"Gun Rights Do Not Compute," Say Media Cyborgs

Canadian Gun Control Has Little Impact on Crime (Home Gun Confiscation/Resisters)

Israel is Arming Its Civilians - Why Aren't We?
... and cyberjournalist. His latest book is The Seven Myths of Gun Control. Topics: News/Current
Events Keywords: GUN CONTROL, ISRAEL, SECOND AMENDMENT, TERRORISM ...
beta.freerepublic.com/focus/news/646679/posts - 39k - Cached

Through the Looking Glass and Back Again - From Anti-gunner to Firearms Instructor in Four Months

IN THE CLASSIC STAR TREK episode "I, Mudd," Captain Kirk short-circuits a dangerous android by talking circles around it. The Bush Justice Department has accomplished something similar, driving the gun-ban movement into a full-fledged system meltdown, with nothing more than a few, well-chosen words.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson filed two briefs with the Supreme Court Monday, which stated, among other things, that the Second Amendment guarantees to all citizens the right "to possess and bear their own firearms."

No big deal, most Americans would say. We always knew we had a right to keep and bear arms. But the gun-ban cyborgs reacted as if someone had dropped a W32.Klez virus into their brains. One can almost hear the smoke hissing from their ears, as they stammer, "This does not compute!"

CBS correspondent Jim Stewart declared that Olson’s briefs have reversed, "25 years of Justice Department policy…"

Brady Center president Michael D. Barnes said the brief has reversed "at least four decades" of federal policy.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert averred that federal policy has opposed individual gun rights, "for more than 60 years."

Abe Lincoln himself opposed individual gun rights, insists Paul Begala of CNN’s Crossfire. Begala says that Olson’s brief gives the Second Amendment a "new meaning that no scholar has ever found."

The cyborgs seem confused. Did the government revoke our gun rights 25, 40, 60 or 140 years ago?

John Ydstie of National Public Radio’s All Things Considered says it happened in 1939, when the Supreme Court ruled in a case called United States v. Miller.

Two gangsters named Jack Miller and Frank Layton had been charged with transporting an unregistered short-barreled or "sawed-off" shotgun across state lines. The National Firearms Act of 1934 imposed special taxes and registration requirements on machine guns and short-barreled shotguns. It was the first federal gun-control law in America. Ostensibly passed to crack down on gangsters such as Miller and Layton, the law was controversial, since it limited gun rights for all Americans.

The charges against Miller and Layton were dismissed in district court, on the grounds that the National Firearms Act violated states’ rights and the Second Amendment. However, prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court.

That’s where the confusion begins. According to media cyborgs, the Supreme Court ruled against Miller and Layton on the grounds that they were not members of a state militia and therefore had no right to keep and bear arms.

In fact, the court conceded that the gangsters were militiamen, inasmuch as the militia included "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." However, the justices were not sure whether sawed-off shotguns qualified as militia weapons.

The gangsters might have won their case by arguing that sawed-off shotguns were used by U.S. infantrymen in World War I. However, neither Miller, Layton nor their attorney showed up in court. Only the prosecution presented its case.

Lacking sufficient evidence to rule on the case, the justices sent it back to the lower court for additional fact-finding. But the fact-finding never took place. Jack Miller was shot dead by unknown assailants. Frank Layton pleaded guilty and got four years probation.

At best, United States v. Miller ended inconclusively. However, even liberal law professor Sanford Levinson notes that Miller can be construed to mean "that the individual citizen has a right to keep and bear bazookas, rocket launchers, and other armaments that are clearly relevant to modern warfare…" This is a far cry from the Brady Center’s interpretation.

Levinson is a rarity in the legal profession – an honest liberal. Another liberal recently stricken with honesty is Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe.

In 1999, Tribe announced that he had finally gotten around to studying the Second Amendment and, wonder of wonders, had discovered that Americans really did have a right to "possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes."

Unfortunately, Tribe’s treatise American Constitutional Law – which took a dim view of individual gun rights – had been a standard text in many U.S. law schools since 1978. Tribe revised the 1999 edition to reflect his new thinking. But he was 20 years too late.

Thanks to liberal law professors, generations of lawyers, prosecutors and judges have been indoctrinated with lies about the Second Amendment.

Just as it took generations to undermine gun rights in America, it will take generations to undue the damage. Ted Olson’s briefs are a small but important step in that direction.
___________________________________

Damn fine summary of the pertinent facts on US v. Miller.

True. But conseratives concede far too much ground if they agree with the reasoning in the Miller decision.

The second amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In the Miller decision, the Supreme Court treated the "militia" clause as a restrictive clause. It treated the right that followed as conditional upon satisfying the motive in the militia clause. But this interpretation defies the rules of English grammar. The militia clause is not a restrictive clause. In order for the listed right to be conditional upon militia service, it would have to be reworded into something like:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for the purpose of militia service, shall not be infringed.

