Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Saturday, 4 Apr 1992 18:58:20 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject:    Brady, re: 1st & 2nd Amdt. (School Texts)


         FIGHTING FOR CHILDREN'S HEARTS AND MINDS by ROBERT PEW
         American Rifleman - April 1992

    In a "study" entitled "Teaching the Bill of Rights: The Case of the
    Second Amendment," Handgun Control, Inc., and its Center to Prevent
    Handgun Violence have set out their objective of turning the nation's
    public schools into forums for their anti-gun propaganda.  The
    "study's" goal is to assure that the history and civics textbooks
    used throughout the country only teach its distorted view on fire-
    arm ownership, particularly regarding the meaning of the Second
    Amendment.
        The "study" includes a forward by HCI Chair Sarah Brady stating
    in unequivocal terms that there is absolutely no individual right
    guaranteed by the Second Amendment.  She states incorrectly that
    courts have unanimously upheld HCI's views and labels any other
    interpretation to be a distortion.
        Brady also tries to connect the problem of teen violence and the
    "proper" teaching of the Second Amendment.  "The Second Amendment
    myth," she writes "must be debunked if students are to fully confront
    the life and death issues of gun control."  Of course Brady would
    like to have all public schools teach only HCI's views to lay the
    groundwork for national gun prohibition.  It would make her job
    easier.  By the same token, it would also make it easier to deny
    people the right to speak out if schools taught that the First
    Amendment did not recognize an individual right to freedom of speech.
    Doing so, however, would not make either position an accurate
    reflection of the Bill of Rights.
        In what can only be described as a drive to manipulate the ed-
    ucational system into serving as a forum for HCI's mindset, its
    "study" presumes to evaluate the treatment of the Second Amendment
    in commonly used texts.  Any deviation from HCI's "only for the
    militia" interpretation of the rights guaranteed by the Second
    Amendment are condemned.  Texts are described as acceptable and
    neutral.  Here's a smattering of the insight the "study" gives
    parents and teachers.
        HCI found this passage from GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES,
    MacMillen Publishing Co., to be acceptable:
        "The Second Amendment is designed to prevent the national
    government from taking weapons away from state militia or National
    Guard, as it is called today.  This amendment does not prevent Con-
    gress from regulating the interstate sale of weapons.  Noe does it
    apply to the states.  States are free to regulate the use and sale
    of firearms as they see fit."
        HCI's "study" found objectionable any description of the Second
    Amendment that did not state that gun rights fall only to the militia
    or National Guard.  Any passage that teaches that an individual right
    is recognized is described as incorrect and in conflict with all
    Supreme Court rulings.  HCI`a position is absolute.  It views the
    following passage from USA: THE UNFOLDING STORY, AMSCO School Pub-
    lications, to be unacceptable:
        "This amendment concerns Americans' *right to bear arms* (own
    weapons).  At the time, many Americans needed guns for hunting and
    for personal protection.  Some others belonged to the civilian mili-
    tia and needed weapons to defend communities." [*Emphasis in original
    .*]
        The "study" goes on to condemn texts that try to provide both
    views of the firearms debate.  Texts attempting to do this were
    labeled contradictory or ambiguous.  The following passage from
    AMERICAN CIVICS: CONSTITUTION EDITION, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
    Ibc., was included in the "study."
        "Some people have demanded that guns be regulated.  They say
    that gun control laws would lower the crime rate.  Other people
    argue that the Second Amendment gives them the right to own weapons.
    They say that this amendment prevents the government from passing
    laws limiting that right."
        Here's what HCI had to say about the preceding paragraph:
        "The paragraph suggests that there is a public debate about the
    meaning of the Second Amendment without acknowledging that the fed-
    eral courts have been unanimous in their interpretation.  Education
    materials like these perpetuate the myth that gun control laws are
    prohibited by the Second Amendment."
        This entire "study" revolves around this sort of statement, an
    absolute disavowal of any possibility that HCI's interpretation of
    the Second Amendment could be challenged.  HCI is calling for texts
    that meet its standard, viewing any other idea or position as inap-
    propriate.  HCI thus shows the same contempt for the First Amendment
    as it does for the Second.
        In conclusion, HCI recommended that curriculum should "accurately
    reflect the state of the law." which HCI construes to mean:
        "A simple statement that the Second Amendment has been held by
    the courts to guarantee 'a right to be armed only in connection with
    service in a state militia' and that courts have repeatedly rejected
    arguments that the Second Amendment protects the ownership of guns
    for personal use...."
        Don't allow anti-gunners to dictate what children learn through
    promotion of textbooks deemed acceptable by HCI`s Center to Prevent
    Handgun Violence.  For information on the Second Amendment to use
    in countering anti-gun texts in schools, contact the ILA Research &
    Information Division, 1600 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.
    20036, or call (202) 828-6339.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns