For Sensible Gun Safety (BARF ALERT)

FOR THE FIRST time in years, the Senate is to vote on gun safety measures that lawmakers in both parties and gun owners everywhere can and should support as common-sense anti-crime measures. The first is renewal of the current ban on certain assault weapons -- weapons needed by no one except criminals. The other is the closing of a big bull's-eye loophole that allows firearms to be sold by unlicensed sellers at gun shows without any background checks. These two vital protection proposals are being offered as amendments to a third gun-related measure that is opposed by a number of gun-control groups, and with good reason. A top priority of the National Rifle Association, this third proposal would grant firearms manufacturers civil immunity from lawsuits. It amounts to an excessively large and unnecessary special-interest shield, but if it is to pass -- as head counts indicate -- it should carry with it the two safety proposals that are needed now, not in another year or more. That is the choice being packaged, and the amendments should be kept in the mix.

The assault weapons ban, which will expire in September unless renewed, has posed no hardship on hunters, only on criminals who find the quick-firing capability handy. The renewal amendment, being advanced by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), is supported by a broad coalition of law enforcement groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs of Police and -- in a letter to Virginia Sen. George Allen (R) and Mr. Warner -- a long list of Virginia law enforcement authorities. Mr. Allen changed his position in 2000 to support the renewal, and if his support holds it could be pivotal.

The AWB is directly about the RKBA.

Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but many liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was '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."

To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.

However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The significance 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.

It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.

Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms.

PostScript: In the vernacular of the founders well-regulated meant well drilled and organized.

From the article: The first is renewal of the current ban on certain assault weapons -- weapons needed by no one except criminals.

So, now the peons are only "allowed" to have what they need?

Maybe, the Libs should just quit pussyfooting around and say what they really mean: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Oh yeah, that's right, they can't. They haven't banned everything except slingshots yet.

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.