Responding to Dick Meyer's editorial to repeal the Second Amendment since he could not find its clear meaning (or perhaps found it and didn't like it...): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/09/opinion/meyer/main508498.shtml __ From: Jeff Chan To: AgainstTheGrain@cbsnews.com-nospam Date: Saturday, May 25, 2002, 12:44:26 PM Subject: Gunning Down The 2nd Amendment Dear Mr. Meyer; Regarding the Miller decision you are misinformed. The Supreme Court in the Miller holding specifically acknowledged an individual right to arms. Justice McReynolds wrote for the majority: http://rkba.org/judicial/miller-aultice/Miller.html The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. Note "supplied by themselves" means individual ownership, not government-issue, taking delivery at an armory, etc. The particular question in Miller was whether ownership of his short-barreled shotgun was thus protected as a militia arm. However Miller fled trial and thus presented no defense. So no one was in court to answer this question, resulting in no "judicial notice", i.e. no one told the court one way or the other. McReynolds continues: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen 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. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. So the Supreme Court in Miller argues that individual ownership of arms appropriate to militia use is protected by the Second Amendment. It is noteworthy that the actual text of the Miller decision reads exactly counter to the spin put on it by gun prohibitionists. That alone should reveal something about their respect for the truth. Your assumption that the meaning of the Second Amendment is unknowable therefore is false, as is your conclusion that we should discard it. The meaning is clearly stated in the first substantive paragraph of Miller above, not to mention the Amendment itself. I propose that you are simply expressing sour grapes that the obvious meaning is definitively being expressed in District and Appeals court decisions in Emerson. You don't like the plain meaning so you want to re-write the Constitution. I would hope a journalist would have more respect for facts. The Ashcroft Justice Department is apparently having its own cold feet about this, chickening out by asking the Supreme Court not to hear Emerson. The writing is on the wall, and they are afraid a clear modern decision in favor of an individual right, which constitutional history and case law clearly supports, would undermine most of the unconstitutional "gun control" that plagues our land. Our founders were right about free speech, the press, assembly, religion, search and seizure, due process, and so on. Is it possible they were also right about self-defense and defense against tyranny? Apparently the elites are afraid to hear the answer that the courts and the people already know. Jeff Chan