Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Militias
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Your argument might carry some water if militias weren't an archaic, outdated, unused concept. There are no more militias, no-one that is called to defense of the country is expected to bring their own gun. Though the way the Bush Administration has been "supporting" the troops, they probably will soon. They already have to provide their own body/humvee armor."
I've been called up for militia duty and it happens rather frequently in rural areas. It's called deputization and you are assisting local authorities in an emergency. You are required to bring your own firearm.
Plus, legally, every male between 18 and 45 is in the Militia, it's called the National Guard act of 1903.
"Lets just look at the second and third words: well regulated. The NRA and others seem to think any regulation is anathema to the second amendment. Even if you conceed that it is intended to confer the right to bear arms on individuals (which I do not), regulation is definately a key."
The wording of the Amendment does allow for some restrictions, but likely in the way opposite of what you want. Those arms that contribute to a well regulated militia (which has a specific meaning) can't be made illegal. Those that do not contribute can be made illegal.
That's why even in the early part of the country's history sword canes could be banned in cities, while swords could not. The former has no military purpose, the latter does.
Ironically, the 2nd Amendment gives greater protection to military weapons than to hunting weapons.
In fact, the 1939 decision that people keep misquoting makes this clear. The issue at hand in that case was a sawed off shotgun, which the court ruled had no military value and thus did not fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment.
---------------------------------
"Why not allow individuals to own guns, but require they be registered and that all owners must buy insurance, take classes, etc..."
That's the law already in most States.
------------------------------------
"In fact, why not have all guns kept in central repositories. If people want to sign their guns out, they can. No problem. After all, this is so they can form a militia when needed, right?"
Why do so? In a free country it's not up to an individual to prove a need in order to excerise it, it's up to the State to prove a compellling reason why a right needs to be curtailed and to do so in the least restrictive way possible.
Why not lock up all books and you can check them out when needed, afterall nobody has ever once been killed because he or she did not have a book to protect him or herself.
In many places firearms are still a vital part of personal security. When you live hours from the nearest police response or emergency service, the threat from criminals and even animals is different than if you can just call the police and they are then in 5 minutes.
-
Con Job and Miller Decision.
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps the biggest con job of the last 50 years is the myth spread by the NRA that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. In fact, the Supreme Court decided in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller that "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The Supreme Court has not decided any 2nd Amendment case since.
-------------------------------------
You've obviously never read Miller or you would know that the section you quote speaks to the type of firearm and that Miller stated that weapons that show no military use are not protected.
You've also left out part of the paragraph you quoted. The remainder of the paragraph is;
"Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense."
Miller ironic provides more protection for military style weapons than it does to hunting weapons.
Miller also states:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when
called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
Miller does not say that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, it States, quite correctly, the protected firearms must have some bearing to a well regulated militia, which consists of all able bodied men.
Weapons such as sword canes or concealed weapons were long legislated against because they have no relationship to a well regulated militia.
But it's the type of firearm in question that is the heart of Miller not some ruling of a collective right which is wholly inconsistent with Miller.