"I've Heard ALL the Arguments..."

I've heard all the arguments over and over again for not only the right to bear arms but the unfettered manufacture and sales of all kinds of firearms -- even in the wake of tragedies such as Nickel Mines.

But my Sun mailbox is crammed with letters from the gun-obsessed with all the old arguments, including the one about how the Second Amendment guarantees us all the right to own guns, guns and more guns...

Your gun ownership makes you part of a well-regulated militia, that is, the National Guard. You must show up for training and exercises on a regular basis and, at the moment, be eligible for service in Iraq. That's what the amendment says: A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What do you say? Are you ready to march on Tehran? [More]

Well, Dan, like most of your kind, you’re quick to offer an unfounded opinion, but are wrong on so many counts that pointing them out becomes an exercise in tedium. Good Lord, you represent yourself to be an informed professional, but you come off like a stupid, shallow child.

That’s because none of the stuff I am going to repeat here is new. It’s been around and available and used to expose your facile assertions as bunk for, in some cases decades, in others, centuries. But we continually point them out to your side ad nauseam, only to find you either haven’t been paying attention because you’re too fanatically locked into your subversive mindset, or you’re just too ignorant and lazy to look beyond your own self-imposed insulation.

Yet you say you’ve heard all the arguments. If that’s true, Dan, that makes you an intentional deceiver, because the documented truth is quite the opposite of what you represent it to be.

As for the militia of the Second Amendment being the National Guard, here’s what the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate Ninety-Seventh Congress had to say:

Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

This understanding is codified under US Code, TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES, Subtitle A - General Military Law, PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS, CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA, Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes:

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Then we have the assertion that in order to claim the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, citizens must be members of a “well regulated militia.” No less an authority than Alexander Hamilton disagreed with you, writing in The Federalist No. 29:

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped…

I don’t expect you to pay any attention to this, Dan. I merely wanted to point out the obvious, and to put you on notice that an excuse has been taken from you. Now you really have heard some of the arguments, or at least had them made available to you. You do this again and we’ll all know you’re just a liar.

[Thanks to Mark P]

Well Regulated

Received via "Comments":

Does the word "regulated" in the 2A mean as used today, to control or direct, or does it mean well equipped? I have been told that at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights regulated meant well equipped.

Both. Others say precision-adjusted like a clock.

The Militia Act of 1792 specified required gear including:

...a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of powder... 

The Militia clauses in the Constitution calls "for organizing, arming, and disciplining ... and for governing."   Hamilton explains his understanding in Federalist 29.

My key takeaway:

“To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped…”

In other words, we are entitled to what even modern courts have recognized as "ordinary military equipment" that is "in common use at the time" and "that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Once they show up for militia duty, citizens are subject to discipline. But the equipment they keep and bear in everyday life is not what is "regulated" and, significantly, there is no delegated power to allow for an override of "shall not be infringed."

(I didn't post this as a reply in "Comments" because I require those to stay on the topic being offered for discussion. That and if it were buried beneath a post, it wouldn't get enough eyeballs to be worth the work. I'm happy to try to answer questions, so please use the contact form in the left sidebar.)

A Market-Based Stand

Y.es, throwing your core customers under the bus has always been a good strategic moved in a highly-competitive market place.  God forbid we would expect a business supported by gun owners to take a principle-based and a freedom-based stand. [Read]

Of course, prognostications of a financial genius move notwithstanding, we are dealing with a commentator/analyst who believes:

Yes, the Second Amendment does grant the right to bear arms, but gun advocates always seem to gloss over the phrase "well-regulated militia." The founding fathers were wise to include that language.

Or at least he says he believes it .  It's tough to think anyone still buys into that "grant" lie after it's been debunked so many times, including and by no less than the Supreme Court, so my guess is the writer knows better but doesn't want his readers to.

As for glossing over "well regulated," no we don't.  Some of us, who have actually read the Federalist Papers, know exactly what was intended:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped [emphasis added]; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

And yes, the founders were wise. How wise  may astonish some.

"Well Regulated"

So to recap the Brady Campaign, VPC and ACLU positions, the Framers included the words “well regulated” in an amendment stating the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so that government could impose “commonsense regulations.” These would include laws to deny the keeping and bearing of arms, especially since only government agents were intended to be empowered by the Bill of Rights in the first place.

"Well Regulated," my Sept. 2006 Rights Watch column for GUNS Magazine, is now online.

Shameless Plug: "Well Regulated"

So to recap the Brady Campaign, VPC and ACLU positions, the Framers included the words "“well regulated"” in an amendment stating the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so that government could impose "common sense regulations."” These would include laws to deny the keeping and bearing of arms, especially since only government agents were intended to be empowered by the Bill of Rights in the first place.

"Well Regulated" is my Rights Watch column for the September 2006 issue of GUNS Magazine, on sale now at trained and disciplined newsstands throughout the Republic.

BONUS: See page 90 to find out how you can win a Ruger M77 .30-06 with a Leupold scope, Minox binoculars and a Buck Folding Alpha Hunting Knife.

Anti-Gun Deception On The Senate Floor

Did we mention that our opponents are deliberately deceptive?

What--you mean they'll still give an A-rating to someone who votes for Eric Holder?

I want you to take a few minutes and read what NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox has to say about Holder, naturally under the "Vote Freedom First" header. Among other things:

...Holder's history of aggressive anti-gun activism is even worse than Emanuel's record of media-focused PR stunts.

Holder has always been among the first in front of the cameras to exploit tragedy for political gain. From Columbine to the September 11 attacks, there was no event in which Holder couldn't find some inspiration for gun bans, gun registration, gun rationing and more. Just weeks after terrorists used box cutters to turn airplanes into guided missiles, Holder wrote in the Washington Post, "One measure that is an essential part of any plan is the need to tighten our nation's gun laws, which allow the easy and legal sale of firearms to terrorists and criminals."

Holder claimed, mistakenly, "No court has ever said that the Second Amendment actually says that. I think, if you look at it, it talks about bearing guns in a well-regulated militia. And I don't think anywhere it talks about an individual." Holder most recently signed a brief...in the Heller case that "The Second Amendment does not protect firearm possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia."

But if senators don't "Vote Freedom First," well, anybody who has a problem with that just doesn't understand how politics works.

And forget talking filibuster. With the betrayal by all those A-rated republicans on the Judiciary Committee, we're told we just don't have the numbers. And why did they feel comfortable with betrayal again? Where was the NRA-ILA Alert leading a concerted effort to oppose Holder from Day One, to write, call and email senators, to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it known that "Vote Tyranny First" would not be cost-free?

Right. After what Cox just told us, we're supposed to turn around and accept that this is just not important enough to expend political capital on? Besides, activist gun owners would be so worn out from making a few phone calls and sending a few letters that they'd just be totally spent when AWB2 comes around. What, you think we can walk now and chew gun six months later?

Which I guess means a vote for cloture if someone does strap 'em on to filibuster won't be held against them, either. Or against any of those A-rated and endorsed "pro-gun" democrats:

If the assumption is "all the current Democratic senators," what can we expect from our new shining "pro-gun Democrat" star? Or we might ask where our "true champion of Second Amendment freedoms" Max Baucus stands...or Tim Johnson...or...

There is one point where I agree with the Lairds of Fairfax. There is anti-gun deception on the Senate floor. And it is deliberate.

A Well Neglected Militia, Being Necessary to the Destruction of a Free State

“Gun controllers’” recondite but real intent is to render the formation of “well regulated Militia” in the several States exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, by denying the community the collective right to keep and bear the very firearms particularly suitable for service in the Militia, through the denial to individuals of the right to keep and bear such arms—thus stripping the community of the collective ability to defend itself most effectively against usurpers and tyrants. [More]

And guess who has been consistently derelict in even addressing this, let alone doing anything about it.

Coincidentally, from just a week back:

Might there be a reason the founders considered a well regulated militia to be necessary to the security of a free State, leaving the right of the people to keep and bear arms off limits to infringements, so that when a need arose there would be those capable of answering the call? Rather than disparaging and harassing armed Americans, shouldn't dutiful civil authority, upholding the oath to the Constitution that is required of its members, be encouraging them and training with them?

The Rest of the Story

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution – if you’re in a well-regulated militia. Let’s see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:
“A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss." [More]

You didn't complete his thought from Federalist 29, Jason Alexander.  Sure, Hamilton knew people   had trades to ply, farms to tend, shops to keep. Here's what he thought we should do about that:

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped."

Why is it you went to such pains to present that passage but then left the key part out?

Drawn into a Debate

Looks like there's some discussion going on and my handle came up:

I'm afraid to get involved, because CSGV might criticize me by calling me "white" again. I will venture this before I need to get back to  work:

Yes, of course the militia was intended to be "well regulated" when called into service. Members could be checked out to make sure the armaments they brought were as required. That said nothing about what they left at home, and what the people could keep and bear when not mustered. As Hamilton noted:

“To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped…”

Item two, as long as we're going to be bringing up preambles, let's make sure we don't forget the one  that preceded the Bill of Rights, which made a point of explaining:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Anyone who does not concede 2A is a "restrictive clause" on government is quite simply a liar.

We're the Only Ones Chiefly Responsible for Putting Guns Back on the Street Enough

The chief of the Morningside Police Department in Prince George's County was fired this morning following media reports that he was under investigation for selling two weapons...

They said authorities were investigating a complaint that Eichelberger sold two weapons -- a handgun and a shotgun -- out of the trunk of his police car for $600. Authorities were investigating whether the alleged sales violated state gun sales laws. [More]

So did he?

Per Morningside ordinance:

Section 9-106.

Discharging or possessing firearms or other dangerous weapons

No person other than an officer in line of duty, or a person in the necessary defense of life or property, shall discharge any firearm of any kind, or any air rifle, within the limits of the Town. No person, other than a law enforcement officer, shall have in his or her possession while on the streets of the Town, any revolver, pistol, blackjack, brass knuckles, or other dangerous weapon except guns or archery equipment for game hunting or target practice which shall be no ammunition in either the barrel or magazine or arrows nocked.

Well, I don't see where it says the guns were loaded, but selling out of a trunk would indicate "possession while on the streets of the Town." But that's not the chief's rap.

And perhaps there's another "out" for the chief under state law. Per NRA-ILA's "Firearms Laws for Maryland":

Maryland does not regulate the sale of rifles or shotguns and no permit is required to purchase a rifle or shotgun.

Maryland does regulate the sale, transfer, rent and possession of regulated firearms, which consist of handguns and assault weapons. A person who is not a regulated firearms dealer may not sell, rent, transfer, or purchase any regulated firearm without going through a regulated firearms dealer. Alternatively, the prospective seller/transferor and prospective buyer/transferee may complete the transaction through a designated law enforcement agency.

Well there you have it--it seems the Chief "Only One" designated himself.

[Via Harvey]

The Second Amendment as it Should Have Been Written

A well regulated, non-federal militia, which is necessary to the security of a free State, shall at all times exist for all States and Territories. The right of the people to Keep and Bear arms shall not be regulated or removed.

Perhaps.

I still think this version is more to the point.

ATF Seeking Public Comment on Proposed Bump Stock Rule

Talk about something that clearly infringes on the very arms that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that [are] part of the ordinary military equipment, or that … could contribute to the common defense.” Instead, we’re being asked to help provide cover to rationalize yet another Intolerable Act, and this one with the sanction of our “gun rights leaders.” [More]

If this doesn’t sit well with you, submit a comment on the proposed rule. I did.

I notice gunkapos supporting this have already started popping up in article comments, so feel free to express yourself there, too.

Dumpsters for Disarmament

Former Porn Star Gives Up Her Gun In Virtue Signaling Stunt, Parrots Democratic Talking Points [More]

I look at that photo with the Austin Only One and expect sleazy music to cut in.

But she's not anti-2A. Honest.

That's why she "will be donating the gun’s value ($1,500) to the @Everytown organization."

Except that's not its value, she later admits.  Hey, it can be tough to keep stories straight.

Take her "manager" -- please!

Skunk Skank!

"I was with her when she bought that weapon," he insists. "We had it within 10 minutes of entering the store. No background check. Nothing about that experience was 'well regulated'."

"Store"? "No background check"?

"We bought it at a pawn shop. I never said it was a gun store," he counters. And then ducks everyone asking "Where?" before changing the subject and signing off.

Ah well. There are some who think she made absolutely  the right choice.

[Via Sam L]

'Who are the Militia? Are They Not Ourselves?'

If the founders were alive today, I believe they would be very concerned – because the Constitution is clear that the only militias protected by the Second Amendment are “well-regulated” units authorized and controlled by state governments, not a private citizen militia. [More]

Would that those even existed!

That said, Tench Coxe is probably a more reliable authority to gauge founding sentiment than left-wing Snopes, and everyone at the time (except the tyranny "loyalists") felt pretty good about Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys. More to the point, no branch of government is legitimately, that is, Constitutionally, authorized to forbid private gatherings and training of armed citizens, and to do so would be to infringe on their right to bear arms as well as to freely associate and peaceably assemble.

[Via Michael G]

Fear and Loathing in Boise?

The training involved a worst-case scenario, an active shooter with multiple injuries to citizens. Boise police, fire and EMS responded as if the situation was real, including practicing tactical maneuvers designed to quickly locate the suspect and stop the threat. Officers then worked with Fire and EMS to get medical attention quickly to the injured.

I'm probably being unfair here--after all, we want emergency services to be able to respond to all contingencies in a "well regulated" fashion.

Forgive me if I'm jaded, and don't perceive the motive of authorities to be one of encouraging the true first responders to be able to...uh...respond, but rather, to increase dependence and reliance on them.

Me, I think it should be a team effort, and include citizens likely to be on scene if and when danger first appears. Without that, the response truly can't be considered comprehensive, and all the king's horses here will probably end up being a really well-equipped, world class clean-up crew.

Speaking of which, I have preliminary information the mall does not prohibit concealed carry. I called mall security and the person I needed to speak to was out so I left a voice mail. Any independent verification/sign photograph will be appreciated.

[Via AvgJoe]

Close But No Cigar

I strongly support the right to bear arms.  I don’t care about or believe that garbage about a well-armed militia.  The Second Amendment was put in place and obtained its lofty position as the “Second Amendment” right behind the most essential amendment giving us free speech etc., etc., for a reason. [More]

First, you need to care about the "well regulated militia." The "garbage" part is the unfounded insistence that the right is "collective." But militia membership as a duty and a birthright is the main legal argument left for proving SCOTUS-reognized Founding intent that the people have a right to "arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time [and] the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.”

Second, what's this "giving" presumption about?

[Via Sam Adams 1776]

A Well Regulated Islamic Militia

Islamberg is not as benign as a Buddhist monastery or a Carmelite convent. Nearly every weekend, neighbors hear sounds of gunfire. Some, including a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, have heard the bang of small explosives...

Before becoming a citizen of Islamberg or any of the other Fuqra compounds, the recruits - - primarily inner city black men who became converts in prison - - are compelled to sign an oath that reads: "I shall always hear and obey, and whenever given the command, I shall readily fight for Allah's sake."

