From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: ICLU Commission on the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control
Date: 29 Aug 1992 03:02:30 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug28.005816.19621@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu> writes:

>At the present time, the commission consists of 3 people:

>	Paul Hager (me)		Commission chair
>	Earl Singleton		I.U. Law professor
>	Bob Cross		PhD candidate in history, Purdue

>I will be meeting with Earl tomorrow to discuss how we will 
>proceed -- I spoke with Bob by phone earlier today.  It is my
>view that a thoroughgoing treatment of this issue will require
>an analysis of American political history, Common and Constitutional
>Law, and public and social policy.  To round out our group I would
>like to find a good con-law specialist and a sociologist/political
>scientist, both having a good knowledge base in the area of 
>firearms regulation and firearms' place in society. 

This doesn't sound like a bad mix, but please try to equally represent
both sides: Either make sure no one involved has strong pre-existing
views on the subject, or have supporters of _both_ sides of the
debate. I strongly suspect the current ACLU position paper on the
Second Amendemnt was drafted by a group politically biased against
guns.

>It is not my intent to prejudge the commission, but it seems reasonable
>to expect one of the following outcomes:

>o	the 2nd amendment permits state regulation of firearms via
>	the "well-regulated militia" clause but prohibits federal
>	regulation;

The extent to which the states can regulate firearms ownership is
debatable, but this authority doesn't come from the militia clause
of the Second Amendment: Article One, section eight specifies how
the militia is regulated, and the writings and debates concerning the
Bill of Rights imply there was no intention to alter this. It's a
fairly awkard joint control excersized by the federal _and_ state
governments. Both have to cooperate to do anything substantive, and
neither can really run the militia on its own.

Also, the state's authority does not extend to bans, even if regulation
is constitutional. In Presser v. Illinois, the Supreme Court ruled
that a state ban would harm the militia and "deny the federal government
that resource..." Since state laws can't interfere with federal
peragotives, this limits state gun control laws.

>o	if the commission concludes that outright gun bans and the
>	like ARE unconstitutional, it might conclude that on public
>	policy grounds, the 2nd should be amended or repealed;

I'm rather disturbed to hear such a proposal comming from a civil
liberties union. This sort of reasoning could also apply the the 
First, Fourth or Fifth Amendments, should the political climate 
shift slightly. It would be, at least, an extremely dangerous 
precident.

>o	the commission might conclude that, even though large numbers
>	of Americans are killed by firearms each year, as a practical
>	matter this social cost is offset by personal freedom and
>	individual rights that are bound up in citizens constituting
>	a militia-in-being.  This is somewhat analogous to the role
>	of the automobile in affording citizens the power to freely
>	travel (a recognized right) despite the fact that its use 
>	kills 50K+ people every year.

Don't limit the benifits to the militia: There are at least 80,000
crimes prevented by privately owned firearms each year. (This is
the number reported to the police: Surveys suggest 1,000,000 or
650,000 using handguns alone. It is quite likely most firearms
self-defence goes unreported: Carrying a firearms is illegal in
most major cities, so reporting such an event would invite arrest...)
For some (the handicaped or old or other wise physically weak)
firearms are the only possible form of self-defence.

Also, please remember that self-defence with firearm does _not_ mean
killing the criminal (or even shooting him). The threat alone is
sufficient to prevent a crime in over 95% of such cases. Statistics
such as "6 times more likely to kill an acquantance than a burgaler"
ignore this, and thus grossly understate the self-defence benifits of
firearms.

						   Frank Crary
						   CU Boulder

(By the way, does anyone know how to get a usenet feed at Boulder?
My account is on pprince, which doesn't seem to connect. Remote 
logins to my old Berkeley account are getting to be a pain...)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.french