If you own your own business or are a manager at the company where you work, you may think you’re the boss and that the people who work for you are required to follow your instructions.  If that’s what you believe, you may need a reality check.

Since the 1960s, the rights of employers have been steadily eroded, to the point that today the question is, or should be, who has more rights, employers or employees?

Forty or fifty years ago, there was no question of who controlled the employer-employee relationship.  It was the boss, who could pretty much hire and fire at will and had the right to expect the people who worked for the company to do pretty much what they were asked to do.  Not so any longer.

Hiring New Employees

One aspect of the relationship that has undergone major change is the hiring process.  What employers are allowed to ask when they are interviewing prospective employees has become increasingly limited.  A recent article in the California CPA magazine (Interviewing 101, September 2007) offers the following caution: “Employment-related issues have been a legal minefield for employers.  Asking the wrong questions during the interview process – or in pre-interview applications – can spell disaster for a company or firm in the form of discrimination lawsuits.”

Wow!  Who would’ve thunk we could be sued for asking the “wrong” questions when we’re interviewing people for a position with our company?  If you think that’s not the case, think again.  The list of questions that comprise the labyrinth of legal issues that must be negotiated today when we are interviewing prospective employees for a job opening seems almost endless.

Don’t Ask

We are admonished not to ask for the following information or documentation:

• Whether someone’s original name has been changed or their maiden name.
• Place of birth, or that of the applicant’s spouse or parents.
• Age.
• Birth certificate or baptismal record.
• Religious affiliation or race.
• Photographs (prior to employment).
• Age or date of birth.  Questions that relate to federal or state minimal age requirements are OK, such as “Are you over the age of 18.”
• Specific years of attendance or graduation from high school or elementary school.
• Whether an applicant is or plans to become an American citizen.
• Questions about applicant’s lineage, ancestry, national origin, parentage, nationality of language that is commonly used.
• Workers comp history.
• Applicant’s mother tongue, names of or information about relatives.
• Military experience, other than U.S. Armed Forces, National Guard or Reserve duty.
• Clubs, societies, lodges or other organizations to which the applicant belongs which might indicate race, religion, etc.
• Marital status or dependents.
• Address of a “relative” to be notified in case of emergency.  You can ask for an address of a “person” to be notified.
• Existence or severity of a physical or mental condition or disability that is likely to elicit information about disability or workers’ comp history.

In addition to not being able to ask for the foregoing information, a physical exam can only be required after the job offer has been extended and before the applicant starts work.

• Pre-employment drug tests are allowed, but they must be administered according to specific federal and state rules.
• Psychological testing is not allowed unless the questions are related to the job and the employer must have a compelling interest in giving such tests.
• Skills tests are only allowed if they comply with EEOC/California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Guidelines (to help avoid “adverse impact” claims.)
• Polygraph tests are generally prohibited.

Be Wary of Lawsuits

It has reached the point where employers often find it necessary to consult their attorney or a Human Relations professional before taking almost any action on employee related matters. 

Not only is it necessary for employers to be wary of lawsuits when they are interviewing prospective employees, but they should also tread carefully with people who are already working for them, particularly when problems arise and it becomes necessary to discipline or terminate someone. 

Extreme caution must be exercised in almost any employee-related matter lest we run afoul of the law and draw a discrimination lawsuit of one sort or another.  And, the amount of time, effort and energy that’s expended (read wasted) for that purpose often diverts management’s attention from conducting the business of the firm, at considerable loss of time and money.

One employer with whom I’m familiar felt it was necessary to give two weeks’ pay to someone who was terminated, but required the employee to leave the premises that day, because they were concerned about the person’s potential for causing trouble.

Some years ago, when I was running a firm with about 110 employees, we terminated an employee because her position had been eliminated in the course of reorganization.  She sued for unlawful termination, and although we attempted to settle the case on several occasions, her attorney insisted on pursuing the claim, seeking extremely high damages.  In spite of losing at trial, he persisted through two levels of appeal.  The entire process cost us $50,000 in legal fees over and above the amount that was covered by our insurance carrier.  In all, the matter cost our side something in the neighborhood of $150,000, and the employee received nothing.   It was a complete waste of everyone’s time and resources, a circumstance that’s not unusual in this day of so-called enlightened personnel management.  The unfortunate employee, who I believe had been encouraged by an overly ambitious but not very competent attorney, was forced to endure a process that took many months to resolve, and in the end she got nothing.

Who IS The Boss?

So, the question remains, “Who’s the boss?” - The owner or manager of a business or the employees?  My sense is that the pendulum has swung too far to the side of the employees, which causes management to jump through too many unnecessary and costly hoops simply to document a record in order to avoid litigation when it becomes necessary to discipline or terminate an employee. 

The situation with the Santa Barbara News Press comes to mind, where it appears that many of the paper’s employees (or former employees) seem to think they have the right to tell the owner how she can run her own business.  So far, the case has been in trial and the appeals process for months.  One can only guess at the enormous expense that’s being incurred by the firm to defend its right to manage its own business.

© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

• When the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution established the federal income tax in 1913, the intent was to tax only the very rich.  Rates began at 1% and increased to 7% for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000.  Less than 1% of the population paid any income tax at all, compared with almost 50% of taxpayers paying as much as 35% of their taxable income today.
• The top 5% of wage earners pay over 50% of total individual income taxes, while the top 10% pay almost 66%, and the top 50% pay approximately 97%.  Translation: Just half of all taxpayers pay almost 100% (96.54%) of all income taxes, while almost 50% pay no income taxes at all.
• The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has approximately 115,000 employees (FTEs or full-time equivalents), and a total budget of $11.6 billion.
• Estimates of unreported commercial activity in the U.S. amount to as much as one trillion dollars a year, and the IRS Oversight Board report for fiscal 2007 notes that the tax gap, “the difference between what is owed and what is collected…is estimated at $345 billion of lost revenue annually.”  Question: If it’s an underground economy, how does the IRS know how much income is not reported?
• The Cato Institute reported that businesses and individuals now waste over 6.4 billion hours on federal tax compliance activities each year, which the Tax Foundation estimated amounted to $265.1 billion in 2005.  That’s equivalent to over three million people working full time, just to deal with tax compliance.  This amounted to a 22% tax compliance surcharge on the total amount collected through the tax system.
• In the 1920s the federal tax code was comprised of about 40 pages of rules. Today, according to the Virginia Chapter of NRSTA (Interesting Tax Facts), the tax code, regulations and IRS rulings now require over 66,000 pages to document. Between 1986 and 1996, there were over 5,000 changes in the tax code. In 1996 alone over 700 pages of tax law changes and regulations were adopted by the IRS.
• When the General Electric Co. filed the corporation’s tax return electronically, it took 24,000 pages to document.  The Associated Press (June 1, 2006) noted, “If GE had sent paper forms, the return would have staked up eight feet high...”
• In 1993, the General Accounting Office (GAO) audited the IRS for the first time in its history and found widespread evidence of financial malfeasance and gross negligence, including the fact that the agency was not able to account for 64% of its congressional appropriation.
• The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) “was created in 1969 to target 21 – yes, 21 – millionaires who had managed to avoid paying any taxes at all.” (Wall Street Journal, April 14, 2007).  “This year more than three million taxpayers will be hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax on the(ir) 2006 income.  But next year (2007) that number could rise to 23 million…”
• The federal income tax, currently as high as 35% of taxable income, is increased by as much as 11% in state and local income taxes, plus another 6.20% and 1.45% in social security and Medicare taxes, which makes the total tax burden for some taxpayers almost 54%, not including excise, sales and property taxes, along with a host of other taxes, assessments and fees to numerous to mention.  Medieval serfs were required to give only one-third of their production to the lord of the manor, and they were considered slaves.
• Households in the lowest 20% of income received about $8.21 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid (in 2004), while those in the top 20% received only 41 cents in benefits. (Tax Foundation Working Paper No. 1, March 2007).
• Our tax laws have become so complex and contradictory that no one, not even the most brilliant tax professionals, including IRS experts, fully understand them.