The clause preceding the statement of rights, phrased at it is, could say literally anything without altering the meaning of the amendment. A few examples:

A whole bunch of extraneous words, being necessary to pad this amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Large juicy burgers, being necessary to satisfy our hunger, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Dishonest liberals, being necessary for absolutely nothing, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is an excellent article on a linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment here: The Unabridged Second Amendment

It's important for conservatives not to concede that the court has the power to change the rules of English grammar in their interpretations. That would be to grant them legislative power.

Mrs Ruth Price DIED HARD.

Mrs Turner self defense rights were taken away.

Now here in May of 2002, it is Ronyale White of Chicago.

*IL Chicago woman waits 17 minutes for 911 police call.*

Cut and Paste URL http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/680581/posts

No Judge's restraining order will ever stop an evil man with intent to kill a spouse.

Mayor Daley should be ashamed of his disarming of the poor.

Chicago residents (especially the poor) should be asking Mayor Daley why he is violating the Second Amendment rights of the poor and handicap of their self defense rights?

No honest citizen in America should be disarmed by politicans or state govt so they can be killed by felons, and scum with evil intent.

Other women who know how Mrs. Price was lied too by the government false statements that 911 will protect you.

* Women who defend their sons daughters and husbands *

Cut and paste load to Second Amendment Sisters http://www.sas-aim.org/home.htm

Bad guys don't live by the rules. Here is Mrs. Ruth Price story and I would think that you would agree she disagrees with this leftist extremist, anti-gun views. Here is Mrs. Price story. Another disarmed voice.

Mrs. Price speaks directly to the gun control extremists.
Requires Audio setup, downloads in 30 seconds, however, well worth your wait for this message.

Mrs. Price story

Cut and paste load http://www.geekswithguns.com/audio/911_call_no_address.ram

Next Picture from Mother's of the past, speaking to soccer moms of today.

First Million Mom March

cut and paste load http://www.guntruths.com/images/1ST_MMM_MARCH.gif

Have we forgotten already.

Women's talk about self defense.

From a woman's point of view

The best news link on the planet for self defense.

www.keepandbeararms.com

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Who needs protection? The women of our lives, and our children, the poor who have little police protection, our grandparents, and parents, our wife, and our daughters need the right to self-defense at home and on the street. 2.2 million felons in jail, 3.5 million felons on probation, and 14 million drug abusers looking for their next fix. Do you think they are living in your city? Guns save lives. Gun free zones are killing zones for criminals. Most anti gun liberals are one mugging away from conservative views.

Dail 911 and die is more than a cute saying. It is life or death.

The actual 911 call is Mrs Price voice. Take this recording to every MMM and anti gun rally in the nation. Perhaps the MMM anti guns will be the next Mrs Price.

Another Mrs Price story in Columbus OHIO -- Dialed 911 and Died.

Mrs. Turner's story. Restraining orders, Killer telling police he was going to kill her, begging for life for several minutes, nor did phone call to 911 save this woman's life.

Mrs. Turner's story

Cut and paste load http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b28997102ad.htm

What is your self defense plan when the bad guy shows up at your door?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And here is the problem in a nut shell (this is one of the two cases that Ted Olson discusses this week):

http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-6129.htm

Ebel, David M.

Born June 3, 1940, in Wichita, KS

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on December 18, 1987, to a seat vacated by William Edward Doyle; Confirmed by the Senate on April 19, 1988, and received commission on April 20, 1988.

Education:
Northwestern University, B.A., 1962

University of Michigan Law School, J.D., 1965

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Justice Byron White, Supreme Court of the United States, 1965-1966
Private practice, Denver, Colorado, 1966-1988
Adjunct professor of law, University of Denver Law School, 1987-1989
Senior lecturing fellow, Duke University Law School, 1992-1994

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

Anderson, Stephen Hale

Born January 12, 1932, in Salt Lake City, UT

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on July 23, 1985, to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333; Confirmed by the Senate on October 16, 1985, and received commission on October 16, 1985. Assumed senior status on January 1, 2000.

Education:
University of Utah College of Law, LL.B., 1960

Professional Career:
U.S. Army 44th Infantry Division, 1953-1955
Trial attorney, Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1960-1964
Private practice, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1964-1985

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

Murphy, Michael R.

Born August 6, 1947, in Denver, CO

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Nominated by William J. Clinton on July 25, 1995, to a seat vacated by Monroe G. McKay; Confirmed by the Senate on August 11, 1995, and received commission on August 14, 1995.

