This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
More Second Amendment Sophistry
By
Michael P. Tremoglie I
recently read an article that can only be characterized as revealing. Eric
Lichtblau’s column in the LA Times, about the Bush administration’s policies
regarding gun ownership, recites the usual DNC litany of complaints about the
Bush administration. However,
Lichtblau then quotes a report from the Violence Policy Center. Lichtman
writes,
“Gun
control advocates said the declaration marked a drastic shift from about
60 years of legal precedent (italics mine), and the Violence Policy Center, in its report
Wednesday, charged that Ashcroft's letter was based on "misleading and
inaccurate" legal rationale--misquoting Founding Fathers and former attorneys
general.” A
Supreme Court ruling that guarantees militias not individuals, the right to bear
arms? How could this be? If that were the case then nobody would currently own
guns--that is only common sense. I
reviewed the citation US v. Miller US Sup CT
1939. Simply put, the case involved
a sawed-off shotgun, which was illegal within the statute of the National
Firearms Act. It did not mention all guns. These
are excerpts from the majority opinion (all italics are mine):
“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” “Also
'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who
were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments
concerning military affairs.”
“In
the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun
having a barrel of less than eighteen 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.
Certainly it is not within judicial notice
that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use
could contribute to the common defense.” Is
this ruling to be construed as guaranteeing the right to bear arms only to
militias not individuals? I would not think so.
1 Our most
recent treatment of the Second
Amendment occurred in United
States v. Miller, 307 U.S.
174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the
National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In
Miller, we determined that the Second
Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun
because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that
could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not,
however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right
protected by the Second Amendment. 2 Marshaling an impressive array of
historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the
"right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal
right. Now
I am not a Constitutional scholar or for that matter a lawyer. However, one need
not be to interpret these writings. Apparently,
Lichtblau wrote what the Violence Policy Center
told him to write. He did not do
any fact checking. He could have. After all, I reviewed the citation and I do
not have the financial resources available to me that Lichtblau has. He should
have asked himself the same question I did. What
about the Violence Policy Center? Are they just ignorant? Are they purposely
attempting to deceive the American public and merely using Lichtblau and the LA
Times as stooges?
I
cannot say. However, one thing is certain--the Violence Policy Center, Eric
Lichtblau, and the LA Times have misrepresented the facts of the Supreme Court’s
interpretation of the Second Amendment. Michael
P. Tremoglie is a former Philadelphia police officer now a freelance writer
working on his first novel. He writes for Front Page Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/tremoglie/index.htm. Also from Michael Tremoglie: More on the Deceptive ways of "Violence
Policy Center": |
|||||||||||||
