By: Richard A. Correa Sr. SGT RIARNG, Retired
Throughout history the one thing that separates freemen from slaves and citizens from subjects is the individual right to arms. It is important to note here that the term ‘arms’ includes more than just weapons. According to Blacks Law dictionary, 6th Edition the term ‘Arms’ means:
“Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.”
So when I speak of arms I am talking about firearms and ammunition, bows and arrows, crossbows and bolts, body armor, helmets, gas masks, load carrying equipment, boots, protective clothing (uniforms etc.) swords, knives, hatchets, shovels and entrenching tools and all other equipage, medical supplies and rations an individual would need to be effective in a ‘close combat’ situation or for extended military/emergency situations. I define a ‘close combat’ situation as any struggle between two or more human beings that by its’ nature will result in the death of one or more human beings. I know some of this may not ‘sit well’ with some readers but it has been my experience from over twenty years of military service that almost all armed struggles result in some ones death, and I’m sure the readers that have military, law enforcement or emergency services backgrounds will agree with this statement.
Since the founding of the republic the Federal Government, the State Governments, and county and city governments have placed restrictions, some of which are legitimate, on the people’s right to bear arms. To some it seems that as soon as the IInd Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified the various governments have set out to restrict to the point of violation the right to arms. But, it has been in the last one hundred years that the truly egregious violations of this right of the people have taken place. To some it seems to be some sort of conspiracy.
It is clear from the tone and bitterness of the debate that, and the actions of some governments that have come under that the control of, the progressives/socialists/communists/fascists believe that no right to arms exists for the common citizen and only entities directly under the control of the government should be armed. At the same time it is clear that these very same people believe what Mao Tse Dung said ‘political power comes from the barrel of a gun.’ It appears they want the state to be the sole decision maker on who has political power and who is powerless. And dare I say, we TEA Party members and 9/12ers etc. are convinced that our congress is determined to ensure we have no political power despite our growing numbers.
As they continue to ignore us and provide special privileges to their friends and supporters and use our money against us, as well as give it to organizations that actively work to subvert our constitutional republic, for many of us our right to arms becomes an issue of the greatest concern.
So the question(s) to be answered, and in my opinion it has been answered for more than two hundred years, is(are) do we have the right to arms or does the IInd Amendment only give the states the right to arm the National Guard as the progressives would have us believe? And if we lowly citizens do have a right to arms can the Federal, State or municipal governments restrict what arms we have access to and deny us access to others? Because of the seriousness of the issue I will defer to the US Supreme Court and a few of the founders to clarify the issue instead of using my own opinion.
The source of the argument is the IInd Amendment to the US Constitution which states:
“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.”
To all sensible citizens it is clear from the underlined portion of the IInd Amendment that this is a right of the people. The progressives ‘authoritatively state (as they know better than we common cretins)’ that ‘A well regulated Militia’ means this is a right of the state. They arbitrarily dismiss the underlined portion of the amendment even though they scream and holler about any possible government infringement of any other portion of the US Constitution that contains the same words, only they do it to protect those that commit crimes against the citizens of this country.
Many progressives state that the US Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Miller that there is no individual right to arms. Nothing can be further from the truth.
For those unfamiliar with the case, Miller was a moon shiner during prohibition. After prohibition was repealed he continued to practice his chosen profession. He was targeted by the federal tax collecting agency that today we know as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Enforcement. ATF is the same agency that Elliot Ness was an agent of. Two federal agents caught Miller and a friend at an old still that had obviously not been used for years. They had gone there to recover sacks of sugar that had been stored on the site. The agents did not have a case or a reason to arrest the two but they searched them and their vehicle anyway. In their truck they found a sawed-off shotgun which the agents felt was a violation of the new federal firearms act and arrested them for crossing state lines with an illegal weapon. The case went before the district federal court where the judge, who coincidentally owned a FULLY AUTOMATIC Browning Automatic Rifle, ruled in favor of Miller, right after the federal prosecutor told the judge he’d never bring charges against him for violating that law, which the judge apparently had violated by owning his BAR (the transcript was incorporated in to a book titled ‘Unintended Consequences’ which the ATF tried to block publication of claiming it was a ‘manual on how to murder federal agents’, I guess they don’t believe in freedom of the press).
Upon his release Miller and his friend did what you might expect, they disappeared. However, the federal prosecutor appealed to the US Supreme Court which decided to hear the case. Millers’ attorney forwarded a brief but had no client to represent so he didn’t go to DC for the hearing. So the Supreme Court heard the case with no defendant or attorney representing the defendant so as one might expect they overturned the ruling of the lower court. But their decision was not about whether individuals have a right to arms but what arms are protected by the IInd Amendment.
After stating the IInd Amendment, and addressing the militia aspect of it, they stated:
“[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.”
And it is this statement most often used by progressives to deny the existence of an individual right. But the court further stated the significance of the militia was that it was composed of:
“civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.”
The court went on to say that the states were able to call upon this force of civilians to defend the state and secure its’ laws which:
“comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense”
Who:
“when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
This clearly supports the individual right aspect of the IInd Amendment. In the courts decision they stated:
“[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
Had a veteran of WWI been present in court he could have told the court about the armys’ use of “trench brooms”, short barreled shotguns used by soldiers in securing an enemy trench line, very close combat indeed. However it is clear from the above that the IInd Amendment protects the right to poses weapons of military usefulness in common use at that time. So it not only protects your right to own an AR – 15 or a Semi-auto AK – 47 but it actually protects your right to own an M – 16 or a Full-auto AK – 47.
The way the federal government gets around this for automatic weapons, silencers (they are in common use today) and sawed-off shotguns (son-of-a-gun) is the national firearms registry and the licensing scheme set-up by ATF. You can own these weapons but you have to pay an annual tax (quite steep for most people), give up your right to privacy and accept that ATF will put you in federal prison for any paper work mistake that they make so fast your feet won’t touch the ground. It is important to know that the national firearms registry is riddled with ‘errors’, although any ATF agent will swear it is perfect in a court of law (in other words commit perjury) and during the Reagan years an amendment was added to a gun rights law AFTER it had gone through reconciliation and been voted on (meaning the amendment was NOT voted on) that prevents any more firearms being added to the national firearms registry. So the weapons on it get more expensive but no new weapons or new technology will be added to it.
So it is clear that arms can be owned by individuals. Now some will say only by individuals that are in the militia. So who makes up the militia? According to the US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Paragraph 311 (no wonder you need a lawyer to understand this stuff or find anything in it) the militia is made up of:
Ҥ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(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. ”
So by law all male citizens from age 17 through age 44 are members of the unorganized militia of the United States. That’s pretty good but I find this definition too restrictive and in conflict with the founders. So I go with what George Mason said at the Virginia Ratification Convention:
“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
So according to George Mason everybody is in the militia except for our elected officials and government bureaucrats (I wonder if that means they can’t own arms?). If you dig into the Debates on the Constitution this is the commonly held belief. It was good enough for them and it is good enough for me.
However, the US Supreme Court has resolved the individual right issue in recent times in favor of the private ownership of arms. In District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller the court held:
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Also, there are literally tons of statements by the founders on the subject which make it clear that the intent of the IInd Amendment was to guarantee an individual right to arms for the protection of self, family, home, or to defend the state the individual lives in. As the paper is already longer than I intended I leave it to the reader to verify the veracity of this statement.
From this we can conclude that the IInd Amendment is an individual right and it protects our right to poses ‘arms’, as defined by Blacks Law Dictionary, in common use by the military (no you can’t own a nuclear weapon or poison gas) for all lawful purposes of self defense, and protection of our families and homes. But the right to arms carries a responsibility with it. If needed we are to band together as local militia to assist local authorities and the governor of our states to maintain order and to repel invasion, and if a severe enough national emergency exists we can be called up by the president (drafted) to assist in the common defense. There is one more ‘final’ responsibility the founders place on us which I leave to the reader to research on their own as it is not germane to this discussion.
So what do we want? We want the Federal Government to stop infringing on this right, and all of our other rights, immediately.