Education:
Creighton University, B.A., 1969

University of Wyoming, J.D., 1972

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. David T. Lewis, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1972-1973
Private practice, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1973-1986
Judge, Third District Court of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1986-1995
Presiding judge, 1990-1995

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

===========================================

"...Our published Tenth Circuit opinions treat the Second Amendment similarly. In United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), we rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the federal law criminalizing possession of an unregistered machinegun, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). We found no evidence that the firearm in question was connected with a militia, even though the defendant was nominally a member of the Kansas militia and the "Posse Comitatus," a militia-type organization registered with the state:

The purpose of the second amendment as stated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller was to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia. The Court stated that the amendment must be interpreted and applied with that purpose in view. To apply the amendment so as to guarantee appellant's right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection to the militia, merely because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy. This lack of justification is even more apparent when applied to appellant's membership in "Posse Comitatus," an apparently nongovernmental organization. We conclude, therefore, that this prosecution did not violate the second amendment."

....

Consistent with these cases, we hold that a federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well-regulated militia. This is simply a straightforward reading of the text of the Second Amendment. This reading is also consistent with the overwhelming weight of authority from the other circuits. See, e.g., United States v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394, 402 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding that the Second Amendment right "is limited to keeping and bearing arms that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" (quotation marks omitted)); Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693, 711 (7th Cir. 1999) (rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) because the plaintiff "does not argue (and we do not believe under any plausible set of facts that he could) that the viability and efficacy of state militias will be undermined by prohibiting those convicted of perpetrating domestic violence from possessing weapons in or affecting interstate commerce"), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 (2000); United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265, 1272-74 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that a criminal defendant must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between possession of a machinegun and the preservation or efficiency of a militia actively trained and maintained by the state), amended on other grounds by 133 F.3d 1412 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273, 286 (3d Cir. 1996) (same); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019-20 (8th Cir. 1992) (same).

Applying this standard, it is clear that § 922(o) is facially constitutional. Section 922(o)(2)(A) sets forth a specific exemption for possession of a machinegun "under the authority of" a state; therefore, that section cannot impair the state's ability to maintain a well-regulated militia. Accord Wright, 117 F.3d at 1274 n.19. Haney does not contend that his possession of the machineguns at issue in this case was under the authority of Oklahoma.

Nor has Haney proven several facts logically necessary to establish a Second Amendment violation. As a threshold matter, he must show that (1) he is part of a state militia; (2) the militia, and his participation therein, is "well regulated" by the state; (3) machineguns are used by that militia; and (4) his possession of the machinegun was reasonably connected to his militia service. None of these are established.

The militia of the Second Amendment is a governmental organization: The Constitution elsewhere refers to "the Militia of the several States," Art. II, § 2, and divides regulatory authority over the militia between the federal and state governments, Art. I, § 8. See also Perpich v. Dep't of Defense, 496 U.S. 334, 345-46 (1990) (describing the "dual enlistment" provisions of the militia statutes). Thus, the militia does not include the private anti-government groups that sometimes refer to themselves as "militias." Haney is not part of the "well regulated" militia, that is, a "militia actively maintained and trained by the states," Wright, 117 F.3d at 1272. At best, Haney claims to be a member of the "unorganized" (and therefore not a "well regulated" state) militia. See Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 44, § 41 (dividing the population of able-bodied persons between the ages of seventeen and seventy into the National Guard, the Oklahoma State Guard, and the "Unorganized Militia"). Haney does not claim to be a member of the National Guard or the Oklahoma State Guard, and he has submitted no evidence that the Oklahoma unorganized militia and his participation therein are well-regulated by the State of Oklahoma. Accord Wright, 117 F.3d at 1274 ("[T]he substantial segment of the population comprising the unorganized militia is not well regulated as that term was intended by the drafters of the Second Amendment."); see also Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387 (noting that technical membership in the state militia is insufficient to show a Second Amendment violation); Hale, 978 F.2d at 1020 (same). Nor has Haney submitted any evidence that machineguns of the sort he possessed are used by the militia, or that his possession was connected to any sort of militia service.

In sum, § 992(o) does not impair the state's ability to maintain a well-regulated militia and therefore does not violate the Second Amendment.
===============================================

Two of these judges are Reagan appointees, for God's sake, and they seem to believe that the Founders were worried about the federal government confiscating the weapons of the National Guard. The trouble is just this:

How many of our legal-system "Norman lords" actually believe this clap-trap? What is the percentage - 70%, 80%?

The ruling class is hanging this Ashcroft/Olson stuff out there as a sop to us peasants, but when push comes to shove, they're going to reach into their little bag of tricks and pull out Miller, just like LATWP's pet judge is telling us that we can stand around a real town square discussing a paper article somebody ripped out of the daily rag, but we can't stand around a virtual town square discussing an electronic article somebody ripped out of the daily online rag, "'cause there's laws, ya know, and youse peasants don't unnerstan 'em."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.