A History Lesson for the Journal Gazette
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 3/18/08 @ 2:04 pm - Filed Under Featured, National Politics
To be fair this lesson isn’t solely for the JG - it applies to Paul Helmke and other anti-gun individuals that continue to spread misinformation about the last time the Supreme Court took up a 2nd Amendment case. In today’s JG there’s an editorial discussing the current 2nd amendment case before the Supreme Court - Washington DC v Heller. In this editorial the JG refers back to the 1939 Miller case and states that the Supreme Court ruling was in favor of the collective rights argument and not that of the individual right. They also use the term “70 years of precedence” which gets thrown around a lot by the anti-gun crowd.
However, I want to set the record straight and let everyone know that the Miller case back in 1939 did NOT affirm the collective rights argument whatsoever and it’s time the JG, Helmke and others started debating the issue honestly.
From the JG editorial:
For nearly seven decades, though, the U.S. Supreme Court has stuck with the collective view it established in a 1939 case.
As I mentioned this gets thrown around as gospel but what did the 1939 Miller case really say? Well the truth is they ruled that a sawed off shotgun, with a barrel less than 18 inches, was not part of standard military equipment and thus had no militia purpose.
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.
Nowhere does it say the government has a right to ban any and all firearms. And what about the term “militia”? The anti-gun crowd tries to equate this to the modern National Guard but that characterization is completely dishonest. The militia was the citizenry and the 1939 ruling clearly spells this out:
The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
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.
So, contrary to the conventional “wisdom”, the 1939 Miller case actually comes down on the side of an individual right as long as the firearm in question has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. I challenge anyone to read the five page ruling and tell me where the court affirmed the collective rights interpretation. This is simply one of those items where if it gets repeated often enough then the masses begin to believe it.
I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. - George Mason
(Photo from the University of California)
Comments
5 Responses to “A History Lesson for the Journal Gazette”
Leave a Reply
“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.”
“The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784 (Laws and Resolves 1784, c. 55, pp. 140, 142), provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should ‘contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, ….’ Also, ‘That every non-commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm, &c.”
Notice from these two paragraphs that the people’s right only extends to keeping arms to be used in the militia. One needs to equip oneself to disallow the government controlling access to the arms. Later it states that a person is to have a weapon which is commonly being used at the time. When the law was written it was the musket, so maybe we should all have M-16s or AK-47s.
The opinion also states that at the time the constitution was written, opinion was not in favor of standing armies. However, opinion changed and we have a standing army to protect the country. Therefore a militia is no longer needed and neither the individual need for arms.
Besides how is a militia going to protect the country with a pistol? So under this ruling a pistol would not count because the militia would not be able to defend the country with it. But of course, you aren’t part of a militia. You don’t go once a month for training or have learned how to kill a person.
Yes and as stated the “Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
Certainly and many people do as they are not illegal (although our military doesn’t use the AK). I would go further and say that citizens should not be limited to the semi-automatic versions as standard military issue is 3-round burst.
This is ludicrous. The second amendment was provided to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic. It’s extremely myopic to pronounce that the citizenry no longer needs arms to protect themselves from their government. Future generations will certainly rue the day you disarmed them.
You can’t be serious. You don’t think handguns can provide for the common defense? I suppose every police force in the country would find that interesting.
But I am part of the militia per federal law. And you don’t know how often I “train” - on average I’d say I go to the range at least once a month…
Scott,
The American Revolution was not a war against a foreign government. It was a war, fought by British subjects, to end the tyranny of their own King.
Today, our standing army may be sufficient to protect us against foreign threats. But the only thing that can protect us against our own government is ourselves. If that government uses tyranny against it’s citizen’s, those guns may be the only means we have to resist.
Such talk seems to worry many people, as if I’m chanting for a revolution. However, that is not the case, as I am perfectly satisfied with the current situation where the elected officials are beholden to the voters. But if the government ever tried to change this equation, it is they who would be declaring the revolution (against freedom) and it would fall upon the people block this.
I’d also like to add that there are still savage threats to citizens from within their own borders. These are threats that the local militia (police) can not handle. In my neighborhood, if you order me to surrender my gun, you are forcing me to either move or to die. Individual gun ownership is still a necessity for many Americans today.
paul helmke is the point-man for a treasonous organization( in my opinion).
phelmke@bradymail.org
assault weapons bans are protectionism for US arms makers, whose products are priced out of the market for working/por individuals who wish to have rifles and pistols.
for instance: a US ar-15 $900 or more. an sks? $200
us handgun? 2-500 dollars. an equivalent foreign mfg? 100-300.
and why do we need to pay the police/state to obtain a CCW permit/license to exercise our constitutional rights anyway? and certain non-violent class d felons cant carry legally.
either the constitution (state) says we can carry, permit or not; or we need permission- and then its only a privilege, not a right.
hmmm?
the DC gun ban lawsuit doesnt appl to Indiana. we already have a 5 day wiating period- on handguns.
indiana constitution- article 1, sec 32 already guarantees an individuals right ot own a handgun.
curiously- section 33 subjugates military /police powers to the citizens. ie-the cops work for us- hired security/”rent-a-cops. literally. so why are THEY exempt from at-will employment laws? why cant the citizens petition the PD for redress of greivances, and instruct their police to fire bad/ lunatic cops? such as the DUI nazis? in fact why cant the citizens decide what kind of law enforcent atmosphere we want? party safe ? to KGB “security”?
in reality, the ideal firearm for home protection is a 2bbl shotgun- large guage. sawed-off.
a rifle has too much velocity- may shoot through 3 houses, causing “collateral damage”.
a pistol is difficult to shoot accurately in a dangerous situation-hard to aim, fire accurately.
a pump shotgun is dangerous- is there a shell in the chamber? is it loaded? its heavy, difficult for some to slide/pump load. length makes it hard to move in tight quarters- a bathroom, closet, bedroom corner, etc.
a sawed off 2bbl- although illegal by BATF law/miller- is ideal- short- superior firepower. light to handle, easy to reload- and most importantly- no need to aim- just point and shoot. and due to its nature- safer in an urban environment- wont penetrate neighbors homes., and causes instant fatal incapacitation- ending the danger. and has option to fire 1 bbl, only, or both, depending on circumstances- #of assailants, etc.
the other arguments against the “wells-fargo” shotgun are bogus. criminals dont care- they obtain the best guns available.
clyde barrow’s favorite was a sawed off BAR. he called it a “whip-it gun”- when in doubt, whip it out. mabye suitable in a shootout with armed gang bangers, but not suitable for home defense.
a sawed off shotgun is good for personal protection, to carry( illegal) it is heavy and bulky.
a small Beretta/Mackarov 32-380-9mm is better. 32 and 9mm bullets are cheapest. hollowpoint? FMJ? up to you. I prefer FMJ. if its preferred by the marines/army, fine. but a holow point- is more fatal, and wont penetrate past target. a FMJ isnt designed to kill, which most of us dont want to do- merely stop the crime.
so go out and buy yourself a “wells-fargo” shotgun- saw it off to 18″ barrels/24″ overall- as that is what the BATF currently allows. and protect your security today.
anybody who is a stident of american history knows why the 2nd amendment is right after the 1st, and why freedom loving citizens are so vehement in their opposition to any abridgment of their gun rights.
[...] 70 years of “precedent” for the collective rights view. I’ve wrote before that this interpretation is flat out wrong. The Miller case actually held the individual right interpretation. The Supreme Court agreed: It is [...]