It’s worth noting, I think, that when I started practicing public accounting in the early 1960s, the filing deadline was March 15, not April 15, and only one 90-day extension was permitted.  Today, the first filing date is April 15, and it is possible to obtain a six-month extension - to October 15 - all because of the increased difficulty of obtaining the necessary information and the complexity of preparing and filing tax returns.

Many societies view taxation as a contest between tax collectors and citizens, with payment or avoiding payment of taxes as the prize.  But we are different we are told, because Americans voluntarily, that is, willingly, file tax returns and pay their taxes.

Baloney! If that’s true, why do we hear so much about taxes not being paid by people who work or do business in the “underground economy”?  Would you file a tax return if you were not afraid of the consequences of not filing?

Putting aside the government’s hype and PR initiatives, the reason our income tax system is so successful is FEAR.  Fear of being audited, fear of being assessed, fear of tactics employed to collect unpaid taxes, fear of intrusion into our personal affairs, fear of not being able to defend ourselves against the unlimited power of government in general and the IRS in particular.

I believe the IRS has carefully cultivated this image over a period of many years.  Who can say that they don’t have a sudden, albeit perhaps brief, fearful reaction when they find a letter or notice from the IRS in their mail?  I know I do, and I’m a retired CPA.  I don’t want to hear from them, ever!  When I do get some sort of communication from my friendly tax agency (federal or state), I just know it’s going to cost me time, money and aggravation.  Perhaps you’ve noticed over the years that around tax time it’s common to see a spate of media stories about prosecutions for tax fraud.  In my opinion, that’s no accident.

One of Ronald Reagan’s many sage observations, “The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination,” seems to sum up the situation rather neatly.  For my part, I believe Americans are over-taxed and under served by their government, while our politicians are constantly looking for ways to impose new taxes under the radar of public scrutiny and awareness.  Will it ever end?  Probably not, until we have taxed ourselves into near or complete oblivion.

© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

NOTE: Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at “opinionfest.com.”

 It seems as though the entire world hates America.  And there are those, of course, who would like to destroy us, ranging from Islamofascist religious fanatics to socialist and communist believers, to the Americans who hate America crowd, all blaming us for the ills of the world.  To what end?  Their reasons may vary, but it is certainly not to better the lot of mankind, unless of course you are among those who happen to believe the world would be better off without us and with them in charge.  But, who would really be better off if we didn’t exist? 

Without doubt, if America did not exist, the world would be a very different place.  I just don’t know if those who hate America so much and would like to destroy us have thought much beyond the ends of their noses.

In a sort of reprise of the famous Jimmy Stewart movie, “It’s A Wonderful Life,” in which George Bailey is given the opportunity to see what the world would be like if he had not been born, a brief look at what the world might look like without America may be instructive:

Without America, there would be no United Nations.  The U.S. was instrumental in forming the UN and currently finances around 22% of its budget.  So, without our financial support, the UN and its many subsidiary organizations would be a far smaller institution, if it could exist at all.  Some people would undoubtedly say that would be a good thing.

Without America, France, England and the rest of Europe would be part of Germany today, or under German control, enslaved and cruelly oppressed.  Or, without America, Europe, and much of the rest of the world might be living under the repressive thumb of Communism.  

Without America, the Japanese would rule Asia and democracy would not have been established in Japan, which was historically ruled by its emperor and the military.

Without America, twenty-five million people would still be living under the cruelly repressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and another twenty-five million Iraqis would continue to exist under the vicious dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

Without America, scientific advances and inventions, ranging from the Cotton Gin to the computer and the Internet would not have happened.  A very short list includes the following (in no particular order): Tractors, nylon, the light bulb, the steamboat, vulcanized rubber, the desktop computer, the supercomputer (Cray), the cash register, Coca-Cola, Polio vaccine, helicopters, the scientific method of manufacturing assembly, open heart surgery, the electron microscope, radio, the steam generator, purified insulin, the transistor, the pH meter, magnetic recording, the telephone, Bessemer process, respirator/ventilator, frozen foods, LASIK eye surgery, vaccine for Hepatitis B, genetic engineering, the calculator, catalytic cracking, instant copying (Xerox), synthetic rubber, superglue, Velcro, plows, internal-combustion engine, the screw propeller, HIV isolation and diagnosis, global positioning system, solid fuel rockets, and on and on, ad infinitum. 

I leave it to you to evaluate the impacts of the many thousands of technological, scientific and medical advances made by Americans. Without them, the world would be a very different place indeed: Untold numbers of people would have died or been crippled by disease, afflictions like polio and smallpox would be rampant throughout the world, technologic advances like computers and the Internet probably would not exist.  Just think how these inventions alone have changed the world in a few short years.  The list of America’s achievements in its brief history that have improved mankind’s lot from almost any perspective is literally endless.

Without America, the people in many of the nations that have benefited from our foreign aid would be living in far worse circumstances.  We haven’t solved all the problems, to be sure, and according to some critics, we don’t give nearly enough, but we have and continue trying to help alleviate many of the worst problems in various parts of the world.

Without America, the education of tens of thousands of foreign students who have come to America to study engineering, the sciences and medicine would not have happened.  We are responsible for having produced more highly trained foreign students than any other nation in the world.  And, where would the world be without them?

Without America, the economies of most nations around the world would be much poorer. In 2005, the U.S. trade imbalance with China alone amounted to $202 billion.  Where would the Chinese, who are beginning to challenge us for having the world’s biggest economy, sell their goods and services, or the Japanese sell their cars, were it not for our markets?  And India, which has another of the world’s rapidly expanding economies, where would they be able to sell their goods and services without the American market being available to them?  The list of trading partners who rely on our markets to sustain their own economies is very long.  Two notable examples in our own hemisphere, of course, are Mexico and Canada, notwithstanding our current grievances with both of these nations.

There are many other American accomplishments that have dramatically changed the world, including the example of a society based on diversity and tolerance for others, the rule of law, as exemplified by the peaceful transfer of government following elections, among others.

We may be many of the things people around the world accuse us of being: arrogant, ill-mannered, spoiled, self-centered, too rich for our own good, but we are also the most generous and selfless nation on earth and the world would be a much worse place without us.  Those who hate us so much might just want to give their distain of us more thought and decide if they really don’t want us around.  My question is, what would they do without us?

Remember the admonition, “Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.”

©  2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

Where do our rights stop?  A popular saying holds that they stop at the end of the next person’s nose. But, judging from the never ending stream of demands that assault us every day, it appears that everything on our personal and collective wish lists have now become rights, without limit. 

Do we have a right to say and do anything we want, to unlimited health care, prescription drugs, subsidized housing, to “do drugs,” to prevent others from using drugs, to have health care plans pay for a sex change operation or prescriptions for Viagra, to a free college education, to receive “equal pay” for “equal work” (however that may be defined), to send your children to the school of your choice, to smoke or prevent others from smoking, to force our opinions or beliefs on others (as in Christian, Muslim, atheist, hedonist, or environmentalist)?

If our rights stop at the end of the next person’s nose, does that include their pocketbook?  Stealing may be illegal and immoral, but whether or not it is acceptable seems to depend on who does it and why, and sometimes how.  For example, is it acceptable for someone to steal food to feed their family but unacceptable if they steal money to keep from losing their home in foreclosure?

Taking money from others by force or at gunpoint or by embezzling it from an employer is a crime, but how many people condone appropriating someone else’s dollars through taxation?  Probably everyone, to some degree.  But, isn’t that the problem?  That is, the degree?  Too often, in matters of taxation, right and wrong depend on who has the power to tax or whose ox is being gored.

