An Open Letter to Mr. Cheney
by James Higdon
August 4, 2000
Dear Mr. Cheney:
Your selection of yourself as the Republican Vice Presidential
candidate has raised some serious questions with me and
many others. It's not that I question your view that you were
the best qualified politician for the job -- I do not question
that, for I know you are a skilled and effective Washington
insider. If the call came for you to be President of the United
States, I have no doubt that you would effectively forward
your agenda. But, you see, that's what worries me.
Your "agenda," as I understand it, should be reflected in your
voting record as a legislator. I hold that record in front of me,
and rather than question you about all of it, as the media has
done in a kind of lump sum, I think it might be more
instructive to ask you about a single aspect.
Generally, when asked about that record, you've stated that
those were budget cutting years of deficit spending and a
struggling economy. You've said that if you had the legislation
before you now, you might vote differently on some issues.
However, not all of that legislation had to do with financial
concerns. The most troubling of your votes, one that had
noting to do with economic impact, you have never been
questioned about.
As you are obviously a sensible man, I know that this is a
question you will be eager to answer. Since I can't convince
anyone in the media to ask it, I publish it in an open letter to
you in hope that you will either see it, or someone will carry it
to you.
Why did you cast a "no" vote on legislation to ban plastic
hand guns?
Without an answer to that question, I am left with an endless
stream of questions. With all of those questions unanswered,
I cannot possibly vote for the Republican ticket. I certainly
hope that the vast majority of thinking Americans would feel
as I do.
I understand your support of the Second Amendment right to
own firearms. But surely you know, as I know, that no
constitutional right is absolute. Legislation can be passed to
limit any constitutional guarantee so long as the people can
show a substantial interest in the need for the legislation, there
is clear nexus between the legislation and the issue it
addresses, and if the legislation can be narrowly tailored to
only address the need. The simple and well known examples
are the limiting of free speech to yell "fire" in a crowded
building, or to talk about plane crashes at an airport.
Religious freedom is limited in that drug rituals and animal or
human sacrifices are banned.
You see, plastic hand guns are not very effective weapons.
They were designed with one purpose in mind. Plastic hand
guns were invented to be undetectable by metal detectors
and x-ray machines most commonly found in airports and
federal buildings. So you can see the problem that I'm having
with your vote. Without an answer to the overriding question,
as a sensible politician, I'm sure you can understand how
other questions must necessarily follow.
Do you feel that if plastic hand guns are illegal, only criminals
will be able to smuggle guns into federal buildings and
airplanes? Why would a non-criminal need to smuggle guns
into these places? Would it be to stop potential terrorists? If
so, do we really want cross fire on a commercial 747 at
55,000 ft, or in a crowded federal building? If we want to
allow any citizen clever enough to buy a plastic handgun to be
able to carry them on airplanes and into federal buildings,
why don't we just ban metal detectors? Then, at least we
could carry more effective weapons into these places, having
a much better chance of hitting what we were aiming at, and
constitutional concerns would not apply.
Do we need these guns for protecting ourselves from a
government out of control? Do you perceive an imminent
threat that our government will become dictatorial "jack
booted thugs," and that we will need plastic guns to defend
ourselves from tanks, personnel carriers, and Apache
helicopters? Do you believe that each and every citizen
should be able to match his firepower against the government,
weapon for weapon? Is this possible?
Mr. Cheney, I know you will understand my concerns, and
you will be eager to provide a detailed explanation regarding
your thinking on that one vote. You don't need to answer for
your whole voting record, just this one issue. This is the vote
that I think most questions your judgment. If you can provide
a satisfactory answer to this one question, I'll vote for you.
Hell..., I'll even work for you.
Thank you, Mr. Cheney.