Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:50:51 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!

>Probably the best example of this was the Minute Men of the Revolution.
>I can't speak for the rest of the country, but up until the Federal Militia
>Act of 1903, New England communities held an annual muster day in which all
>able-bodied men were expected to report to the village common or to the
>local armory parade ground to drill and train with arms. (Thoreau offers a
>humorous discussion of Concord's 'muster day'--to which he reported--in
>Walden). Those arms were drawn from the armory and were the property of the
>state, and rarely, of the town. The unorganized militia was not expected
>to supply its own arms and

Wrong.  The Federal Militia Act of 1792 MANDATED private gun
ownership.  Before passage, there was some argument over whether or
not govt should give away guns, an argument that was decided on "if
govt gives them, then govt can take them away", and so that part of
the proposal was rejected.  Various states required yearly and/or
bi-annual inspection of these private arms; MA's was in "The Perpetual
Law of the Commonwealth of MA", added in 1793.  (Similar provisions
predate the revolution, and the Brits march to disarm the people of
Concord provoked the shot heard round the world.)

Govt was expected to provide cannon, but that's a different thing
entirely.

>                       the fowling pieces that some of these Yankee far-
>mers owned would have been a trifle inadequate for defense.

Wrong.  Fowling pieces are shotguns; the military versions of such
weapons were no different than the civilian versions.  (With one
possible exception, the only difference today is that the military
ignores barrel-length restrictions.)  There was some difference
between American and British military single projectile/shot weapons
of the time, the difference being that the privately owned American
guns were often rifles (rifled barrels, with far greater range and
accuracy) while the Red Coats relied on muskets (smoothbores).  (In
fact, European private arms of the time tended to be shotguns, while
America even then was a nation of riflemen.)

>It is because of
>this that I stand by my earlier contention that the "right to bear arms"
>refers to the civilian's right to participate in his own defense, but in an
>organized or community fashion.

You can stand by it all you want, but the fact remains that the phrase
"well regulated militia" doesn't mean that and that's your only
argument for interpreting "the people" in "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" as something other than
"the people" referred to in the other amendments.  The first clause
limits govt, not individuals, it says that the govt has to rely on the
people for protection, not the other way around.

BTW - Precisely how is it that "the people" can collectively have a
right that no individual has without the permission of govt?  The
collective right interpretation isn't even internally consistent.

>Without this point, a constitutional provision
>about the right to bear arms has no more meaning or purpose than a constitu-
>tional provision about the right to wear a hat.

Not at all.  Independent military force has significant meaning, just
as independent speech does.  The meaning and purpose depends on the
independence.

It's significant that nowadays
>people are quick to see the rights safeguarded in the Constitution, but
>curiously myopic about the responsibilities entailed therein.

It is even more significant that the only time anyone mentions
responsibilities is to justify an attempt to limit the rights.  "Yes,
there is freedom of the press, but the press must be responsible...."

If you want a community based militia, go for it.  (Article 1 section
8 allows congress considerable power over it.)  The failure of your
proposal, or an individual's legal decisions wrt membership, do not
affect my constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  (You can
probably require universal service, or draft people at random, but you
can't tie it to gun use any more than you can tie it to exercise of
free speech.)

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU