Drizzt
Member
The San Diego Union-Tribune
June 4, 2003, Wednesday
SECTION: OPINION;Pg. B-9
LENGTH: 904 words
HEADLINE: The Second Amendment and the courts
BODY:
Regarding Jack Weaver's letter to the editor May 30, "2nd Amendment not meant for individuals":
In "The Second Amendment Primer" (1996), it states, "(I)t is in those ancient classical civilizations that we find the earliest expressions of man's inalienable right to keep and bear arms."
According to our history in England and most European countries, man has had the right to bear arms for self-protection and to be used whenever he might be called to help defend his nation. This inalienable right of the individual has always been known as "a God-given right." The Bill of Rights are not rights given by the government to the people; rather, they are merely a guarantee by the government that it will not infringe or encroach on our God-given, individual rights.
If the Second Amendment did not mean "The People" were given this guarantee, then all the other Bill of Rights would not mean that "The People" have the right of Free Speech, etc.
I suggest that Weaver study "The Second Amendment Primer" or read up on the Federalist Papers and Notes.
BILL MITCHELL
La Jolla
I must commend Weaver for his excellent rewriting of United States history. His erroneous observation of U.S. v. Miller (1939) demands a more accurate accounting. Herein is a synopsis of the case:
Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted for taking an unregistered short-barreled shotgun across state lines, allegedly in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The defendants argued that the act violated the Second Amendment.
The District Court:
l Held that NFA '34 was unconstitutional.
l Did not ask the defendants to justify their views in detail.
The government asked the Supreme Court to review the District Court decision. The Supreme Court:
[] Never read or heard the defendants' views, because they were not represented in any form.
[] Heard only one side of the matter, the government's side.
[] Did not accept most of the government's arguments.
[] Based its conclusion on a small part of the government's argument.
[] Declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s)
Thus, the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court held that ownership of a firearm could be restricted if, and only if, it had no connection to military or militia activity. Nothing in the ruling made any inference to a collective right, as opposed to an individual right.
Why would our founding fathers place a collective right in the midst of a conglomeration of individual rights?
ALAN MARTIN
Descanso
The Miller ruling was about the militia usefulness of a sawed-off shotgun, not the militia status of the defendant.
In its own words: "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
Note the clear implication that under different circumstances the Court could find "that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear" some other weapon.
Clearly the court saw the Second Amendment as a right of the individual "citizen" because that is the word they used.
Ironically, using the same judicial standards, civilian ownership of fully automatic assault weapons (at least U.S. types) should be protected because they are the military weapons in "common use" at this time. Where is the "Miller" court now that we need it?
JOHN DOBYNE III
San Diego
June 4, 2003, Wednesday
SECTION: OPINION;Pg. B-9
LENGTH: 904 words
HEADLINE: The Second Amendment and the courts
BODY:
Regarding Jack Weaver's letter to the editor May 30, "2nd Amendment not meant for individuals":
In "The Second Amendment Primer" (1996), it states, "(I)t is in those ancient classical civilizations that we find the earliest expressions of man's inalienable right to keep and bear arms."
According to our history in England and most European countries, man has had the right to bear arms for self-protection and to be used whenever he might be called to help defend his nation. This inalienable right of the individual has always been known as "a God-given right." The Bill of Rights are not rights given by the government to the people; rather, they are merely a guarantee by the government that it will not infringe or encroach on our God-given, individual rights.
If the Second Amendment did not mean "The People" were given this guarantee, then all the other Bill of Rights would not mean that "The People" have the right of Free Speech, etc.
I suggest that Weaver study "The Second Amendment Primer" or read up on the Federalist Papers and Notes.
BILL MITCHELL
La Jolla
I must commend Weaver for his excellent rewriting of United States history. His erroneous observation of U.S. v. Miller (1939) demands a more accurate accounting. Herein is a synopsis of the case:
Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted for taking an unregistered short-barreled shotgun across state lines, allegedly in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The defendants argued that the act violated the Second Amendment.
The District Court:
l Held that NFA '34 was unconstitutional.
l Did not ask the defendants to justify their views in detail.
The government asked the Supreme Court to review the District Court decision. The Supreme Court:
[] Never read or heard the defendants' views, because they were not represented in any form.
[] Heard only one side of the matter, the government's side.
[] Did not accept most of the government's arguments.
[] Based its conclusion on a small part of the government's argument.
[] Declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s)
Thus, the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court held that ownership of a firearm could be restricted if, and only if, it had no connection to military or militia activity. Nothing in the ruling made any inference to a collective right, as opposed to an individual right.
Why would our founding fathers place a collective right in the midst of a conglomeration of individual rights?
ALAN MARTIN
Descanso
The Miller ruling was about the militia usefulness of a sawed-off shotgun, not the militia status of the defendant.
In its own words: "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
Note the clear implication that under different circumstances the Court could find "that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear" some other weapon.
Clearly the court saw the Second Amendment as a right of the individual "citizen" because that is the word they used.
Ironically, using the same judicial standards, civilian ownership of fully automatic assault weapons (at least U.S. types) should be protected because they are the military weapons in "common use" at this time. Where is the "Miller" court now that we need it?
JOHN DOBYNE III
San Diego
