California: Assemblyman Brian Jones on the Second Amendment

Recently California Assemblyman Brian Jones submitted a column to the Romona Sentinel. Please take a moment to read it below about his stance on the Second Amendment.

California Assemblyman Brian Jones
California Assemblyman Brian Jones

Charlotte, NC –-( Second Amendment Views by Assemblyman Brian Jones

Dear Ramona Sentinel Readers:

In recent weeks several constituents have contacted my office informing me they are offended about comments I’ve made regarding the Second Amendment.  This is an open letter to all of my constituents to share the background of my views on the Second Amendment.

Please know that my position on the topic of the Second Amendment and gun ownership have not been made in haste.  I have done some significant study and research in the past few years — most notably since my election to the Legislature.  I now have a more distinct perspective, and question why the Second Amendment is offensive to so many, when our other constitutional rights are not?

Few argue with anyone’s right to free speech, freedom of religion, or our right to due process. Nor is there much argument about our right to a jury trial, or the abolition of slavery.  Why then, does the Second Amendment cause such heartburn for some?

I believe it is largely due to revisionist history of the intent of our Founders — each of whom were thoughtful and intelligent men (much more than I).   They had a keen understanding for the very basic need to protect self, family and home.  What’s more, they knew full well what comes with a tyrannical government.  Their words make it abundantly clear they believed the individual right to own firearms was very important:

  • Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.”
  • Patrick Henry said, “The great object is, that every man be armed.”
  • Richard Henry Lee wrote that, “to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.”
  • Thomas Paine noted, “[A]rms … discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.”
  • Samuel Adams warned that: “The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

The Constitution repeatedly refers to the “rights” of the people and to the “powers” of government.  The Supreme Court has recognized that the phrase “the people,” which is used in numerous parts of the Constitution, including the Preamble, the Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth amendments, refers to people as individuals.  In each case, rights belonging to “the people” are without question the rights of individuals.

Since my election to the Assembly, I have seen firsthand how grossly the issue of gun ownership is being politically manipulated.  There is little room for reason and virtually no room for the facts in the debate.

I find it noteworthy that the number of privately owned guns in the U.S. has reached an all-time high of over 300 million, and is actually increasing by approximately 10 million per year. I am not surprised that, given this data, the firearm accident death rate has fallen to an all-time low, 0.2 per 100,000 population, down 94 percent since the high in 1904.  Actually, in the past 80-plus years, the annual number of firearm accident deaths has decreased 81 percent, while our nation’s population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has grown by five times.

Many facts could actually lend some reason to the debate. For example, the National Safety Council reports that firearms are used for personal defense 2.5 million times a year — which equates to a whopping 6,850 times a day.  This means that each year, firearms are used 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives, and as many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

Protection of our life and liberty is a multi-pronged effort, and I take great care to work closely with members of law enforcement.  Those who stand between the law-abiding and the lawless have a difficult task, and my call for individuals to become informed on the topic of personal firearm ownership comes from the understanding that we can’t rely on law enforcement to be everywhere at all times.

Most solutions to our crime rate will not come from Sacramento.  It might surprise you that police are not even required to protect you: in Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . . [A] government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.”  In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled “[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

That said, it is up to each one of us to safeguard our home and families.

I trust that with this background, you may have a better understanding of my thoughts because my views follow much careful deliberation and study.  The subject of firearms and the Second Amendment are serious and have been weighed with factual evidence as well as a deep consideration of our constitutionally protected rights.


Thanks for listening.
California Assemblyman Brian Jones

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Capn Jack… the point of this article by the Assemblyman was to give context to some comments he had already made, for which he was being taken to task. Perhaps the direct statements as to his personal beliefs and intents you wish for were in the prior statements. That said, the Assemblyman did make it clear that he accepts that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right, rather than the “collective right” that was invented in the 20th century, and he did state (as himself, not citing history) that it is “up to each one of us to safeguard… Read more »

Capn Jack

A dozen paragraphs quoting history, but no where does the man say what his beliefs are, or what he’s going to do. Typical political double speak (BS).


Charles – don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good — or, in this case, the very good.


This man is articulate, accurate and persuasive. Hope he can overthrow the madness in California.

Charles Nichols

Where is his bill to repeal California’s 1967 ban on carrying loaded firearms in public and to repeal the recently enacted bans on openly carrying unloaded firearms in public? He doesn’t have one. Why? Because he is supported by the NRA and the NRA has two Federal lawsuits in California arguing to uphold California’s Open Carry bans. Friends don’t let friends belong to the NRA. Hawaii requires a permit to carry a firearm in public, openly or concealed. Hawaii refuses to issue the permits. Where is the NRA lawsuit seeking to overturn the permit requirement or at least require that… Read more »