constitution as a right,
driving a car and drinking alcohol are not. What part of “Shall not be infringed” does he not understand?
I have been to many gun shows, and the only people who can buy a gun without a background check are those who want to buy $5,000 collector guns. Criminals are not buying these old firearms.
The “universal background check” push is a stealth means to confiscation of guns because how do we know who owns private firearms that change hands unless we register them all?
Once registered, confiscation becomes easier. For proof see the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and present-day Venezuela.
I live for the day when the antigun politicians and gun phobic citizens of New Jersey have to deal with a Supreme Court ruling allowing us to finally leave our homes protected by a firearm because we have the Constitutional right to “bear arms” to protect ourselves and families. The day can’t come soon enough.
MAT TOENNIESSEN
Wildwood
