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.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 14, 1999
It's not about guns...
It's about citizenship
The Potomac Institute
PO Box 5907, Bethesda, MD 20824-5907
Contact: G. Eyclesheimer Ernst
potomac@potomac-inc.org
Press Conference
Murrow Room, National Press Club, Wash, DC, Oct 29, 1999, 9am
Potomac Institute as amicus curiae in US v. Emerson
The terms of gun ownership and measures to address gun violence are not a progun/antigun tempest in a culture war teacup. They involve the most fundamental issues of law, government and citizenship. These issues which are as fundamental as the framing and ratification of the Constitution itself are at stake in US v. Emerson.
In a ruling on the Lautenberg Act, the federal District Court has found in the Second Amendment a "personal right" to be armed outside of any military, militia or legally authorized or permitted purpose. The ruling confounds all precedent. The ruling is now with the US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, case no. 99-10331.
The docket can be followed at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov.
The Potomac Institute has filed its amicus curiae with the Fifth Circuit in support of the prosecution.
The District Court has based its ruling on a volume of gun lobby/libertarian specious political advocacy presenting itself as "scholarship" which fabricates the "personal right" out of a very false reading of intent and historical context. The ruling is the culmination of a long, patient effort to put over a fallacious extreme individualist doctrine of political liberty on the courts and the public. The Second Amendment was not about a "personal right" to be armed outside of lawful authority and did not "codify" the right to revolution into the Constitution as the District Court has asserted and many gun rights militants sincerely believe. Meanwhile, the true scholarship on the Second Amendment and 18th century militias, ignored by the aggressive pursuit of the "personal right" political agenda, has been produced by a small number of objective, intellectually honest historians. The Second Amendment and the Militia Act of 1792 (http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappc.html) were about the disposition, distribution and organization of armed force in the early republic. The "personal right" cannot claim the Second Amendment as its source and authority. Militia duty was conscript duty. The true legacy of the Second Amendment is the citizen soldier of twentieth century selective service acts which combined in a national system of conscription the citizen soldier of the militia with the professional soldier voluntarily enlisted in the regular army. To "bear arms" has a military meaning.
The Potomac Institute's recommendation for a national firearms policy is accountability of gun ownership to public authority -- which means specifically registration of ownership -- and reporting of private sales. The purpose would be to shut down the illegal traffic so local jurisdictions would be empowered to enforce local rules and regulations. The purpose would be different but the concept would be much the same as the Militia Act of 1792 which required the states to "enroll" -- that is, register -- militiamen and their muskets for militia duty. Accountability to public authority, however, is the one thing the "personal right" cannot accommodate and the NRA works hardest to prevent.
Addressing gun violence ultimately is not about public health statistics, gun safety and/or manufacturer liability. It involves a reaffirmation of the contours of citizenship under law and government. If the District Court's "personal right" acquires legal credibility it will lead to a redefinition of the fundamental relationship between citizen and state and will reduce the Constitution from the fundamental law of a government with "just powers" to a treaty among sovereign individuals who give no more than their word of honor and promise of good faith.
Gun rights militants are following this case with great attention.
The Fifth Circuit's ruling will be out next spring just in time to introduce the fundamentals into public discourse during the election season. The fundamentals come up for renewal every few generations. They are up for renewal now. Whether or not they can be addressed is a measure of the viability of thepolitical culture.
Regardless of how the Fifth Circuit rules, Emerson presents the opportunity to pose to holders and candidates for public office the question: Are gun owners citizens under law and government or are they individual sovereigns, laws unto themselves, in the State of Nature which is the state of anarchy? With the follow-up, please explain the difference. Individual sovereignty is a plank in the Libertarian Party Platform. Stephen Halbrook, who has argued for the NRA before the Supreme Court, formulates a doctrine of "libertarian republicanism" in That Every Man Be Armed (1984). Individual sovereigns by definition do not consent to be governed. They make a treaty not a government. The conceptual foundation for firearms policy is found in the difference between citizenship and individual sovereignty.
Holders and candidates for public office might also explain what is the obligation of an oath of public office to maintain the internal sovereignty of the United States against insurrectionist fantasies and against the hedge on the consent to be governed contained in the "personal right."
See Potomac Institute's amicus curiae. Other briefs have been filed. Defense briefs are due at the Fifth Circuit October 29.
Proud to be a "gun rights militant". :-)
Regardless of what the Supremes say, or the federal or state governments legislate, we all have the right to arms. Some may choose not to exercise that right, and that is their business. But until I violate the rights of another person, then the government has no standing to violate my rights as punishment.
- Another "gun rights militant"
Thanks for the post -- I'm writing my law review note on the Emerson case and the likelihood of the 5th Circuit affirming Judge Cummings's opinion. The Potomac Institute is correct in one regard (and one only): the issue won't end with the 5th Circuit. An affirming opinion by the Court of Appeals will create such a conflict with the rulings by the other federal circuits that the Supreme Court will be forced to take the issue.
If the District Court's "personal right" acquires legal credibility it will lead to a redefinition of the fundamental relationship between citizen and state and will reduce the Constitution from the fundamental law of a government with "just powers" to a treaty among sovereign individuals who give no more than their word of honor and promise of good faith.
And thus the crux of the matter. Those who are untrustworthy are incapable of trust, projecting that which is within themselves onto others to justify there own iniquity and lack of virtue.
The elites know they are not to be trusted and surely the people must be even less than they. Their own words condemn them for what they are, liars and blackhearted scoundrels.
After reading their brief, I'm convinced that they don't have a clue about the whole purpose for the Second Amendment.
Don't be so lenient. They know exactly the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment and work to deliberately distort and destroy that purpose. These people are true enemies of individual freedom and liberty.
IMHO we have to help the issue at hand, confiscation in CA. This is the simplest form of free ride to martial law that WJC could ask for. Someones gonna start shooting when they come for their guns and as we all know cops ain't too good in force on force exercise's........... Call/write rep's NOW !!!......
I agree with you, there, and I know that there are a number of people who are not going to allow the government to summarily round up their weapons. If the law enforcement people in California try to go forward with this, then a lot of them and our fellow citizens are going to end up dead, and that's the plain truth of the matter.
I have also heard that there are sheriffs and police chiefs in outlying areas who are not going to enforce this confiscation effort, as they consider it un-Constitutional and are under no mandate to follow laws that meet that description. Good on them, if that's true.
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |