Amendment II A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
District of Columbia, et al., Petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller (Docket No. 07-290) Nov 20 2007 Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code ยงยง 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 - violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes? -------------- I believe the purpose for the second amendment is clearly stated within, 'the security of a free State'. It is a rather complex statement (sentence structure), and that has lead to much second-guessing, but I rarely see that clause mentioned or discussed. It is always about the 'militia', and the 'right of the people'. So I assert that the well regulated Militia, and the RKBA are what was deemed 'necessary' for securing (protecting from harm) that freedom...which is THE essential purpose of the bill of rights. I know it is over-simplistic, but I think our scholarly, learned and wise Supreme Justices will have to arrive at that pivotal point; 'Does it provide for security of a free State, or does it not.' The restrictions that one can 'drive a truck through' that may remain, are of course the $86K question. I think the Militia argument is the strongest against that. The AW bans in CA, NJ and other states clearly fly in the face of that. The National Matches (now at Camp Perry) have been going for over a hundred years, yet for the past years the predominate rifle of choice is banned from ownership in the most populous state of the union. This match is the intersection of the military and civilian rifleman's skills and capabilities and was intended as such. Interestingly enough the 1st amendment was never ruled to ban high speed printing presses, etc.--the parallels there on what restriction are reasonable are numerous. And we are speaking of even a higher standard than a restriction, an infringement. Just as the Government and it's arm, the Military, rely on the civilian infrastructure for the capability of virtually all hardware, weapons and support--it is perilous to believe that they cannot or should not rely on that same element for the capability of riflemen. The build-up of our armed forces in 1940 from 180,000 to having over 16 million having served in uniform by 1946 is a strong enough proof of the necessity for this clause. And that event was with a Government that was whole and intact throughout the war, something that modern day total war would most likely preclude. Finally, the support is overwhelming in the founder's writings that the citizen-soldier concept (i.e. the militia concept) was greatly preferred to the standing army concept. In these respects, I assert that the Militia clause expands the basic intent of the 2A (beyond purely a right to keep and bear arms, which it also is), not restricts it. I know there has been significant past discussion on the relationship of the Militia between the State and Federal Governments on this list. I think any argument for the Militia clause is much more fundamental than that. Like what individuals are and are not affiliated with the Militia (pragmatic vs. dogmatic?), what did/does the Militia really mean from a functional point of view?, etc. It is hard to see how they could actually dissect the 2A, but indeed that appears to be the plan. My guess is the reason for the 'narrowing limitation' in the cert announcement is that there is: a) polar division or strong discomfort within the court on topic of the militia clause, b) majority or minority feels they can support/deny the RKBA as an essential individual right vs. collective right by avoiding entanglement with the milita clause, c) some other reason(s). Of course beyond the text and meaning of the second amendment, the judges ultimate responsibility is how to apply it. I would urge the most careful, well thought-out and considered (meaning collaboration and review amongst peers) of any amicus briefs. I am not discouraging them, only saying that they need to be helpful in the final analysis. The restoration of second amendment rights and liberties will take a series of court cases, similar to the path other civil rights issues have had to follow, most notably equal rights issues. Regards, Brian Beck ==================== The Unabridged Second Amendment excerpted from: Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns J. Neil Schulman 1994 http://www.largo.org/literary.html Words of Freedom The plain language of the Second Amendment does not restrict the people's right to keep and bear arms. David Kopelresearch director, Independence Institute . 2001 http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051601.shtml -------- Current reliance of military on the civilian population for capabilities. http://www.odcmp.org/0605/default.asp?page=SDM http://www.odcmp.com/ -------- Related material and cases: http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/480227.html Emerson http://www.saf.org/1999Emersoncase2amend.html http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E7DB173EF934A25753C1A9679C8B63 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/politics/07CND-GUN.html?ex=1195362000&en=0165a76dab93a83c&ei=5070 http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-8780.resp.html http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/readingroom/emerson.htm Haney http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-8272.resp.html Silvera http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement Miller http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html 1982 Senate Report http://hematite.com/dragon/senaterpt.html Military Population http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3761/is_200412/ai_n9468428 ============== Finally, it seems obvious to me that the Miller case was decided as an interpretation of law (as opposed to finding of facts) that was based on false facts. As I recall, the written opinion stated that since shotguns were not a military weapon, the second amendment did not apply. One may have a very hard time disagreeing with the 'interpretation' of law, as this is clearly the discretion and duty of the Judges to decide. However, a fact is a fact, and it can easily be proven that Miller SHOULD have supported the plaintiff based on the reasoning in the interpretation, had the facts been correct...and one natural extension of that Miller decision's majoirty argument is an 'arm' used by the military cannot be restricted. But then it is coated with the sticky collective rights issue, which is likely remain an issue until SCOTUS clearly defines it is an individual right, vs. a collective right. I am hopeful that in Heller, the court will get its facts straight, and amicus briefs may have the potential for enabling that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_shotgun http://www.olive-drab.com/od_other_firearms_shotguns_history.php http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/marinefacts/bl12gage.htm
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
