From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The true defense of gun ownership
Keywords: Guns,Constitution,Militia
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:20:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <9kmd4bv@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <Bw1KI0.Bv6@rice.edu> kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:
>>In article <Bw0CBq.5vH@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com writes:
>>> However, I am distressed by the willful misunderstanding of the second
>>> ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. This ammendment is about militias,
>>> not private gun ownership.
>>
>>	Pardon me, but who in tarnation do you think makes up the  
>>   militia?

>The amendment says "A well-regulated militia ..."
>		      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>The numbskull who buys a gun and leaves it around, fully loaded, where his
>3-year-old grandson can find it and kill his 2-year-old brother with it, is
>*not* part of a well-regulated militia.  Nor is a bunch of good ol' boys who
>drive around in a pickup every other weekend drinking beer and shooting at
>deer out of the pickup's windows a well-regulated militia.  The only legal
>well-regulated militia in this country that I know of is the National Guard.
>If you all know of other legal well-regulated militias in the U.S. I wish
>you'd stop maundering and name a couple.

Yes they are. The fact that they are also hideous examples of what can
go wrong doesn't make them less so. Similary, the cops who beat up Rodney
King weren't particularly good cops, but they were still cops. The guys
at Mai Lai weren't the most ideal example of US soldiers in Vietnam, but
they were still soldiers. Can we conclude from these two examples that
soldiers and policemen should all be locked up? No, we do not judge
large groups of people by what a tiny percentage of them do wrong. At
least I don't, I guess maybe you do. 

Individuals who behave irresponsibly should be dealt with by appropriate
law enforcement measures and punishment, not prior restraint on the 99% of
the people who did no wrong.

Just for grins, here's a chunk out of Edgar Suter's essay that refutes
the "National Guard=militia" argument rather nicely. Full text at
archive.cis.ohio-state.edu in file med-media. No doubt you will respond
with some better backup next round? 

--------------------------begin excerpt-----------------------------------
For those who "know" there is no individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Dr. Kassirer notes "Some believe that possession [of arms] is guaranteed by
the Bill of Rights."89 Among those who "believe" in an individual right to
keep and bear arms are the members of the US Senate Subcommittee on the
Constitution90 and the US Supreme Court.91

Such "belief" in an individual right to bear military style arms, not just
sporting weapons, is consistent with historical evidence and case law. "A
well-regulated militia" was not considered to be an esoteric term for the
"National Guard" by James Madison or any of the other framers of the Bill of
Rights. The United States Code states "The militia of the United States
consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age. and under 45
years of age."92 The following section of the United States Code defines what
Madison and his colleagues considered a "select militia" or what we recognize
as the National Guard. According to Congress,93 in order to allow sending the
National Guard overseas, it has been established under the Congressional
authority to "raise and support armies"94, not under its authority "to
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia."95 All
Americans, especially residents of Massachusetts, were reminded of this in
the 1989 US Supreme Court decision Perpich v. Department of Defense96 which
prevented governors from withholding their National Guard units from the
invasion of Panama.

The Miller v. US  decision97 is often-cited and nearly equally often
misunderstood. Not only is it historically unassailable that "militia", to
the authors of the Bill of Rights, was the armed citizen, but the US Supreme 
Court's holding in  Miller v. US  states explicitly that the  "militia"
comprises "all males physically able of acting in concert for the common
defense." That same case acknowledged the individual citizen's right to own
military weapons - "part of the ordinary military equipment" or which "could
contribute to the common defense." Miller, who fled leaving his position
unargued before the US Supreme Court, was convicted of possession of an
unregistered "sawed-off" shotgun under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The
Court allowed his conviction since Miller, having fled, had introduced no
evidence that a "sawed-off" shotgun was a "militia" weapon. The Court offered
that, absent Miller's testimony, it could not take "judicial notice" of
whether or not a sawed-off shotgun was a protected weapon. Because Miller's
conviction was upheld and his position unargued, gun prohibitionists are
often confused about the Court's position.

In  Cases v. US, building upon  Miller v. US, the Supreme Court found it
could regulate, but not:

".prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated
militia."98

So, if gun prohibitionists do not find the defensive or recreational uses of
firearms persuasive reasons for law abiding citizens to own the firearms of
their choice, and in view of the constitutional impediments to gun prohibi-
tion, their only legal option to accomplish their goal is to amend the US
Constitution.

89   Kassirer JP. "Firearms and the Killing Threshold." N. Engl J Med 1991;
     325:1647-49.

90   US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear
     Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on
     the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th. Congress. 2nd. Session.
     February 1982.

91   US v. Cruickshank, 95 US. 542 (1874), held that the individual right to
     possess arms existed independent of the Second Amendment and US v.
     Miller, 307 US. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206 (1939) is discussed
     in the body of this article.

92   USC X 311(a)

93   House Report No. 141, 73rd. Congress, 1st. Session. 1933. pp. 2-5.

94   US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (12).

95   US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (16).

96   Perpich v. Department of Defense. 110 S.Ct. 2418 (1990).

97   Miller v. US. 307 US 174 (1938).

98   Cases v. US, 131 F.2d. 916 (1st Cir. 1942) at 922.
--------------------------end excerpt----------------------------

-- 
The War on Drugs is just part of the War on the US Constitution. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns