* Forwarded (from: PA-RKBA) by Roy J. Tellason using timEd 1.10.y2k.
* Originally from "eric{at}lucii.org" (1:270/615.77) to All.
* Original dated: Mon Dec 09, 06:34

From: "eric{at}lucii.org" 
Subject: PA-RKBA! Ready, Fire, Aim - Comment on 9th circuit's decision.

This from the Wall Street Journal:

(http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110002744)

Ready, Fire, Aim
The Ninth Circuit misses its mark, the Second Amendment.

BY BRENDAN MINITER
Monday, December 9, 2002 12:01 a.m.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has given gun-control advocates an
early Christmas gift--a comprehensive, historically based argument that
undermines an individual's right to own firearms. This is a gift the
antigun crowd sorely needed after the revelation that Michael Bellesiles's
book "Arming America"--which claimed guns were rare in early
America--was a work of slipshod scholarship if not outright fraud.

The Ninth Circuit also takes aim at the Fifth Circuit, which held last year
in U.S. v. Emerson that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect an
individual's right to firearms. Gun-rights supporters should welcome the
Ninth Circuit's decision, for one simple reason: It is a reasoned, if
mistaken, argument, rather than the crude emotional appeal that is the
antigun folks' usual stock in trade. So let the debate begin.

The case that gave us the Ninth Circuit's decision, Silveira v. Lockyer,
pitted nine plaintiffs against the state of California, which a decade ago
banned "assault weapons." But the law made an exception for
individuals who owned such weapons before the ban went into effect.

In 1999 a new law took effect providing that all owners of
"grandfathered" guns, except current and retired policemen, had
to register their guns with the state. Sean Silveira and eight other
plaintiffs claimed that the law violated the Second Amendment as well as
other constitutional rights.

The Ninth Circuit, in a decision by the ultraliberal Judge Stephen
Reinhardt rejected virtually all of Mr. Silveira's claims. (It did hold
that the exception for retired cops violates the Equal Protection Clause of
the 14th Amendment). And it did so in sweeping fashion, holding that the
Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to firearms.
Instead, it merely protects a state's right to equip and train its militia.

The Ninth Circuit's argument hinges on the text of the Second Amendment as
well as the debates at the Constitutional Convention and the subsequent
state conventions that ratified the Constitution. Throughout those debates,
the court argued, the Founding Fathers revealed a profound distrust of
standing armies, a fear they later sought to allay in writing the Second
Amendment.

Here's the argument: Throughout the 18th century and well into the 19th,
America's military might during peacetime rested primarily with states
militias--largely organized, equipped and trained by state governments, but
commanded by the president in times of crisis. Under this system, Congress
would have little interest in providing funds to arm and train the states'
militias. So a provision had to be added to the Constitution assuring the
states had the power to equip the militias themselves. That provision
became the Second Amendment.

This, Judge Reinhardt asserts, is why the Second Amendment includes the
clause "a well regulated militia." The Founders could only mean a
state armed force, because of their recent experience in quelling an
uprising in western Massachusetts in the late 1780s. "What the
drafters of the amendment thought 'necessary to the security of a free
State' was not an 'unregulated mob' of armed individuals such as Shays band
of farmers" or "the type of extremist 'militia' associated with
Timothy McVeigh . . . or indeed any private collection of
individuals," writes Judge Reinhardt.

There are several critical problems with the court's analysis. First, it
seems astonishing that the founders would have found it necessary to
guarantee a sovereign government's right to arm its own militia. After all,
what use is it to have a bunch of militiamen milling around a state waiting
for Congress to send them weapons?

On a more fundamental level, the Ninth Circuit fails to consider whose guns
the militiamen actually bore in the 18th century. The founders did fear an
"unregulated mob," and that's why they set up state governments
to authorize military action before assembling an army to face the British.
But they also understood that a government's sovereignty and power
originate with the people. The militias were made up of local men who
turned out with their own guns, in order to defend their communities.

The Second Amendment was aimed at protecting groups like the Minute Men.
They were private citizens who formed a militia to defend their country.
When Paul Revere roused them, the guns they grabbed from their bedsides
didn't belong to the government of Massachusetts.

True, state governments furnished some weapons for their militias. But no
state manufactured its own weapons. They were forced to buy them from
individuals or foreign countries on the open market. After the Revolution,
a third source opened up when George Washington order the construction of
two firearm factories. One federal armory was built in Harper's Ferry, Va.,
and the other in Springfield, Mass. Both spawned gun-making communities
that churned out weapons for private use. It's no coincidence that in 1857,
Smith & Wesson was founded a short distance from the federal armory in
Massachusetts.

If the founders really wanted to protect the states' rights to arm their
militias, why would they build only federal armories, which then proceeded
to spawn a collection of manufacturers that armed private citizens?

The generation that fought the Revolution and wrote the Constitution
understood that law-abiding, armed citizens are the best domestic defense.
The Ninth Circuit appears to intentionally overlook this point. They cite
George Mason at the Constitutional Convention saying: "I wish that, in
the case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the
militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments
might arm and discipline them."

But taking this quote out of context misrepresents Mason's argument.
Reading the whole paragraph from which it is lifted reveals that Mason was
actually arguing for the individual right to own firearms. Further up in
the paragraph he said: "The British Parliament was advised by an
artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it
was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should
not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally
disusing and neglecting the militia."

Mason wasn't simply interested in a Second Amendment to protect states'
rights. After all, he was one of a few men at the Philadelphia convention
who refused to sign the Constitution. He later fought against its
ratification because it did not (yet) contain a Bill of Rights.

Rarely have 27 words written out in a plain sentence caused so much
confusion amongst seemingly intelligent people. But the Second Amendment
has long baffled gun-control advocates, university professors, liberal
judges and more than a few opportunistic politicians.

Let's get this straight, the Second Amendment is clear: "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."
That means just what it says: The people have a right to keep and bear
arms, and that right shall not be infringed.  Mr. Miniter is assistant
editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Mondays.

Copyright 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------
#   Eric Allan Lucas 
========================================================================
To ignore the facts does not change the facts. 
  -- Andy Rooney

"Our Rights are not what's wrong in Pennsylvania"

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania guarantees your right
to bear arms in Article 1 Section 21: "The right of Citizens to bear
arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

To unsubscribe to this list, send a message to pa-rkba-unsubscribe{at}yahoogroups.com

H Howard Lewis Bloom takes no responsibility for the content of the message
as this is an unmoderated list.  ***All Rights Reserved*** 

___
 - Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS  Internet Gateway (1:270/615.77) 
---