Good thing they're not Christians, otherwise the feds would be all over them.

They must be OK though, because I can't seem to find where they're a concern of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Also, we know explosives are controlled as destructive devices, so no worries there, plus prison parolees aren't allowed to touch guns.

Looks like there's nothing to see here--probably the locals are just being "intolerant." And if I'm wrong, well, we can always demand more gun control laws.

Next thing you know, some paranoid might start suggesting this is being allowed to flourish because there are those who want to bar terror suspects from buying guns.

Conspiracy theorists!

[Via When SHTF]

Are You With Us? An Open Letter to Chuck Poochigian

Dear Mr. Poochigian,

As a candidate for California Attorney General, I note you have received fairly good grades from both Gun Owners of California and the National Rifle Association over the course of your political career.

You are no doubt aware that the current AG, Bill Lockyer's official position on the Second Amendment is that:

"[It] limits only the powers of the federal government, not those of the states; and the 'right to keep and bear arms' under the Second Amendment is not an individual right to possess firearms, but a collective right of the States to keep and maintain a 'well-regulated militia.'"

You also no doubt are aware that this is in direct contradiction to the position taken by former US Attorney General John Ashcroft, who wrote:

"The text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms."

Following Mr. Ashcroft's pronouncement, then Alabama AG Bill Pryor wrote a letter agreeing with the individual rights position, and received signatures of support from 18 other state attorneys general. Furthermore, Dick Ackerman, the candidate for California AG at the time, agreed to also sign the Pryor letter if elected.

If you are elected, per the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20, you will take the following oath (or affirmation) of office, which says in part:

I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

You are also aware that the Constitution of the United States, Article VI, states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So my questions for you, Mr. Poochigian:

If gun owners support your candidacy and you are elected California Attorney General, will you issue an official declaration of position that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms?

And if so, what will you do as the chief law officer in the state to ensure that "the supreme Law of the Land," which you will have taken an oath to support and defend, is enforced, and that the rights of California gun owners are legally protected from infringement?

Mr. Poochigian, California gun owners are having essential freedoms abridged and live in danger of having their lives destroyed by edicts that we believe violate the clear proscription articulated in the Second Amendment. Attempts at obtaining peaceful redress through court actions and petitioning have been in vain. We are watching the upcoming election with desperate interest, as so much is at stake for us. I am therefore making this letter public, and am requesting an answer for public disclosure.

Sincerely,
David Codrea
California gun owner
---------------------

Special note to WarOnGuns visitors: I'm sending Mr. Poochigian a link to this post, and will report his reply or lack of one. The success of getting an answer is really out of my hands, though. If California gun owners don't take the under-1-minute needed to express their expectation that he answer these questions, he'll really have no reason to pay any attention to this. If you don't live in California, please direct your friends who do to this post. If you do live in California, please contact the Poochigian campaign. Here's a link to his contact form.

The Wrong Damned Argument

"The firearms here are without question some of the most commonly used. One out of nine guns sold since the invention of AR-type rifles is an AR rifle." [More]

Fine, but that's tangential to the core "common use" issue.

The function of the militia, defined as “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,” was — and is — to field citizen soldiers. And these citizens bore arms that were suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles. They came with the intent to match and best a professional military threat.

From U.S. v. Miller, the court looked for "“some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Why isn't lawyer James Vogts reminding the judges of that?  And why don't they already know it?

Or do they?

Annie Get Your Gun

We have provided this class before, and we are getting more requests to do it again. The purpose is to let women become familiar with guns they might use for self protection."

He said many women want to know more about guns for that purpose and many lack knowledge of firearms.

"The class teaches women how to use a gun and not be afraid of it," the sheriff said.

This is something that deserves encouragement. Now if the sheriff would only muster volunteers once a month for long gun training and tactics, he'd have a ready-made, well regulated citizen militia to count on in times of disaster.

Kind of like the way things oughtta be.

[Via Carl S]