When did we move from the freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution to freedom of speech only if it is politically correct according to some particular group, as in African- Americans, Hispanics, women, gays, liberals, conservatives, Christians, Muslims, Jews…..you name it?  Our treasured freedom of speech seems to be acceptable only so long as it conforms to some special interest group’s definition of expression they consider “correct.”

There always seem to be good and sufficient reasons to impose our individual or collective will on others.  Both sides of the political spectrum find plenty of justification for pressing their values on everyone else.  Abortion is about a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body or it is murder, depending on one’s personal beliefs.  Those on the left say that the Boy Scouts are wrong to prevent gays from being scout leaders, notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution guarantees their right to make such a determination.  But, that hasn’t stopped the ACLU and others who oppose the Boy Scouts’ policies from attempting to force communities around the nation to punish them in various ways, such as pressuring donors, including local governments, to stop giving them money or to cancel long standing privileges to use certain community facilities, such as parks or school grounds.

Schools have always been able to define the types of organizations that are permitted to hold meetings in their facilities or on their grounds or, for that matter, to even organize.  But now, under the guise of keeping church and state separated, they go to such extremes as permitting clubs to organize celebrations like Kwanzaa or Witchcraft rituals while preventing Christian students from holding club meetings on school grounds.

Or, how about the right of students to swear at others, including teachers, on school grounds?  In some places vile language is considered acceptable, while prayer is not. 

Do people have the right to demand that they be compensated for some perceived injustice, such as reparations for slavery?  After failing to gain any traction with Congress, those who hold this view have been attempting to pursue claims against certain American corporations that were in business and profited from slavery at the time their ancestors were enslaved.  They may have the right to try, but should they?  Apparently, stopping at the other person’s nose does not include corporate pockets.

Generally, we have the right to decide what and how much we eat, but there are some people who feel we should not be permitted to eat meat or a diet that’s high in carbohydrates or fat.  Should they be allowed to determine what a proper diet should be for everyone else?  Is obesity a disease or just lack of control?  I suppose it can be either or, depending on the circumstances, but who’s to say?  So, for some people it appears that it’s just too bad if my “nose,” as in my dietary choices, happens to get in the way of someone else’s notion of what’s good for me.

Rights can be measured on a continuum, ranging from not having any rights to absolute, unrestricted and uncontrolled rights to do or say anything, that is, anything to anyone, anytime, anywhere.  But, unlimited rights eventually reach the point where they become license.  By license, I mean the unrestricted freedom to say or do anything we please, regardless of whose “nose’ gets in the way.  Is that what we want?  In the final analysis, rights are really more about self-control than they are about laws or regulation or the constitution.  You may have, or think you have, the right to say or do whatever you please, but that doesn’t always mean you should, law or no law.

© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

NOTE: Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at “opinionfest.com.”

California’s Senate Bill 777 mandates, “Kids are going to be taught that they have the right to completely ignore their physical anatomy and choose the status of being ‘male’ or ‘female.’”  (NC Times Commentary, Just The Facts, by Robert Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, nonprofit religious liberty and pro-family law firm, December 29, 2007).

As Robert Tyler notes, “Ignore your common sense, ignore your chromosomes and ignore your anatomy. This is what your politicians want to teach your kids in school. After all, California's kids have mastered reading, writing and arithmetic, haven't they?”  To illustrate the potential consequences of the law, Mr. Tyler posed the question, “What will prevent the 250-pound linebacker from deciding he wants to share to share the locker room with the cheerleaders?”  

For those who may scoff at this example of the law’s potential impact, “The Los Angeles Unified School District has already adopted policies allowing boys to use girl’s restrooms and locker rooms – and vice versa.” The District’s Reference Guide “even tells teachers they need to refer to students using the student’s preferred pronoun.  And of course, it prohibits the teachers from disclosing a student’s chosen gender to the student’s parents.” (The Jawa Report, California Schoolchildren to Decide Their Own Sex, December 31, 2007).

And, the “Los Angeles Unified School District has already implemented a policy that states a boy perceiving himself to be a girl may use the girls’ restroom and locker room.  He may also participate in girls’ sports and other female-only activities.” (Testimony by legislative liaison Meredith Turney of Capitol Resource Institute, Newsmax.com, January 11, 2008).

How crazy is this?  Children can now declare which sex they are without telling their parents.   How, I wonder, does that work at home, or how does a teacher consult with parents whose child has declared they are a different sex without the parents’ knowledge?

SB 777 was passed by the California legislature and signed into law by the governor late last year. It eliminated Education Code 212, which defined "sex" as "the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being."   This new law redefines the term "gender" for all schoolchildren by adding Education Code 210.7, which reads: "'Gender' means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth…In short, this redefinition of gender states that you are what you choose to be regardless of your anatomical make-up. (Emphasis added)…. SB 777 also uses this redefinition of gender to forbid educators from discriminating against any individual employee, student or other person based upon that individual's unspoken claim of being male or female, regardless of his or her actual sex.”

Advocates of this legislation argue that “it’s needed to protect gays and others with non-heterosexual orientations from being harassed in schools.  Opponents say it will force teachers and school officials to silence anyone who is morally opposed to homosexuality and allow anyone to claim privileges based on self-defined sexual orientation.” (Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee, December 3, 2007).

My sense is that this will stifle all free expression about sexuality in the schools, that it’s another step along the path of Political Correctness to mass confusion and resentment.  And, no doubt it will add to the income of the trial lawyers, who will game the system with litigation to create and/or protect clients’ rights, real or imagined. 

In October 2007, state Senator McClintock wrote, “After all, if courts begin ruling that exclusion is indeed a form of discriminatory bias – which is clearly the intent of this bill – there are no groups more excluded or less tolerated in the public schools today than evangelical Christians, orthodox Jews and traditional Catholics.”

The oft quoted observation, “the asylum is being run by the inmates,” seems to describe California’s political system perfectly. If this didn’t have such serious potential consequences, it would be downright laughable. 

© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

NOTE: Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at “opinionfest.com.”

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.” (Hubert H. Humphrey, Jr., 1911-1978, two-term Democratic Senator from Minnesota and 38th Vice President of the United States)

The Right of the People To Keep and Bear Arms

The dispute between those who favor gun controls and those who don’t is predicated on their respective interpretations of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and specifically on the term, “a well regulated militia.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argues, “We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.” (Source: ACLU website), while the other side believes that the use of the word “militia” refers to the citizens of the U.S. in general.

They both attempt to bolster their respective positions with statistics about the effects of gun control laws on crime. Advocates of “gun control” believe that removing all guns from individual citizens will prevent crime. But, the evidence doesn’t support this.

Gun Control In Great Britain

A nationwide survey of British police officers in 2003 revealed that 20% wanted to be armed. Even the police, or at least most of them, are not permitted to carry firearms, and only about 6,000 of an estimated 142,000 in the country were armed.

In Britain’s Gun-Control Folly, Scott McPherson commented, “Those opposed to arming more officers present a strange counterargument. As the Post put it, ‘Opponents suggest it would just lead to more gun crime.’” How’s that? ˜Petty criminals might arm themselves in response.” This view is particularly ridiculous when we consider that the UK’s leftist government banned virtually all private firearms ownership and all handgun ownership in 1997 amidst great fanfare about ˜making Britain safer.” Since then, crime has skyrocketed. So guns were outlawed to fight crime, and now not even police should have guns lest the increasingly emboldened criminal element get upset about it. That’s some twisted logic.”

According to historian Joyce Lee Malcolm (Gun Control in England: The Tarnished Gold Standard, Journal on Firearms & Public Policy, 2004): “[Between 1997 and 2003] crimes with [banned firearms] have more than doubled.” Clearly since the ban criminals have not found it difficult to get guns and the balance has not shifted in the interest of public safety…In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century.”

“Gun Control” Defined

If you think about it, the term “gun control” is really code for abolishing all guns. Since there are already more than 20,000 gun control laws on the books at the federal, state and local levels, if controlling the ownership, sale and use of guns by the general population is really the objective, simply enforcing the existing laws should accomplish that.

The primary difference between the two opposing groups is rooted in their respective perceptions of human nature. Those who want to “control” guns (read abolish) tend to believe that this will keep them out of the hands of criminals, thus preventing or significantly reducing crime. It’s a naive and utopian view of human nature.

“Gun Free Zones”

A prime example of the consequences of such thinking is the Virginia Tech tragedy that occurred in April 2007, in which over 30 people were killed on the school’s campus. The fact that Virginia Tech’s 2,600 acre campus was a “gun free zone” merely made it easier for the killer to attack people without fear of resistance or reprisal.

Another more recent case of a “gun free zone” failing to keep anyone safe on a college campus took place at Northern Illinois University in February 2008, where a lone shooter was responsible for the deaths of seven people, including his own.

Chicago’s Gun Control Law

In a January 2004 article, Susan Jones, the CNSNews.com Morning Editor, reported that “Chicago finished off the year with more murders than New York or Los Angeles,” and that Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb, said it was ˜remarkable that Chicago, New York and Los Angeles have some of the nation’s strictest gun laws, but even so, they still lead the nation when it comes to the number of homicides.” He compared the situation in Chicago to that in Detroit, where the once-high murder rate has dropped to its lowest level in years. “Two years ago,” Gottlieb noted, “Michigan reformed its concealed carry law, and today, thousands of law-abiding citizens in Michigan are legally armed.” Gosh, do you suppose there is any correlation?

Gun Control in Australia

Gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender over 640,000 personal firearms, which were destroyed by their own government, at a cost of more than $500 million dollars.

After one year, Australia-wide, homicides were up 3.2 percent, assaults were up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, and armed robberies were up 44 percent. (Note: while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY.

“Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in “successfully ridding Australian society of guns.” (Source: CNSNews.com)

Washington, D.C.

“D. C. Mayor Adrian Fenty does not see guns the way our Founders did. In his view, they are not tools for defending individual liberty, they are instruments of criminality….Fenty announced that the District would appeal to the Supreme Court a March decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that ruled that a District gun law was unconstitutional. The law in question flatly bans possession of a handgun ”even in one’s own home, unless the gun was registered before 1976.” the D. C. handgun suit pits individual law-abiding D. C. residents against a Constitution-flouting D. C. government. These individuals claim the government is violating their Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms….” (Source: Terence Jeffrey, The Patriot Post, Vol. 07 No. 32, 08/06/07)

The Ban on Assault Weapons

One of the central issues in the gun control debate is the ban on assault weapons enacted by Congress in 1994, which applied to 19 specific models of semi-automatic firearms. The ban expired in 2004 and has not been renewed. For my part, although I favor the right to own a gun, I have a hard time accepting the idea that ownership of firearms should not be restricted in any way. For example, allowing individual citizens to own a weapon that has a grenade launcher or using armor piercing bullets makes little sense to me. However, it’s also important to note that since 1934 Americans have been required to obtain permission from the U.S. Treasury to legally own a fully-automatic weapon. So, if people are not talking about such firearms when they advocate gun control, what are they talking about? Abolishing all guns, that’s what, which I believe is unconstitutional.

© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

The very idea that some people are free to publicly make even the most dishonest, vicious and hurtful statements about others in any venue, including the schools, by claiming the protection of the First Amendment, while at the same time attempting to deprive the majority of their right to speak openly about their own beliefs in the same venues, is not only illogical, but is the height of hypocrisy.  It’s no wonder we are so confused.